[DRAFT] First Convention on Mutual Defense

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Alright listen up you maggots. What in the sam hell is going on around here? I see all these got'damned resolutions to make critters and hippies happy and to ensure you all have clean prostitutes and to set up a fancy headquarters and to regulate little boy's pee-pees and such. But there's not a single got'damned law providing for mutual defense. That's the whole damn point of international organizations like this and why they sprung up in the first place.

Well, don't you worry your pretty little heads a moment longer. General Gnomeslapper is here to get some got'damned discipline into this sorry regiment. Now drop and give me 20!

The First Convention on Mutual Defense
Category: International Security or Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

Aware that there are many nations in this world that are rogue states led by psychotic dictators or other nefarious bad guys who are willing to take what they want from others by force;

Accepting that no matter how powerful a Member Nation may be, either militarily or diplomatically, it is conceivable that some bad actors or groups of bad actors are so powerful as to overwhelm them;

Recognizing that military cooperation among Member Nations would enable them to defend in situations where, acting individually, they would have been incapable of defending themselves from belligerent enemies and aggressive neighbors;

Further recognizing that Member Nations must always retain the ultimate authority to decide whether to go to war or use military force, but

Convinced that, as a general rule, the same Member Nations that agree to cooperate on civil rights issues, environmental reforms, and a range of international security measures ought to help defend one another from unreasonable and unjustifiable aggression by others;

Therefore, the World Assembly holds this First Convention on Mutual Defense, to better provide for the same through the following enactments:

---

Principle I
When it comes to the ultimate decision to enter into war, the Law of the Jungle applies: No Member Nation will ever be compelled to fight in a war if that nation determines doing so would not be in its best interest.

Principle II
Within the limits of Principal I, every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustified aggression;

In determining whether a fellow Member Nation is defending itself against unjustified aggression, Member Nations may apply the Denathor Rule: "Unjustified aggression" is "an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation."

Member Nations may rely on their own national Intelligence Services to determine whether, as a matter of fact, a nation has engaged in unjustified aggression as defined in this Principle.

Principle III
Member Nations must have a way to formally request military assistance under Principle II, and for that reason the World Assembly International Security and Mutually Assured Defense Department (the WAISMADD) is established. All Member Nations must send an emissary or other representative to the WAISMADD to receive and process requests for military assistance from other World Assembly Members.

If a Member Nation decides that they cannot or will not offer assistance requested of them under Principle II, that nation's emissary to the WAISMADD will file a short plain statement of the reason Principle II assistance is being denied. For instance, a Member Nation may explain why a grant of assistance is not in its national interest, or may explain that there has not been a showing of unjustified aggression, or may explain that they are practicing neutrality.

The First Convention on Mutual Defense

Noticing that many of these Member Nations are a bunch of ill-disciplined maggots that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag;

Recognizing that there's usually someone out there who wants what you have and is willing to take it by force, and that the same principle applies among nations;

Knowing that military cooperation among nations will better protect ill-disciplined maggots who would otherwise be less capable, or incapable, of defending themselves from belligerent enemies and aggressive neighbors;

Therefore, the World Assembly holds this First Convention on Mutual Defense, to better provide for the same through the following enactments:

---

Principal I
When it comes to the decision to enter into war, the Law of the Jungle applies: No Member Nation will ever be compelled to fight in a war if that nation determines doing so would not be in its best interest.

Principal II
Within the limits of Principal I, every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustifiable aggression;

Member Nations are further encouraged to enter into treaties with one another to provide explicit guarantees of wartime assistance and mutual defense;

Principal III
It is resolved that any Member Nation that fails to provide reasonable requested assistance under Principal II, or that breaks a treaty it made without just cause, is Dishonorable.

A Dishonorable Member Nation is not to be trusted, and Member Nations are encouraged to take reasonable actions - such as sanctions, censure, and withholding of discretionary aid - to discourage fellow Member Nations from engaging in Dishonorable conduct.

