[WITHDRAWN] Liberate Zoo

[Nicholas Remington]

The Security Council,

NOTING that the combined forces of the Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) and the United Defenders League (UDL) invaded Zoo on 2 July 2012 to end the occupation of the region by other military forces;

DEPLORING the fact that the FRA-UDL occupation has continued for weeks with no apparent end in sight, depriving the native community of self-determination and autonomous self-government;

ALARMED that FRA-UDL occupation forces have placed the region in lockdown and that on 30 July 2012 A Penguin Tiger changed the password protection imposed upon Zoo, thus continuing to bar free entry to the region;

OBSERVING that at least one native of Zoo has expressed opposition to the lockdown imposed by FRA-UDL forces;

CONVINCED that the Security Council must act to restore native self-determination and self-government to Zoo;

HEREBY Liberates Zoo.

---

The native who expressed opposition to the lockdown was Huskvarneque and the opposition was stated here. In the event that the post is for some reason deleted, here is the text:

Guess so... :/ to bad too.. d:

Well... I don't mean to sound rude or ungrateful to the nations that came in and ousted the raider's... but this whole lockdown thing is a bit... annoying. I've been thinking it over a bit, and even though I'm not on really all that much anymore... I think I'm going to go ahead and remake a new Zoo nation, so that it has a founder, and whoever wants to follow me can. I'm active enough that we won't get raided and all, at least not too seriously, and the nation would be exactly like this one, same focus and all... I just don't see tis going very far, no matter how much we want to keep cats name on here, it's just not going to end well. It's not worth it to me to be in a region like this if we have to have defender's keeping our nation alive... I dunno, maybe I think to much, maybe no one agree's with me, I'm just saying.... d:

[Paper Flowers]

Following in Asgards footsteps it seems appropriate to automatically reject a raider authored liberation. Against.

[Cormac Stark]

Following in Asgards footsteps it seems appropriate to automatically reject a raider authored liberation. Against.

This isn't about Asgard; this is about Zoo and the FRA-UDL occupation forces who are depriving the natives of self-determination and self-government. You're free to oppose raider-authored liberation resolutions, of course, but let's keep this in perspective. This liberation resolution differs in no way from countless liberation resolutions that have passed the Security Council in the past, except that it targets a defender occupation and was authored by a citizen of a raider region.

[Mahaj]

Considering that the mission is just about over, nah.

Also, liberating a region so that you can then raid it (because we all know that's whats going to happen) is silly and should not be tolerated.

Yeah, that's right, I don't trust you with a liberation resolution. Why? Because it gets opposed by you and your side for months upon months... and now you want one? Yeah, definitely no trickery lies here.

[Cormac Stark]

Considering that the mission is just about over, nah.

Also, liberating a region so that you can then raid it (because we all know that's whats going to happen) is silly and should not be tolerated.

Yeah, that's right, I don't trust you with a liberation resolution. Why? Because it gets opposed by you and your side for months upon months... and now you want one? Yeah, definitely no trickery lies here.

1. I see no evidence that the mission is just about over. The occupying Delegate received more endorsements today.

2. Asgard has no interest in raiding Zoo. We're busy. Also, I have authored this proposal as an individual and without even consulting with the government of Asgard so Asgard really has nothing to do with it.

3. Sorry Mahaj, you don't get to run around liberating regions and then say that the Security Council shouldn't do the same just because the region in question is occupied by non-native defenders rather than non-native raiders. You're still non-native invaders and a native has expressed opposition to the password. End of story.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

FOR, and you've got my WA nation's approval on it.

1) Considering that the mission is just about over, nah.

2) Also, liberating a region so that you can then raid it (because we all know that's whats going to happen) is silly and should not be tolerated.

3) Yeah, that's right, I don't trust you with a liberation resolution. Why? Because it gets opposed by you and your side for months upon months... and now you want one? Yeah, definitely no trickery lies here.

1) The natives don't want you there, there should never have been a mission.

2) You have no proof for that whatsoever, it's sad to see you resorting to baseless accusations.

3) I don't trust you with a Liberation resolution after Christmas.

And I think the motivation for this is as payback for Christmas, more than anything else, but I couldn't say for certain, as I'm not the author.

[Cormac Stark]

And I think the motivation for this is as payback for Christmas, more than anything else, but I couldn't say for certain, as I'm not the author.

Thanks for your support!

To address the above, that's not the motivation. I would never seek to manipulate the Security Council for simple revenge; I can exact revenge on the UDL on the battlefield. The purpose of this resolution is to challenge the Security Council to be consistent in the application of its principles. This is the exact same argument used a million times against raiders; it should therefore pass easily in this case as well.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

And I think the motivation for this is as payback for Christmas, more than anything else, but I couldn't say for certain, as I'm not the author.

Thanks for your support!

To address the above, that's not the motivation. I would never seek to manipulate the Security Council for simple revenge; I can exact revenge on the UDL on the battlefield. The purpose of this resolution is to challenge the Security Council to be consistent in the application of its principles. This is the exact same argument used a million times against raiders; it should therefore pass easily in this case as well.

Fair enough.

[Mahaj]

And I think the motivation for this is as payback for Christmas, more than anything else, but I couldn't say for certain, as I'm not the author.

The purpose of this resolution is to challenge the Security Council to be consistent in the application of its principles.

So basically you're trying to score points, you don't really care about the region?

Not the spirit wanted for a liberation.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Also, liberating a region so that you can then raid it (because we all know that's whats going to happen) is silly and should not be tolerated.

