Danitze wrote:
We respectfully disagree with your interpretation, and hope that this proposal is remade into a more refined version. We are looking forward to the debate.
"Which part, the bit about further blockers on gun control being legal, or the part where your far-fetched scenario isn't a war of conquest? The latter can be solved by sharing the definition inherent to the proposal:
4. Defines "conquest" as the acquisition of territory through military force by a successful state at the expense of another state; for the purpose of this resolution, conquest shall not include:
instances where member nations seek to neutralize hostile states that pose a persistent or existential threat to their sovereignty or security or
"As for the former, I don't think I need to quote the Secretariat's rules at an experienced ambassador like yourself...right?
"You are entitled to your opinion, but your facts, ambassador, are tenuous at best."