Advertisement
by The Asylum Manager » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:46 pm
by Castrovido » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:52 pm
by Northern Wasabi » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:09 pm
by Austal » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:44 pm
The Asylum Manager wrote:Austal wrote:As a proud member of the region of Gatesville, which stands against the World Assembly and its one world agenda, Austal hereby votes AGAINST this resolution.
Now, I need to get an ice pack.... ow, ow....
~Austal Delegate Jan Peter Wilders
The Ambassador to TAM would like to know why a nation which stands against the WA wished to join the WA...
by Presumptions » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:10 pm
Austal wrote:The Asylum Manager wrote: The Ambassador to TAM would like to know why a nation which stands against the WA wished to join the WA...
Gatesville members are encouraged to join the WA because, as Gatesville's World Factbook Entry states, "In order to defeat the beast, we must get close to him." (Paraphrased)
by The Asylum Manager » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:14 am
Castrovido wrote:Dear members of The World Assembly. I understand why so many of you have voted yes on this resolution. However I must say, Castrovido is against it. I am not against helping countries or countries struck by disasters. But every nation in the world, could be hit by a terrible disaster. Then we give a lot of money to all the poor countries in the world. With a chance that the disaster will never occur. Ain't that a problem? The money would then be lost. Would it not be better to do what we have always done? Send the money after the disaster, so the poor nations governments is not put in control if resolve the problems that are coming with a natural disaster.
In Castrovido the people is beginning to question whether Castrovido should be a part of the WA, if this resolution is passed.
From Castrovidos World Assembly Ambassador José Enriqué Zaballos.
by Ardchoille » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:52 am
Northern Wasabi wrote:I'm new to NS, how does this affect my country? Or is it just a bunch of RP like the majority of this site is? I don't see anything about nuclear disasters on my country page.
by Zomb » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:10 am
Austal wrote:Zomb wrote:I'z wouldz likez toz sayz thatz thez nationz ofz Zombz iz supportingz thiz issuez 100%z (Az longz az a Zombiez outbreakz doesntz countz az a disasterz)
Mike P the Zombie
Oh, god. My brain hurts..... ow ow ow.....
30 minutes later
Okay, now that I've recovered, I would like to state the official position of Austal on this resolution. As a proud member of the region of Gatesville, which stands against the World Assembly and its one world agenda, Austal hereby votes AGAINST this resolution.
Now, I need to get an ice pack.... ow, ow....
~Austal Delegate Jan Peter Wilders
by Snarlandia » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:05 am
by Flibbleites » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:11 am
Snarlandia wrote:Why does this exist in the title? "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." The resolution does not seem to refer to police or military in the remainder of the text. I like the resolution but do not feel it requires a boost to police or military budgets so may end up voting against it.
by Presumptions » Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:55 pm
Although with this definition ANYTHING would be considered a public hazard. Which seems rather broad...a) Defines ‘public hazard’ as a condition, event, or situation that could become a disaster or makes a disaster possible or likely to occur,
by Ardchoille » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:06 pm
Snarlandia wrote:Why does this exist in the title? "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." The resolution does not seem to refer to police or military in the remainder of the text. I like the resolution but do not feel it requires a boost to police or military budgets so may end up voting against it.
by The Asylum Manager » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:50 am
by Uskokia » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:05 pm
by Krioval » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:33 pm
Uskokia wrote:Uskokia and the World of Sui Generis will vote AGAINST this Resolution.
Even if the intention to prevent Desasters is fully shared by our nations,
we can't find it reasonable, to gather so many very sensible and classified information about a nation's security anywhere outside this country. The huge benefit of a possible abuse in any conflict scenario makes it (murphy's law in mind) very likely that sooner or later Uskokia or any other WoSG-nation finds the heartpieces of its inner security leaked and open to any friend or foe.
ZORA
by Allies of America » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:40 pm
by Uskokia » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:07 am
II. Demands member states to regularly inspect structures such as dams, levees, nuclear facilities, and any other structures or vehicles which hold materials which, if the structure were to malfunction, could precipitate a disaster in the immediate area,
(a) Member states shall share the findings of these inspections with the WADB,
(b) The WADB shall provide all the help that a nation requests in this process such as training national investigators or performing the investigations for the nation,
(c) The WADB is to keep all information about each nation's infrastructure strictly confidential to prevent this information from being used in a manner not intended by the resolution,
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement