NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED]Preparing for Disasters

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Asylum Manager
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Aug 24, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Asylum Manager » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:46 pm

[quote="Austal";p="2858567"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[/quote]
The Ambassador to TAM would like to know why a nation which stands against the WA wished to join the WA...

We lack the capability to analyse proposals in such a way to find flaws. Until now we have yet to see any other Ambassador to come forth with such a thing, so we are extremely inclined to vote FOR. However, for the moment, we will wait a bit more so more skilled Ambassadorial teams can share their findings.

We yield the floor

User avatar
Castrovido
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jun 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Castrovido » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:52 pm

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.

User avatar
Northern Wasabi
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jul 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Wasabi » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:09 pm

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.

User avatar
Austal
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jul 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby 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...

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)
Last edited by Austal on Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Presumptions
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby 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)


Gatesville stands against an idea, we use what tools we have on hand in order to do so.

As to the resolution in question
While I can understand the intentions, I really just don't see the point.
I don't see it acheiving anything, except in becoming another useless piece of legislation clogging up the WA.

User avatar
The Asylum Manager
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Aug 24, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

The Ambassador to TAM wishes to know where the honourable Ambassador from Castrovidio sees any mention about diverting funds to poor countries in the world without there being a disaster first.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


Because you're a WA member, if it passes it will affect the economy, political freedoms and civil rights that are shown on your nation page. Some nations vote in terms of what effect they think a proposal will have on their statistics.

This one's strength is mild, so its effects should be mild, but even so, some nations may see their category change, depending on what's gone before.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Zomb
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby 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) :p

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


Lolz sorryz Austalz, I'z doz notz alwayz havez controlz overz whatz myz Zombiez putz inz theirz mouthz, howeverz I'z wouldz likez toz adress thatz thez nationz ofz Zombz iz a unitedz frontz withz youz against thez Worldz Assemblyz. Whyz iz thez Worldz Assemblyz aboutz nothingz butz "spreadingz peace" and "improvingz" thez worldz? whenz wez havez issuez wherez wez canz decidez toz killz ofz artistz andz poetz orz sacrafice hoboz andz ourz firstz bornz childrenz. Ifz wez canz buildz anz evilz nationz thenz whyz arez wez forcedz toz alwayz votez aboutz "goodz thingz" topicz? Wez cantz "actuallyz" wage warz against eachotherz, butz we surez az hellz canz havez goodz vs evilz andz rightz nowz the goodz iz winningz. Soz I'z encorage myz brotherz ofz destructionz outz therez letz standz upz andz fightz backz! Letz startz seeingz somez evilz topicz toz bez votedz onz! Myz Zombiez cannotz livez inz a "peace spreadingz" kindz ofz worldz, wez needz braaaainz!

Mike P the Zombie
Last edited by Zomb on Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Snarlandia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Snarlandia » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:05 am

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.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

Because that's automatically added to all proposals filed in the "International Security" category.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Snarlandia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Snarlandia » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:22 pm

Thanks for explaining that.

User avatar
Eraplevok
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 134
Founded: Jun 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eraplevok » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:28 pm

Is this specifically for natural disasters?

User avatar
Presumptions
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Presumptions » Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:55 pm

No it isn't.
It talks about nuclear facilities and such....

a) Defines ‘public hazard’ as a condition, event, or situation that could become a disaster or makes a disaster possible or likely to occur,
Although with this definition ANYTHING would be considered a public hazard. Which seems rather broad...
Last edited by Presumptions on Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


Further to Flib's explanation ... categories are where many proposals fall down the legality chute. A proposal must do what the category requires. In this one, since the military and police are often used as a disciplined and easily deployed group to handle cleanup and keep order after a disaster, it can be read as implying a boost to those forces (eg, extra equipment, special training, increased recruitment, etc).

As you can see, the connection doesn't always have to be explicitly stated in the proposal, though prop authors determined to be safe will sometimes include specific language to make sure they meet its requirements. In props, obvious is good.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Adamalk
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Aug 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Adamalk » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:16 am

I agrea with the above and voted for.
-Adamalk

User avatar
The Asylum Manager
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Aug 24, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Asylum Manager » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:50 am

The Ambassador to TAM has noticed no other Ambassador or Ambassadorial team bring forth any type of serious squabble with this proposal so we are happy to now announce our full support and vote FOR.

We yield the floor.

User avatar
Uskokia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jul 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Uskokia » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:05 pm

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
NO PASERAN

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2449
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby 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


Could you please point out the clauses that would compromise your national intelligence efforts?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Allies of America
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Allies of America » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:40 pm

Allies of America would like to vote FOR this proposition

User avatar
Uskokia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jul 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Uskokia » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:07 am

OK, the vote is over, nevertheless I will reply:
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,


The intention is good, but the trust in the ability of the WADB to keep the confidential information - as (c) demands - is not very high. Having one database, where such sensible information is gathered, is a risk for national security. No matter how well-protected this database is, you will find one to hack it, find an employee corrupt enough to abuse it, or having a war and a "worldwide interest" to cheat. Uskokia will try to have desasterplans at hand, when international help is wanted, but we will keep it in our country.

Sincerly
Rote Zora
NO PASERAN

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads