NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT]Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DRAFT]Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 5:01 am

I am looking to repeal GA#10, hoping if you guys have any feedback as whether this would be sufficient to repeal the law. Any comments or suggestions are gladly accepted. Thank you very much for looking through it.



General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding and recognising the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #10 to establish a common right for all WA members to possess Nuclear Arms in the early days of the WA,

However,
Concerned regarding the vague language in the clauses which can lead to misinterpretation by various WA nations.
-Noting that in clause 1, WA nations are able to defend themselves from "hostile nations", the clause does not define what a hostile nation means, leaving it open for misinterpretation, allowing member states to use nuclear weapons against any nation who they deem as a threat.

Worried that the clause lack of specifics would mean that member states do not have a concrete guideline to follow,
-Noting that in clause 3 it states that nations should "take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands." However, it does not specify how and what exactly these precautions are, this lack of specification can lead to a catastrophic disaster when an actual nuclear disaster happens.

Acknowledges that several laws have been passed regarding nuclear weaponisation and nuclear disaster response. Most notably, GA#60 "Nuclear Disaster Response Act" sets out a specific plan and ways for member nations to follow in the event of a nuclear disaster. The various laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been more recently passed by this very assembly also includes various improved versions of the different clauses stated in this act.
Therefore, this act is redundant in this current time and shall be repealed accordingly.

Lastly, Urging various members to take look at the various contradicting laws that have been passed regarding nuclear waste/arms/energy and repeal them accordingly.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.
Last edited by Freedomist fighters on Sun May 16, 2021 1:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Indiana Controlled Florida
Envoy
 
Posts: 297
Founded: Feb 20, 2021
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Indiana Controlled Florida » Sat May 15, 2021 5:06 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:I am looking to repeal GA#10, hoping if you guys have any feedback as whether this would be sufficient to repeal the law. Thank you very much for looking through it.

General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding and recognising the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #10 to establish a common right for all WA members to possess Nuclear Arms in the early days of the WA,

However,
Concerned regarding the vague language in the clauses which can lead to misinterpretation by various WA nations.
-Noting that in clause 1, WA nations are able to defend themselves from "hostile nations", the clause does not define what a hostile nation means, leaving it open for misinterpretation, allowing member states to use nuclear weapons against any nation who they deem as a threat.

Worried that the clause lack of specifics would mean that member states do not have a concrete guideline to follow,
-Noting that in clause 3 it states that nations should "take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands." However, it does not specify how and what exactly these precautions are, this lack of specification can lead to a catastrophic disaster when an actual nuclear disaster happens.

Acknowledges that several laws have been passed regarding nuclear weaponisation and nuclear disaster response. Most notably, GA#60 "Nuclear Disaster Response Act" sets out a specific plan and ways for member nations to follow in the event of a nuclear disaster. The various laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been more recently passed by this very assembly also includes various improved versions of the different clauses stated in this act.
Therefore, this act is redundant in this current time and shall be repealed accordingly.

Lastly, Urging various members to take look at the various contradicting laws that have been passed regarding nuclear waste/arms/energy and repeal them accordingly.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.

This is pretty good. The only problem I can see is that a lot of nations love their nuclear weapons.

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 5:33 am

This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.
Last edited by Freedomist fighters on Sun May 16, 2021 1:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat May 15, 2021 7:23 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#272 and GA#330.

OOC: No there aren't. There're no clauses in either of them that says any thing that blocks a ban on the possession of nuclear weapons.

Second, GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Sat May 15, 2021 7:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10544
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat May 15, 2021 8:22 am

Ardiveds wrote:GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.

GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 8:26 am

@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat May 15, 2021 8:48 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.

GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.
Freedomist fighters wrote:@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 8:57 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.
Freedomist fighters wrote:@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.


I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.
Last edited by Freedomist fighters on Sat May 15, 2021 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10544
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat May 15, 2021 9:28 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no contradiction. Chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons. Radiological weapons are not nuclear weapons.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11936
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Sat May 15, 2021 10:19 am

Not very feasible to do so as you basically cannot forbid the usage of nukes, and there are states that use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and deterrent. Against.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8494
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat May 15, 2021 1:05 pm

I automatically support all resolutions of this title. While a complete (or at best near-complete) ban on nuclear weapons would be preferably, most if not all of GA#10 has been superceded by Safeguarding Nuclear Materials.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt


"Katy Bourne, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, is the lead for stalking in Wales and England. She is also a victim of stalking."

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1803
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Sat May 15, 2021 6:16 pm

Freedomist fighters wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.


I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no law that bans the use of chemical weapons. Perhaps you should check again?

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 7:38 pm

Outer Sparta wrote:Not very feasible to do so as you basically cannot forbid the usage of nukes, and there are states that use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and deterrent. Against.

I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sat May 15, 2021 7:44 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
Freedomist fighters wrote:
I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no law that bans the use of chemical weapons. Perhaps you should check again?


I have checked and after IA clarification on nuclear/chemical and radioactive weapons, I will acknowledge that there is no ban on nuclear weapons.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun May 16, 2021 12:09 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

OOC: Ahhh, I see where you got that impression about 330. You gotta understand the difference between the preamble and operative clauses. In 330, everything before The General Assembly hereby is basically there to introduce the proposal/justify its category, they don't actually have any legal power as far as the GA is concerned. So if GA 10 is repealed, a proposal can still ban the possession of nukes despite GA 330. It simply acknowledges that the possession of nukes is legal but doesn't actually make it legal itself.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Sun May 16, 2021 12:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sun May 16, 2021 12:16 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Freedomist fighters wrote:I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

OOC: Ahhh, I see where you got that impression about 330. You gotta understand the difference between the preamble and operative clauses. In 330, everything before The General Assembly hereby is basically there to introduce the proposal/justify its category, they don't actually have any legal power as far as the GA is concerned. So if GA 10 is repealed, a proposal can still ban the possession of nukes despite GA 330. It simply acknowledges that the possession of nukes is legal but doesn't actually make it legal itself.


Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.
Last edited by Freedomist fighters on Sun May 16, 2021 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun May 16, 2021 12:32 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:
Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sun May 16, 2021 12:42 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Freedomist fighters wrote:
Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.


I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15698
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun May 16, 2021 12:48 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.

I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sun May 16, 2021 1:08 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.

@Araraukar

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15698
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun May 16, 2021 2:00 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:
Freedomist fighters wrote:This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.

@Araraukar

OOC: But not ownership. So:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.

@Freedomist fighters

(Why do you do that "at" thing, by the way? This isn't Discord.)
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun May 16, 2021 3:54 am

Freedomist fighters wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.


I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

OOC: I would still like this confirmed by someone more knowledgeable on the affairs of WA since WA proposal language can be tricky.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sun May 16, 2021 3:54 am

Araraukar wrote:
Freedomist fighters wrote:@Araraukar

OOC: But not ownership. So:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.

@Freedomist fighters

(Why do you do that "at" thing, by the way? This isn't Discord.)


1. I believe "possess" is a synonym of own.
2. I guess I'm used to it :)

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65767
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Sun May 16, 2021 7:09 am

Against. Will not support. And will counter campaign against
Male, State Socialist, Cultural Nationalist, Welfare Chauvinist lives somewhere in AZ I'm GAY! Disabled US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
Freedomist fighters
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Mar 27, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Freedomist fighters » Sun May 16, 2021 7:25 am

Thermodolia wrote:Against. Will not support. And will counter campaign against


I respect your opinion but let's keep it constructive shall we at least give some reasons why you are "Against", "Will not support"(which I think you have made sufficiently clear in the word "against"). As much as your response is very much appreciated, at least chip into the conversation instead of just stating your opposition down. Thank you very much.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SimTropican

Advertisement

Remove ads