The First Convention on Mutual Defense

Noticing that many of these Member Nations are a bunch of ill-disciplined maggots that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag;

Recognizing that there's usually someone out there who wants what you have and is willing to take it by force, and that the same principle applies among nations;

Knowing that military cooperation among nations will better protect ill-disciplined maggots who would otherwise be less capable, or incapable, of defending themselves from belligerent enemies and aggressive neighbors;

Therefore, the World Assembly holds this First Convention on Mutual Defense, to better provide for the same through the following enactments:

---

Principal I
When it comes to the decision to enter into war, the Law of the Jungle applies: No Member Nation will ever be compelled to fight in a war if that nation determines doing so would not be in its best interest.

Principal II
Within the limits of Principal I, every Member Nation is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustifiable aggression;

Member Nations are further encouraged to enter into treaties with one another to provide explicit guarantees of wartime assistance and mutual defense;

Principal III
It is resolved that any Member Nation that fails to provide reasonable requested assistance under Principal II, or that breaks a treaty it made without just cause, is Dishonorable.

A Dishonorable Member Nation is not to be trusted, and Member Nations are encouraged to take reasonable actions - such as sanctions, censure, and withholding of discretionary aid - to discourage fellow Member Nations from engaging in Dishonorable conduct.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

What would you do to help make sure all forces are equal? Standard arms ect.

[Denathor]

Member Nations are encouraged to take reasonable actions- such as... [the] withholding of discretionary aid

Possibly illegal for contradiction of Res #340. Nations can’t deprive individuals of humanitarian aid.

[Kenmoria]

“What is the planned category and strength of this proposal?”

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Member Nations are encouraged to take reasonable actions- such as... [the] withholding of discretionary aid

Possibly illegal for contradiction of Res #340. Nations can’t deprive individuals of humanitarian aid.

Legally-required humanitarian aid isn't discretionary, maggot! And anyway nothing in there requires member nations to give humanitarian aid it just says we can't blow up aid sent by others in order to break the opposition's will like back in the good ol' days.

Now drop and give me 30!

What would you do to help make sure all forces are equal? Standard arms ect.

We don't want forces to be equal, maggot! We want the good guys to completely overwhelm the bad guys. We don't want standard arms we want superior arms, with strong hands and a big gun to boot. What are you getting at?

“What is the planned category and strength of this proposal?”

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.

What the hell kind of proposal do you think it is, maggot?! And I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a Strong one at that. Now drop and give me 50!

[Terttia]

“Naming member nations, including ourselves, ill-disciplined maggots for not having a military, or a large one at that, is quite appalling.”

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.

OOC: Nope. This proposal belongs in either International Security or Global Disarmament.

[Tinhampton]

"Principle" is misspelled as "principal". Otherwise, this and all other proposed Conventions on Mutual Defense (whether or not the word "defence" is spelled correctly in the title) have my full support. TEEEEEEEN-HUT! #MakeLegislationDeadlySeriousAgain

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

“Naming member nations, including ourselves, ill-disciplined maggots for not having a military, or a large one at that, is quite appalling.”

Let me tell you something, maggot, sometimes you have to be casually profane to get through to a thick-headed private who wouldn't know their ass from the hole in the ground they made while trying to clean their rifle. You'll have to forgive an old general for his soldier talk. Or don't. I don't give a damn either way.

It seems you got my point even if I offended your delicate sensibilities in making it. We're obviously weaker alone than we are together and we need to be protecting eachother, because that's what members of an international assembly of nations ought to be doing front and center!

If you don't like how I said it well then you can pitch some fancy lawyer talk that might be more appealing. Or you can come over here and shut me up yourself. And if you're not willing to do that, well then you just made my point about how some are too weak to defend themselves.

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.

OOC: Nope. This proposal belongs in either International Security or Global Disarmament.

Congratulations maggot, you've narrowed the right answer down to a 50% guess. Wouldn't want to take those odds into battle but it's a start.

And it seems you couldn't see sarcasm coming if you had an elevated vantage in a clear field for a distance of 150 yards, so drop and give me 60!

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

"Principle" is misspelled as "principal". Otherwise, this and all other proposed Conventions on Mutual Defense (whether or not the word "defence" is spelled correctly in the title) have my full support. TEEEEEEEN-HUT! #MakeLegislationDeadlySeriousAgain

Thank you for your support, maggot, but I knows good grammish so DON'T you NEVER correct me in front of the troops again! I meant what I got'damn said; Pincipal, noun, "a matter or thing of primary importance."

Also, drop and give me 10!

[Denathor]

Callahan reads over the proposal once more.

Principal II
Within the limits of Principal I, every Member Nation is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustifiable aggression;

"How would you define 'unjustifiable aggression?' If a member action decides that an act of aggression is reasonable, would they not be obligated to render aid? Also, there’s a possible contradiction within this draft:"

Principal I
When it comes to the decision to enter into war, the Law of the Jungle applies: No Member Nation will ever be compelled to fight in a war if that nation determines doing so would not be in its best interest.

"What if a member nation decides that rendering military assistance is against its best interest?"

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

"How would you define 'unjustifiable aggression?' If a member action decides that an act of aggression is reasonable, would they not be obligated to render aid? Also, there’s a possible contradiction within this draft:"

Principal I
When it comes to the decision to enter into war, the Law of the Jungle applies: No Member Nation will ever be compelled to fight in a war if that nation determines doing so would not be in its best interest.

"What if a member nation decides that rendering military assistance is against its best interest?"

There we go, now you're asking the right questions! Well done. You are no longer a maggot; I'm promoting you to scrub. Congratulations.

I didn't define unjustifiable aggression now did I, scrub? Maybe the World Assembly will have a Second Convention on Mutual Defense to address it, or maybe this debate will scare up a consensus on that particular thorny rose. With the pace these maggots go hopefully I won't be long retired or blow'd-up by then.

If we never reach a consensus then I suppose Member Nations will just have to decide for themselves whether a fellow is the target of unjustifiable aggression or whether they went and done got themselves in trouble through their own misadventures. Surely at least some of you have Intelligence agencies to help you with that sort of thing. Actually I take that back I haven't seen anything remotely similar to intelligence since I got here.

And it's not contradictory, scrub! The two Principals obviously work together: the First modifies and controls the Second. At the end of the day it's every man for himself. No one can make the wolf bite the bear least of all because the fox got himself in a bit of a squirrelly situation trying to sneak off with the trout! Do you understand what I'm saying son? We can recognize that we should generally aid one another while also recognizing that nations have to look out for themselves and should never be forced into a situation that's against their interest. I can't believe I have to explain this; in fact, I'm demoting you back to maggot.

Now drop and give me 30!

[Liberimery]

This proposal is in conflict with [url =https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=15867113#p15867113]GAR #255[/url] which reserves the right to member states to declare neutrality in either a singular conflict OR in general and that neither the WA nor it's member states may compel so declared neutral nations to fight in the wars. If this is brought to the floor, we will form a legal challenge.

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

This proposal is in conflict with [url =https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=15867113#p15867113]GAR #255[/url] which reserves the right to member states to declare neutrality in either a singular conflict OR in general and that neither the WA nor it's member states may compel so declared neutral nations to fight in the wars. If this is brought to the floor, we will form a legal challenge.

Well, maggot, your formatting is terrible so I'm already convinced you're probably wrong. Still, your rules complaining was just whiny and high-pitched enough that I better take a moment to read that law myself and consult with the Judge Advocate.

...
...
...
(One moment later)

I remain convinced that you're probably wrong. The Judge Advocate agrees that there's a 67% chance your rules challenge would fail. Since that's still a pretty damn high margin of risk I asked the Judge Advocate for alternatives to simply thumbing my nose at you. The Judge Advocate says that I can increase the chance of avoiding this particular minefield to 98% if I would be willing to simply hold a pen in my right hand and wiggle it around on the draft just so. Honestly, that seemed like more trouble than it's worth but, just to show that I'm a got'damned reasonable man, I've made a change - just for you. Also, because your strategy required this old general to modify his, I see some military promise in you. You are promoted to scrub.

[New Draft]

There you have it, scrub. Just as GAR #255 makes accommodations for nations claiming a certain status, so does this Convention. Conflict averted.

But see here son: that up there, that is how you format a URL tag. Drop and give me 20!

