Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:35 am
The Akashic Records wrote:Paulsland wrote:You are aware, that, in all your semantics, "reasonable probability" also means "foreseeable circumstances", don't you? By definition, accidental is unforeseeable, and as such, your concerns are unfounded at best. If by glaring you mean wilful ignorance of content and context, then you most certainly have found something to glare at.
You ignored my larger point. The term itself is flawed, like I pointed out. I was just simply giving examples, I'll concede they probably aren't the best. But I think I made a clear and valid argument that the term "reasonable probability" is flawed.
Again, I'm not getting what you're arguing here. You seem to think that a nation's economy is based solely on the sale of chemical weapons that are exclusively for use against civilians. It depends on the producing nation's discretion whether or not to sell their weapons, and if they believe that it would be used in a capacity that is against the resolution, they are to refuse. Nothing more, nothing less. If, we go by your concerns, it shouldn't be directed at the economy of the producing nation, but rather, the shirking of responsibility by the producing nation for selling the chemical weapons, then claiming ignorance of it at the time of the sale when it was used against the intent and provisions of the resolution. That, is what you should say in your repeal.
When did I state that any nation's economy is based SOLELY on sales of chemical weapons? What I said was that some nations have economies based on their arms industry, which includes those who create chemical weapons. By prohibiting the sale of those to other parties, you are essentially putting an economic sanction on those nations. And you'll say, "it says it only prohibits the sale of these weapons to those who want to violate the protocol!". To which I'll respond, who the hell is that? I understand that terrorists and others like that are implied, but implication in law is bad territory. If you can define riot agent and chemical agent, you can define terrorist. The law would be much better if it defined a terrorist as "anyone who wishes to inflict harm upon innocents using weapons of any kind" and then saying that nations can't sell chemical weapons to terrorists. Is that so hard?
Umm, no. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you've ventured into unreasonable nation territory here. While it's (reasonable nation theory) not an official rule, it is generally accepted that nations that invade other nations on simple suspicions alone are, by definition, unreasonable. There must be proof of intent, and the onus lies with the nation that declares their suspicion, accompanied by non-violent investigation into the matter, before any actual action should be taken. There's also the simple fact that I do not see anything requiring intervention or anything of the sort in the resolution. It only calls for disarmament, to an extent, and reduces the proliferation of lethal chemical weapons. Absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing, in the text that calls for any sort of international conflict justification within the resolution.
How in any legal context can you prohibit something and then not be able to enforce that prohibition? That's like making cookies illegal, but not arresting the cookie monster. The resolution should be more clear as to what is to be done about such things if it is going to outright prohibit things. Investigation? Expulsion from the WA? Economic sanctions? Condemnation? If you're going to create a bureaucracy, at least give them the authority to enforce the prohibition. And if alcohol prohibition from the 20s and the modern drug war is any indication, prohibition does not work. It'll create more crime and chemical weapons will more likely end up in the hands of terrorists. Goal achieved, I suppose.
I wouldn't call your points valid, but the body as a whole have been swayed by less.
This just seems like a condescending insult. I digress.
Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the resolution, save for the shirking of responsibility, that I can identify as being advantageous.
I've used many examples as why the language could be advantageous...
Ahahahahahaha...hah...ha..ha... Ahem. You are aware of the lemming effect in votes, and that most nations who voted for the resolution in the first place would be just as likely to vote for a repeal, while at the same time, not even bothering to debate anything? I'm all for engaging others, but, do you actually see how many people are actually regulars here?
Again, just seems like a condescending insult, and an insult to the WA as a whole.