NationStates

Bergnovinaia wrote:So... that is not covered in my legislation, nor does it need to be. Why would they wont to dismantle it, if it's not a health risk...? You're arguement is making less and less sense every minute and hence, it's getting weaker and weaker becuase you refuse to answer my question with a direct, relivant answer that actually is a major loophole.

Fargoalmus wrote:The statue mat also be unstable and be big enough to cause major damage to tourists or local residents Ex: Christ statue in Spain.

Crabulonia wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:So... that is not covered in my legislation, nor does it need to be. Why would they wont to dismantle it, if it's not a health risk...? You're arguement is making less and less sense every minute and hence, it's getting weaker and weaker becuase you refuse to answer my question with a direct, relivant answer that actually is a major loophole.

Just so we're clear you understand that I'm on your side and that I don't want The City of Aberdeen demolished? I may want to go to university there.

Fargoalmus wrote:The statue mat also be unstable and be big enough to cause major damage to tourists or local residents Ex: Christ statue in Spain.

Fargoalmus wrote:The Christ statue isn't really unstable but if it were.

First of all, it's "may" not "mat." And how does it cause "major damage" to tourists...? If there's an earthquake or something? Perhaps you would like to outlaw all large building that could fall on people when there is an earthquake.

Crabulonia wrote:

Fargoalmus wrote:The Christ statue isn't really unstable but if it were.

Once again using "what if" hypotheticals to justify your point?

What if America got taken over by a crazy cowboy intent on nuking Moscow? Should we repeal Moscow so nobody gets hurt?

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

Fargoalmus wrote:The likelihood of an earthquake in that area is very low and no that is not what I am suggesting.

A mean old man wrote:I see what you're trying to argue for in here, Fargo.

Basically, what you're trying to say is, that, if an artifact is potentially dangerous to people, such as if it is radioactive or structurally unsound, it should be dismantled or disposed of in the proper fashion.

However, I'd have to disagree with you on dismantling structurally unsound artifacts. I would prefer to restore them, (OOC: as we do all the time in the real world) rather than destroy them. I also believe that this is already being taken by this clause of the targeted resolution:

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

When it comes to potentially radioactive artifacts, I don't know exactly where to direct you.

Plus the very idea of repealing this act again and having to write a new one again isn't a very appealing idea to almost all of us, which will probably result in opposition to this proposal.

Fargoalmus wrote:There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

Fargoalmus wrote:There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Fargoalmus wrote:There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Crabulonia wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:

Fargoalmus wrote:There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Here here, (I'm not technically in the WA can I join in the club anyway?)

Bergnovinaia wrote:

Crabulonia wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:

Fargoalmus wrote:There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Here here, (I'm not technically in the WA can I join in the club anyway?)

"You can take my guess pass," gives him guest pass. "I am staying to watch this comedy act."

Bergnovinaia wrote:Furthermore, here is a copy of the legislation:

Description: The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING that certain member nations have many historical and artistic artifacts that reflect their heritage;

RECOGNIZING that several of these artifacts could be threatened during conflict;

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

BELIEVING that preserving these artifacts will allow citizens to further understand their heritage and expand international recognition of culture collectively;

Hereby,

DEFINES an artifact as any item of cultural, historical, or archeological interest to the member nation in question.

DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion.

BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;

REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;

ESTABLISHES the Cultural Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization that may assist non-governmental organizations and government agencies overseeing cultural heritage sites upon request;

ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) Make historical artifacts accessible to the public where possible
b) Ensure that where an admission fee exists for a historical monument, they are as reasonable as possible and balanced between the attraction of tourism and the preservation of such monument;
c) Pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artifacts to all interested parties

Where did you even get your idea for a "repel" (as stated by you) in this piece of legislation...? Please underline it in the next post becuase I really want to know since I dont even see it.

Fargoalmus wrote:

Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"

I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.

BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;

REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;