[WayNeacTia]

"Principle" is misspelled as "principal". Otherwise, this and all other proposed Conventions on Mutual Defense (whether or not the word "defence" is spelled correctly in the title) have my full support. TEEEEEEEN-HUT! #MakeLegislationDeadlySeriousAgain

Is there nothing you won't support, illegal or not? Anywho, I would call this one illegal for contradiction of Article 10 if it were my call.

[Kenmoria]

“What is the planned category and strength of this proposal?”

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.

What the hell kind of proposal do you think it is, maggot?! And I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a Strong one at that. Now drop and give me 50!

Ambassador Lewitt almost gets down, before checking and remembering that he’s in the WAHQ and not one of the Kenmorian army corporations.

(OOC: Although I recognise the obvious sarcasm here, I should point out this is probably International Security - Mild. It’s mild only because every clause here is an expectation or encouragement, rather than mandate.)

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Anywho, I would call this one illegal for contradiction of Article 10 if it were my call.

What the hell is this? You call that a legality challenge, maggot? I got more of a challenge from the banana I had to peel for breakfast this morning. At least the banana put up a meaningful fight; you haven't even begun to explain why this Convention should be considered illegal. As it were, I'm half inclined to create a new rank below maggot just so I have something to demote you to. But instead I'll just give this "call" the only response it deserves:

Negative maggot! Now drop and give me 20!

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.
...
Now drop and give me 50!

Ambassador Lewitt almost gets down, before checking and remembering that he’s in the WAHQ and not one of the Kenmorian army corporations.

(OOC: Although I recognise the obvious sarcasm here, I should point out this is probably International Security - Mild. It’s mild only because every clause here is an expectation or encouragement, rather than mandate.)

Damnit, maggot, I didn't fight in all the wars only to come here and be told by some bureaucrat who won't even do pushups that a proposal for massive international wartime cooperation and assistance among thousands of nations would only have a "mild" effect. But we can come back to that later.

Yes, maggot, it's probably International Security! Maybe you'll make scrub after all! Although I deliberately kept the window open for the Global Disarmament category so I can better take advantage of lily-livered flip-floppers who might prefer one effect over the other - or as you high-society types might say, for "political expediency." With a few more scribbles on here I could present this as a way to reduce individual military budgets via the ol' flock of crows theory. You ever see a flock of crows, maggot? Each bird will relax a bit and stop darting their little heads every which way when they're surrounded by the flock, on account of the fact that one of 'em will likely be pointed in the right direction to notice the sudden appearance of danger, and will then alert the rest. Well, like my pappy used to say if its good enough for a wild animal it's good enough for you. Do you see what I'm saying here, son? We can all afford to trade down for a lighter shield if we know there's 50 other shields ready to come and help defend us if a sword shows up.

No pushups huh? Latrine duty for you then! Diiiiiiismissed.

[Island Girl Herby]

"Principle" is misspelled as "principal". Otherwise, this and all other proposed Conventions on Mutual Defense (whether or not the word "defence" is spelled correctly in the title) have my full support. TEEEEEEEN-HUT! #MakeLegislationDeadlySeriousAgain

Thank you for your support, maggot, but I knows good grammish so DON'T you NEVER correct me in front of the troops again! I meant what I got'damn said; Pincipal, noun, "a matter or thing of primary importance."

Well excuuuuuuuuuse me for my impending insubordination, but YOU WRONG, Gnomebanger. What you got there is a list of three fundamental truths or propositions that serves as the foundation of this proposal. THAT is pretty much the definition of principle, not principal (or even “pincipal” whatever the hell that means).

Now drop and give me ehhhhhh a zillion, and I’ll support this proposal, Gnomefluffer.

[Excidium Planetis]

Petty Officer Cornelia Schultz (Ret.), drawn by the sound of deranged military orders, enters the drafting chapter cautiously. She grabs a copy of the proposed defence pact, and takes cover behind a desk to read it. Once done, she sets it upon the table and stands at attention.

"Permission to speak, Sir!" She barks. She doesn't wait for an answer, because, after all, they are from wholly different military forces and she is not under his command. "Shall we take the declaration that Dishonorable nations are not to be trusted as a requirement on member nations to not trust those nations?

"Furthermore I second the motion that unjustifiable aggression be defined in the proposal. It would lend significant strength to the terms of this proposal if nations were given less leeway to define the circumstances in which giving aid is encouraged."

Schultz makes an Excidian salute, then drops to the floor and begins doing push-ups preemptively.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

Possibly illegal for contradiction of Res #340. Nations can’t deprive individuals of humanitarian aid.

Legally-required humanitarian aid isn't discretionary, maggot! And anyway nothing in there requires member nations to give humanitarian aid it just says we can't blow up aid sent by others in order to break the opposition's will like back in the good ol' days.

Now drop and give me 30!

What would you do to help make sure all forces are equal? Standard arms ect.

We don't want forces to be equal, maggot! We want the good guys to completely overwhelm the bad guys. We don't want standard arms we want superior arms, with strong hands and a big gun to boot. What are you getting at?

“What is the planned category and strength of this proposal?”

Obviously, this is an Education and Creativity proposal of the Artistic type.

What the hell kind of proposal do you think it is, maggot?! And I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a Strong one at that. Now drop and give me 50!

Well general I agree like-minded nations do this, my forces are the entire population at various levels. We would certenly be willing to contribute forces to this. I mean as far as the wa goes many different nations, different styles. The only war they would agree to is a alien invasion of us all. And even then I do not know.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell eyes Schultz's response with concern and a little contempt, though not for the good ambassador herself.

"Honor is an outdated concept with little place in a resolution that relies so heavily on self-interest. While the Confederate Dominion, which you may recall has little problem resorting to violence to solve a problem, believes a defense compact may be valuable and viable, I do not believe that this one is. Standing military treaties are dangerous and run contrary to the principal of self-interest herein espoused.

"Further, please forgive me for not sharing Ambassador Schultz's enthusiam, general. Central Command has never recognized the command structure of foreign militaries as deserving formalities."

[Wallenburg]

The door reverberates with a dull thump, followed by a yelp of pain.

"Sir, you really don't have the strength to do that," says a gentle voice.

Irritated, another voice responds, "Oh, then why don't you do it for me?"

The door then buckles against a hefty blow, its hinges rattling. With another crashing strike, the door falls forward, its hinges coming loose from the wall. A very tall man enters the room, leaning down to clear the door frame. He seats himself at a desk in the back. Behind him enters a second man far shorter than the first, wearing military dress and jabbing his finger at the General.

"You listen here, you whelp! You come in here all high-and-mighty, thinking you can tell people what to do? Thinking you can tell us who to fight? Not in a hundred years, you won't! Member states better gear up or accept the consequences of being too pansy to stand on their own. I sure as hell won't be sending my boys to fight and die in place of a bunch of lily-skinned cowards who thought they could use the World Assembly as a goddamned security blanket."

The taller man adds, "Oh, and Mr. Ogenbond and I are fairly certain that your first active clause violates Section 9 of GAR#2, 'Rights and Duties of WA States', on the basis that it nullifies defensive treaties signed with other member states, should the signatory decide that adhering to their treaty is suboptimal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's a bad interpretation. If you interpret that section that way, then you come to the conclusion that basically all GA legislation is illegal because it requires nations to break a treaty which could possibly contradict the requirements of that resolution.

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Well excuuuuuuuuuse me for my impending insubordination, but YOU WRONG, Gnomebanger. What you got there is a list of three fundamental truths or propositions that serves as the foundation of this proposal. THAT is pretty much the definition of principle, not principal (or even “pincipal” whatever the hell that means).

Now drop and give me ehhhhhh a zillion, and I’ll support this proposal, Gnomefluffer.

I never thought I would live to see the day when this old general would be flanked by the grammar forces of an anthropomorphic Volkswagen.

The Judge Advocate assures me that I used the word Princeapple correctly. He even spell-checked it for me before I submitted the draft. But then you're the second sniper to take a shot at me over this, and I sure as hell aint gonna die on this hill. So if one more person comes after me with "principle"-tipped bullets, I may be persuaded that this position ain't worth defending. Because I'm got'damn reasonable, remember.

Gnomebanger... Gnomefluffer.

