Luckymoose
The World is Mine
OOC: I say we use Nukes only against military targets and Christians.
TWTUD: United Nations (Singapore)
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
mrpwn3r
Stereotypical Asian
and Germans.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Germany, Nay, 4-61, 5-61.
TheLastJacobite
No Commies
The USA votes Nay on Resolution 5-61. If a nation is willing to nuke another nation despite a UN resolution, what's to stop them from nuking the UN itself?
Brazil would repeat then, that if the UN cannot draft a resolution to help secure world peace, it is a useless organization.
If we throw down this resolution because it could be dangerous, we have betrayed the very essence of what this organization stands for. Besides, what is to stop any nation from nuking the UN right now?
If we throw down this resolution because it could be dangerous, we have betrayed the very essence of what this organization stands for. Besides, what is to stop any nation from nuking the UN right now?
human-slaughter
brand new year
I dont know maybe International Backlash. RSA votes NAY on 3-61 4-61 and 5-61.
You have exposed the fault in the USA delegate's logic.
Will any of the nation's opposing the anti-nuclear resolution give reasoning for their objections?
Perhaps the resolution could be modified to fit your needs- AGAIN. We do not understand why RSA flip-flopped on the issue.
Will any of the nation's opposing the anti-nuclear resolution give reasoning for their objections?
Perhaps the resolution could be modified to fit your needs- AGAIN. We do not understand why RSA flip-flopped on the issue.
human-slaughter
brand new year
I was unaware I was supposed to support the United States logic. Personally I believe it is time for Brazil to find its place in the national community and that it is not as they believe their job to regulate nuclear technology and the use of that technology.
Then whos job is it? The nuclear Community? They aren't doing much. Nobody? So more people are supposed to die?
If nobody else will take steps to save humanity then Brazil will do it- regardless of whether or not the RSA considers us to be a pile of dirt.
And we quote your reference to us "The Grab Bag of South american Nations interfering in European Relations".
If nobody else will take steps to save humanity then Brazil will do it- regardless of whether or not the RSA considers us to be a pile of dirt.
And we quote your reference to us "The Grab Bag of South american Nations interfering in European Relations".
jeps
Arcadefire
CSA votes RSA for UNSC (not allowed to vote for selves?)
and NAY on 3-61, 4-61 & 5-61.
Of all nations to limit use of nuclear weapons, it should be nuclear powers.
and NAY on 3-61, 4-61 & 5-61.
Of all nations to limit use of nuclear weapons, it should be nuclear powers.
D'Artagnan59
The Gascon
Why not this?
6-61: Just outlaw nukes altogether. Nuclear power is OK and the study of nuclear atomics is OK, just not use nukes. You can still develop nuclear research, though.
6-61: Just outlaw nukes altogether. Nuclear power is OK and the study of nuclear atomics is OK, just not use nukes. You can still develop nuclear research, though.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Um.
Germany votes Nay on 6-61.
And Brazil, nuclear weapons are no more dangerous than, say, carpet-bombing. They are merely an instrument of war - and a powerful one. There is no way to outlaw them unless the majority of the world supports stopping the minority from using then. But therein lies the problem: more and more nations are gaining access to nukes. The strategic power this gives a nation isn't going to be relinquished willingly.
Germany votes Nay on 6-61.
And Brazil, nuclear weapons are no more dangerous than, say, carpet-bombing. They are merely an instrument of war - and a powerful one. There is no way to outlaw them unless the majority of the world supports stopping the minority from using then. But therein lies the problem: more and more nations are gaining access to nukes. The strategic power this gives a nation isn't going to be relinquished willingly.
Kamilian
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2002
- Messages
- 3,473
Abyssinia is surprised at the wide plethora of resolutions being proposed that a) say pretty much the same thing, b) the UN would have a difficult time at best trying to enforce, and c) nations have, in some cases, already voted down past resolutions that had the same initiatives and goals.
Considering these three factors, we feel it is absolutely ludicrous that nations vote on these so earnestly and with so much conviction and yet when the whole crisis in Somalia first began and we asked - nay, BEGGED - for UN Peacekeeping missions to help stabilize the situation, all we got was a few token votes but no action. We had to depend on help sent in by a select few blessed individual nations' own initiatives, and then ended up having to cave in to a separatist movement, all as the UN remained inert and just observed impotently.
Our disillusionment with this body continues to grow each day, we are sad to say. First it stood by as foreign... ehem... "volunteers" entered our sovereign territory, essentially giving approving of the invasion and partition of a UN full-member state by another. but now we spend our time arguing back and forth over who can jump around on the Moon.
We suggest that you all bring yourselves back down to Earth and actually vote on issues that matter and on substantive resolutions that can actually be enforced by the United Nations, lest this organization lose what little meaning and importance it still has.
-Prime Minister Josuf Akka
-Emperor Yostos III Selassie
-Abyssinian Empire
Considering these three factors, we feel it is absolutely ludicrous that nations vote on these so earnestly and with so much conviction and yet when the whole crisis in Somalia first began and we asked - nay, BEGGED - for UN Peacekeeping missions to help stabilize the situation, all we got was a few token votes but no action. We had to depend on help sent in by a select few blessed individual nations' own initiatives, and then ended up having to cave in to a separatist movement, all as the UN remained inert and just observed impotently.
Our disillusionment with this body continues to grow each day, we are sad to say. First it stood by as foreign... ehem... "volunteers" entered our sovereign territory, essentially giving approving of the invasion and partition of a UN full-member state by another. but now we spend our time arguing back and forth over who can jump around on the Moon.
We suggest that you all bring yourselves back down to Earth and actually vote on issues that matter and on substantive resolutions that can actually be enforced by the United Nations, lest this organization lose what little meaning and importance it still has.
-Prime Minister Josuf Akka
-Emperor Yostos III Selassie
-Abyssinian Empire
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Germany likes how the world was very "eh-eh" on the Abyssinian crisis. But a few decadent kingdoms in Europe are replaced with power and strength? Suddenly it is a massive issue - one which warrants the interference of backwater South American dictatorships.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
jeps
Arcadefire
Where was south america in thrace? where were they in somalia? where were they in New Zion? Also, a kingdom in africa has been taken over, and nobody cared. Sokoto has been wiped off the map, where was South America? We see this double standard as being disturbing.
CSA votes an overwhelming NAY on 6-61 and laughs that it is even a resolution, having seen what happened to the other nuclear resolutions.
CSA votes an overwhelming NAY on 6-61 and laughs that it is even a resolution, having seen what happened to the other nuclear resolutions.
We cannot be everywhere, we simply don't have the manpower. More importantly, these situations generally concerned two balanced opposing sides who both wished to fight. (Sokoto- Both Sides wanted war- Their problem, Abysinnia- Other allies to help- Don't need us, New Zion- Different Government at that point- Not committed to same goals) That is not the case here which is why we intervened.
EDIT: Let us ask the CSA a question. do you like nuclear weapons? Why do you oppose our resolution?
EDIT: Let us ask the CSA a question. do you like nuclear weapons? Why do you oppose our resolution?
jeps
Arcadefire
abyssinia WANTED help, and didnt recieve much from their allies. they DID need you. they asked the world, and got us and poland who weren't their allies. and if you can put in FIFTY divisions to europe, you could put in at least one or two to Abyssinia. Don't even start on that they had allies and didnt need you. They needed the world, and got little enough from their allies to LEAVE the alliance due to lack of aid.
as for nuclear weapons, we do not like them as offensive weapons, however they can serve as a detterent to war. as well, this resolution is impossible to enforce. the US, USSR, DaI, Germany, Italy, Nippon, Vietnam, and many others are not simply going to dismantle their atomic bombs, in fact I doubt they all know HOW to dismantle an atomic bomb safely.
as for nuclear weapons, we do not like them as offensive weapons, however they can serve as a detterent to war. as well, this resolution is impossible to enforce. the US, USSR, DaI, Germany, Italy, Nippon, Vietnam, and many others are not simply going to dismantle their atomic bombs, in fact I doubt they all know HOW to dismantle an atomic bomb safely.
Similar threads
