NationStates

Iyadara wrote:This resolution would establish a largely toothless peacekeeping force that would only be able to operate in zones where there is no current ongoing conflict. Should conflict begin or restart within such a zone containing WA peacekeepers, said personnel would be entirely limited to a defensive posture using non-lethal weaponry that is designed for controlling relatively low numbers of ill-equipped belligerents. A peacekeeping force equipped with gas grenades/sprays, rubber bullets and tazers would be very ineffective against a numerically superior militia or other opposing force equipped with small arms, machine weapons and RPGs. At best, the peacekeepers would be forced to surrender or withdraw. At worst, the entire peacekeeping mission would be massacred.

"The Peacekeepers should be equipped with portable Weapons Nullifiers, such as we have here at the World Assembly Headquarters. The enemy's lethal weapons would be of no use. No massacre would result. On top of that, you describe non-lethal weapons below even my own nation's advancement, and the Peacekeepers were specifically granted the authority to conduct research into advanced non-lethal weapons systems and defense technology to increase the safety of WA personnel. You fears are unfounded."

I'm not sure I understand how to vote, and the Huri de Wintrean people want a say in the happenings of the World.

Huri de Wintre wrote:I'm not sure I understand how to vote, and the Huri de Wintrean people want a say in the happenings of the World.

Samantha Becke suddenly appears in the voting chamber. She jogs over to where the Huri de Wintrean Ambassador is, and whispers in their ear: "Pssst... you have to be a WA member."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"The Peacekeepers should be equipped with portable Weapons Nullifiers, such as we have here at the World Assembly Headquarters.

OOC: Didn't you in that challenge thread tell me that it's a shitty idea to base legislation on GA forum RP conventions?

EDIT: Although, if Weapons Nullifiers were available as "weapons", Araraukar would probably spend its entire year's budget to buy some.

This resolution is currently subject to a legality challenge. The resolution seeks to establish "...the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace [emphasis added]." This proposal seems to violate Section III, Article 10 of General Assembly Resolution #2, which specifically states that "...the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife." Furthermore, this resolution cannot help but be at odds with the next sentence, which states "...the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." The clause on non-use of force is fraught with errors, leaving open the option for lethal use of force against both state and non-state actors. This resolution also fails to define what "support for the rule of law" means, leaving it vague and open to interpretation.

For these reasons, the North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.

Good Early Saturday Morning Well Its Early Morning Somewhere But Anywho This Is The Deputy Administrator For The Office Of The Chancellor Wishing The Board Much Success On This Proposal

Excidium Planetis wrote:Sergeant Timmons plays Blackbourne response #3. "Ah, Contradiction: Many have claimed that this is a contradiction of GA#2, specifically the military involvement clause. I respectfully disagree. The proposal does not expressly allow the Peacekeepers to participate in armed conflicts or military actions of any kind. It comes down to police actions, but as the police have a wide variety of actions that previous WA organizations have participated partially in, and the Peacekeepers are not supposed to be a police force and are not granted the authority to enforce laws, I maintain that they are not participating in police actions."

OOC: The term 'police actions', in the sort of context given (as GAR#2 lists it between 'military actions' and 'military activities') doesn't mean "the activities of police forces" as such. It's a term that has been used to denote the use of military force in actions that -- because the opposing forces aren't actually organised as or backed by a nation -- aren't [quite] outright warfare: suppressing guerillas, or deterring warlike peoples from a highland area (along the nation's its 'North-West Frontier', perhaps) from raiding the more peaceful -- and tax-paying -- lowlanders, and so on... or, to use an example that might be more familiar to this forum's American members, rounding up bands of "Injuns" who've left the 'reservations' to which they were supposedly restricted.

Well, it appears this resolution is certainly doomed.

Lesson: Never interfere with Kohr's right to war.

Bears Armed wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:Sergeant Timmons plays Blackbourne response #3. "Ah, Contradiction: Many have claimed that this is a contradiction of GA#2, specifically the military involvement clause. I respectfully disagree. The proposal does not expressly allow the Peacekeepers to participate in armed conflicts or military actions of any kind. It comes down to police actions, but as the police have a wide variety of actions that previous WA organizations have participated partially in, and the Peacekeepers are not supposed to be a police force and are not granted the authority to enforce laws, I maintain that they are not participating in police actions."

OOC: The term 'police actions', in the sort of context given (as GAR#2 lists it between 'military actions' and 'military activities') doesn't mean "the activities of police forces" as such. It's a term that has been used to denote the use of military force in actions that -- because the opposing forces aren't actually organised as or backed by a nation -- aren't [quite] outright warfare: suppressing guerillas, or deterring warlike peoples from a highland area (along the nation's its 'North-West Frontier', perhaps) from raiding the more peaceful -- and tax-paying -- lowlanders, and so on... or, to use an example that might be more familiar to this forum's American members, rounding up bands of "Injuns" who've left the 'reservations' to which they were supposedly restricted.

((OOC: That's an interesting point, but I wonder if the author did actually intend the literal meaning and the fact that this particular wording choice was used was merely a coincidence.))

Cogoria vies this as an illegal proposal contravening GAR #2

Potstickerstan is for this resolution because we believe in reducing the amount of warfare and bloodshed that happens on this Earth.

war is simply the way the world works. by limiting defense forces, you open the door for non-WA members to build vastly superior military power. "peacekeepers" are not the answer to violence. violence is sometimes the only language people understand

Insoboria wrote:by limiting defense forces, you open the door for non-WA members to build vastly superior military power.

WA nations are already quite limited in their ability to wage war, when compared to non-WA nations. Or at least that's what everyone keeps telling me, as if all non-WA nations were war-hungry maniacs...

Silver Zephyr speaks up, " We here at TDDROH fully endorse this idea and have voted yes."

WA nations are already quite limited in their ability to wage war, when compared to non-WA nations. Or at least that's what everyone keeps telling me, as if all non-WA nations were war-hungry maniacs...[/quote]
Most non-WA nations are peaceful, but the limitation of my military power raises the danger of an attack we can not defend against. we should definitely propose a resolution to bring some of the regulations lower, to create a more powerful WA alliance

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Silver Zephyr speaks up, " We here at TDDROH fully endorse this idea and have voted yes."

brilliant. we have another person who cannot see the obvious issues with this horrid proposal.

my nation is relatively small, and needs the power to raise a capable defense force to handle adversity.

Insoboria wrote:my nation is relatively small, and needs the power to raise a capable defense force to handle adversity.

"Then don't consent to a war. Someone will help you. I quote "Rights and Duties of WA States" Section II: article 5 :'. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.'"

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Insoboria wrote:my nation is relatively small, and needs the power to raise a capable defense force to handle adversity.

"Then don't consent to a war. Someone will help you. I quote "Rights and Duties of WA States" Section II: article 5 :'. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.'"

war is hardly an consensual act. if one country attacks another, it is never a consensual act. i refuse to rely on another nation to bail me out any time i get into trouble. the ver core of my nation is it's foundation upon the belief that violence is sometimes the only option. the violent break off from our mother country taught us that war is hell, but it is a necessary evil in this world

Insoboria wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"Then don't consent to a war. Someone will help you. I quote "Rights and Duties of WA States" Section II: article 5 :'. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.'"

war is hardly an consensual act. if one country attacks another, it is never a consensual act. i refuse to rely on another nation to bail me out any time i get into trouble. the ver core of my nation is it's foundation upon the belief that violence is sometimes the only option. the violent break off from our mother country taught us that war is hell, but it is a necessary evil in this world

"No one is saying you can't fight back. But the option is there for another WA member state to team up with you. It is not a bailout, it is an act of team work and defence."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Insoboria wrote:war is hardly an consensual act. if one country attacks another, it is never a consensual act. i refuse to rely on another nation to bail me out any time i get into trouble. the ver core of my nation is it's foundation upon the belief that violence is sometimes the only option. the violent break off from our mother country taught us that war is hell, but it is a necessary evil in this world

"No one is saying you can't fight back. But the option is there for another WA member state to team up with you. It is not a bailout, it is an act of team work and defence."

i refuse to be limited by the availability of support. i will be pleased to see when this resolution is defeated

Insoboria wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"No one is saying you can't fight back. But the option is there for another WA member state to team up with you. It is not a bailout, it is an act of team work and defence."

i refuse to be limited by the availability of support. i will be pleased to see when this resolution is defeated

"How is support a limitation?"

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Insoboria wrote:i refuse to be limited by the availability of support. i will be pleased to see when this resolution is defeated

"How is support a limitation?"

support is not always available, or capable of the task

Insoboria wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"How is support a limitation?"

support is not always available, or capable of the task

"There are lots of WA nation's, I'm sure that someone would be able to help."

Araraukar wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"The Peacekeepers should be equipped with portable Weapons Nullifiers, such as we have here at the World Assembly Headquarters.

OOC: Didn't you in that challenge thread tell me that it's a shitty idea to base legislation on GA forum RP conventions?

No, that was IA.

Insoboria wrote:war is hardly an consensual act.

"Actually, Ambassador, war is a consensual act. GA#2 Rights and Duties of WA States has defined war as a consensual act." Blackbourne says. "Here, read Article 5 yourself."