What is your major damage, maggot, other than being an inefficient old-model internal combustion vehicle! Is your horn too simple to honk the exotic and pleasing sound of my name? It's Gnomeslapper son... eh, car. Gnomeslapper. Now if that's too tricky for you, you can just call me General or Sir.

I can't rightly give you pushups on account of your lacking arms, so start running laps! Some corporal will find you when it's time to quit.

Well general I agree like-minded nations do this, my forces are the entire population at various levels. We would certenly be willing to contribute forces to this. I mean as far as the wa goes many different nations, different styles. The only war they would agree to is a alien invasion of us all. And even then I do not know.

You're a good soldier, maggot. Able to follow orders and see the wisdom behind doing so. Also, from what I can tell, you're a little crazy. I'm promoting you to scrub. Congratulations.

Now I see a few more maggots need dressing down on some very relevant matters. But I've been living off field rations for the past six weeks. I'll be back after officer's mess at the canteen, at which time discipline of this lousy regiment will continue with the appropriate panache you've come to expect from General DD Gnomeslapper. Until then, at ease maggots!

[Terttia]

“We are offended that we are labeled as ‘Dishonorable’ for failing to render military aid to other member nations. If those member nations are in a war, it is their problem to deal with, not ours. As such, we are against this proposal.”

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

"Permission to speak, Sir!" She barks. She doesn't wait for an answer, because, after all, they are from wholly different military forces and she is not under his command. "Shall we take the declaration that Dishonorable nations are not to be trusted as a requirement on member nations to not trust those nations?

"Furthermore I second the motion that unjustifiable aggression be defined in the proposal. It would lend significant strength to the terms of this proposal if nations were given less leeway to define the circumstances in which giving aid is encouraged."

Schultz makes an Excidian salute, then drops to the floor and begins doing push-ups preemptively.

Now here's one who knows how to talk to me! Thanks for the got'damn courtesy around here, Bluecoat, I was wondering when the hell it would show up. I always liked you Navy fellas; anytime we grunts needed to go do some actual fighting somewhere you were always kind enough to give us a ride.

Now, I'm not sure we need to explicitly require member nations to distrust dishonorable nations. I think we could just call a rusty bayonet what it is, and remind people that being rusty is bad, and let them come to their own conclusions about whether they should be trusting the rusty bayonet going forward. Those are my thoughts. But, between you and me, I'd be open to shelling that field a bit more aggressively if it would put the fear of god back in these dishonorable types. Don't be coy with me, if you have options then spill 'em.

And got'damnit, Bluecoat, a definition for unjustifiable aggression is one hell of a sticky wicket. Wasn't willing to lead a platoon into that quagmire the last time I confronted it. Stepped into that thistle patch by myself and suffered two snake bites, a pretty serious badger mauling, and several groin kicks from enemy soldiers I didn't even know were in there. Needless to say, I'm reluctant. If I can form a company of like-minded soldiers I might be willing to venture in again but they'd need to be a hell of a unit; certainly a lot braver and more cunning than the maggots I've seen in this regiment so far.

Now drop and give me... oh... yes, well, carry on then.

"Honor is an outdated concept with little place in a resolution that relies so heavily on self-interest. While the Confederate Dominion, which you may recall has little problem resorting to violence to solve a problem, believes a defense compact may be valuable and viable, I do not believe that this one is. Standing military treaties are dangerous and run contrary to the principal of self-interest herein espoused.

"Further, please forgive me for not sharing Ambassador Schultz's enthusiam, general. Central Command has never recognized the command structure of foreign militaries as deserving formalities."

Ah my secretary has finally arrived! Hold my calls for the next few hours I have serious business to attend to. Also, reschedule my tee time with the Admiral and for got'sakes get me some got'damn coffee it's going to take all night to get this bunch of maggots ready to serve as human shields much less a decent fighting unit.

... What's that? Different kind of Secretary? Eh.. mmm... yes well, you can understand my confusion.

But then in that case what in the hell is wrong with you, maggot? "Honor is an outdated concept"? You're never going to make it past maggot with that attitude. I'm not sure there's wind enough in these old lungs to convince you of the value of Honor. So let me break it down as simple as I can for you: (1) Member Nations must be permitted to act in their self-interest, but (2) where particular self-interest is not in jeopardy, it is in the general interests of all member nations that they be able to call on one another for reasonable defensive assistance, and (3) the only means to enforce that and avoid lazy, good-for-nothing free riders who take advantage of others and then turn yellow when it's their turn to man the wall is with group shunning of the wrongdoer. You know, Honor.