Also, liberating a region so that you can then defend it (because we all know that's whats going to happen) is silly and should not be tolerated.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The purpose of this resolution is to challenge the Security Council to be consistent in the application of its principles.

So basically you're trying to score points, you don't really care about the region?

Not the spirit wanted for a liberation.

Pots and kettles, Mahaj, they like to call each other black.

[Cormac Stark]

So basically you're trying to score points, you don't really care about the region?

Not the spirit wanted for a liberation.

I didn't say that. I said that I wanted the Security Council to be consistent. If the Security Council really cares as much about natives as it seems following the easy passage of most liberation resolutions, then this resolution should be a no-brainer. The natives have been denied self-determination, self-government, and the growth of their region. Obviously I care about that, or I wouldn't be bothering.

[The Realm of God]

The Realm of God supports the UDL-FRA and therefore stands AGAINST.

[Luziyca]

I oppose it because without the protection, the Black Hawks would forever occupy Zoo. AGAINST.

Signed,
Mr. Pepperoni

[Mahaj]

So basically you're trying to score points, you don't really care about the region?

Not the spirit wanted for a liberation.

I didn't say that. I said that I wanted the Security Council to be consistent. If the Security Council really cares as much about natives as it seems following the easy passage of most liberation resolutions, then this resolution should be a no-brainer. The natives have been denied self-determination, self-government, and the growth of their region. Obviously I care about that, or I wouldn't be bothering.

But we've seen native support, followed by days upon days of active posting without opposition.

And although that native left, still others supported.

So in reality, what you're doing here is going *against* the wishes of many natives.

There's also the matter that without the protection the region gets raided again... helping your allies.

[Cormac Stark]

The Realm of God supports the UDL-FRA and therefore stands AGAINST.

Interesting. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what natives want -- it doesn't matter that they have been deprived of the right to govern themselves, to determine the future of their region, or to recruit new nations to their region. What matters is what the FRA and the UDL want.

Like I said, interesting.

But we've seen native support, followed by days upon days of active posting without opposition.

And although that native left, still others supported.

So in reality, what you're doing here is going *against* the wishes of many natives.

There's also the matter that without the protection the region gets raided again... helping your allies.

So we've seen native support and we've seen native opposition. There are also many natives who haven't spoken up one way or the other. The Security Council must take into account that at least one native has opposed the FRA-UDL lockdown and others have been silent but may be opposed. The Security Council must also take into account that if natives are divided, as has been said many times here before, the presumption should be to restore native self-determination and let them figure this out for themselves.

In regard to your second point, any region that is liberated is vulnerable to raiding afterward. Never stopped the Security Council before.

EDIT: There is an alternative, of course. The FRA and the UDL could immediately remove the password protection and withdraw, at which time I will happily withdraw this proposal since the future of the region will have been returned to native hands.

[Ambroscus Koth]

There's also the matter that without the protection the region gets raided again... helping your allies.

That's the case with every single liberation proposal...some of which you yourself author. In fact, I have used the same argument against you before.

I guess we should all just stop writing liberations because there's a chance that a raider org will swoop in and claim the region as their own.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

There's also the matter that without the protection the region gets raided again... helping your allies.

Didn't stop you with Christmas.

[The Realm of God]

The Realm of God supports the UDL-FRA and therefore stands AGAINST.

Interesting. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what natives want -- it doesn't matter that they have been deprived of the right to govern themselves, to determine the future of their region, or to recruit new nations to their region. What matters is what the FRA and the UDL want.

Like I said, interesting.

But we've seen native support, followed by days upon days of active posting without opposition.

And although that native left, still others supported.

So in reality, what you're doing here is going *against* the wishes of many natives.

There's also the matter that without the protection the region gets raided again... helping your allies.

So we've seen native support and we've seen native opposition. There are also many natives who haven't spoken up one way or the other. The Security Council must take into account that at least one native has opposed the FRA-UDL lockdown and others have been silent but may be opposed. The Security Council must also take into account that if natives are divided, as has been said many times here before, the presumption should be to restore native self-determination and let them figure this out for themselves.

In regard to your second point, any region that is liberated is vulnerable to raiding afterward. Never stopped the Security Council before.

We support the UDL-FRA in it's regional imperialism as it offers hope for small regions, such as the one I currently Deligate, who have been attacked by large Raider Groups such as The Black Hawks.

It's nessecary to support them, even against the will of the natives.

Aliqua sunt opus..

[Tippercommon]

There are also many natives who haven't spoken up one way or the other. The Security Council must take into account that at least one native has opposed the FRA-UDL lockdown and others have been silent but may be opposed.

So, what you're saying is, this liberation should be approved based on assumptions?

[Cormac Stark]

We support the UDL-FRA in it's regional imperialism

Noted, thanks. "Regional imperialism" will work nicely in my campaign TG.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

We support the UDL-FRA in it's regional imperialism

...


That's brilliant but highly unfortunate for the UDL and FRA.

[The Realm of God]

We support the UDL-FRA in it's regional imperialism

...


That's brilliant but highly unfortunate for the UDL and FRA.

*Puts on Pith Helmet*

There is nothing wrong with Imperialism, with the support of the UDL and FRA, Zoo can become a prosperous colony.

"Gun beat spear,"

[A Million Voices]

DEPLORING the fact that the FRA-UDL occupation has continued for weeks with no apparent end in sight, depriving the native community of self-determination and autonomous self-government;

Really?

[Ruski Federation]

I'm all for this.