If you haven't already, consider the flock of crows. I already explained that once to some maggot and, as a rule, I never say anything more than once. He's probably forgotten it or wasn't listening to begin with, so good luck. Now, imagine that one crow in the flock is a lazy sonofabish that can't be bothered to warn another crow that he's about to be eaten by a hawk. Once the rest of the crows realize that maggot crow is out there, they're going to shun maggot crow and refuse to flock with him. Why? Because maggot crow lacks any got'damned honor! You see my point here, son? Its so simple that only a wild animal can understand it.

Now, as I've shown multiple times already, I'm a got'damned reasonable man. If you have a better enforcement mechanism than the dishonor/sanctions principal I devised I'd sure like to hear it. And I've even got a way to free up some time for you to think of something:

Now drop and give me 20!

The door reverberates with a dull thump, followed by a yelp of pain.

"Sir, you really don't have the strength to do that," says a gentle voice.

Irritated, another voice responds, "Oh, then why don't you do it for me?"

The door then buckles against a hefty blow, its hinges rattling. With another crashing strike, the door falls forward, its hinges coming loose from the wall. A very tall man enters the room, leaning down to clear the door frame. He seats himself at a desk in the back. Behind him enters a second man far shorter than the first, wearing military dress and jabbing his finger at the General.

"You listen here, you whelp! You come in here all high-and-mighty, thinking you can tell people what to do? Thinking you can tell us who to fight? Not in a hundred years, you won't! Member states better gear up or accept the consequences of being too pansy to stand on their own. I sure as hell won't be sending my boys to fight and die in place of a bunch of lily-skinned cowards who thought they could use the World Assembly as a goddamned security blanket."

Well if it isn't my old friend from the Academy, Major Pain-in-the-Ass. Fresh off a resounding defeat at the battle of General Assembly Door, it would seem. Well, look at the bright side: you can still fit into the dress you wore to the Academy Ball... oh, I'm sorry, that's your command uniform, my mistake.

I'm going to cut you some slack, Major, because I can only imagine the frustrations you must feel being knee-high to a duck and unable to defeat a basic flush hinge without assistance. If you let your Napoleon-complex simmer down a bit, you might see that this Convention bails no one out and provides for mutual benefits. I don't care how strong Wallenburg thinks they are on their own, there are thousands of other nations out there and I can think of at least 482 that I've personally fought which are much, much stronger than Wallenburg. Wallenburg could fight those nations on its own, much in the way a skinny weasel could fight a grizzly bear. But could that grizzly bear defeat 1000 skinny weasels that agreed to protect eachother? The answer is that I'm the grizzly bear and, yes, obviously I could.

It's basic military theory of Mass like we learned in the Academy, Major: you concentrate available power at the decisive place and time. Or were you schtupping the Commandant's daughter the day we learned that? We have a whole host of potential power here in the form of combined defensive might that we're letting go to spoil. That's not good generalship, Major, and probably why you stopped getting promoted.

And did your assistant say something? Oh well, maybe someone else will respond to him. Now drop and give me 20!

“We are offended that we are labeled as ‘Dishonorable’ for failing to render military aid to other member nations. If those member nations are in a war, it is their problem to deal with, not ours. As such, we are against this proposal.”

Is that it, maggot? You're just going to pout in the corner? You think your frown is going to stop a Barbarignome from bludgeoning you with his adorable pointy hat? Barbarignome doesn't care about your tiny tears, maggot!

Sometimes we don't go looking for Barbarignome trouble but Barbarignome trouble comes to us. Maybe it'll come to you. And when it does, I could say "Well, I guess that's their problem to deal with." But, because I am so damn honorable and handsome, I'll probably say, "I'll rescue you, maggot, you and all the other maggots out there. None of you sorry cowardly maggots should go it alone!"

When you're ready to suggest something to make your whiny pacifist lobby happy I'll be all ears. Until then, drop and give me 20!