06-13-2005, 05:56 PM
FYI, I received the following telegram from delegate Fatus Maximus:
Fatus Maximus Dear madam or sir,
We noticed you?ve voted in favor of the current UN proposal, ?Ban Chemical Weapons.? We believe this may perhaps not be in the best interest of the UN and your reason. Allow us to explain. This proposal is vague and poorly-written. It provides no definition of what chemical weapons are, and bans everything from tear gas to tranquilizer darts, and handguns- which are powered by gun powder, a chemical. It also bans any research on all chemical weapons, even medical antidotes for your citizens. More importantly, however, it ties one hand behind your back if you come up against a non-UN member who can use chemical weapons. Non-UN member nations do not have to comply to UN resolutions. Only UN members would be affected by this proposal (check the FAQs if you don?t believe me), so rogue nations who do not belong to the UN could still use these weapons of mass destruction. If you come into a conflict of one of them, it could quickly become one-sided, seeing as they?re allowed to gas your troops but you can not respond in kind. A considerable number of nations, Fatus Maximus included, do not desire to be handicapped in conflicts with these rogue states. I urge you to reconsider your position
We respect, however, your intentions in approving this proposal. Saving the lives of many innocent people is a noble cause, and in an endeavor to help the UN do so, we have written an alternative proposal, entitled ?Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons?. (Here?s the part where I trumpet it.
) It was an attempt to compromise between nations who are against the current at vote proposal and those who are dedicated to reducing the use of chemical weapons in the NSworld. The gist of it is this- all UN member nations are banned from using lethal chemical weapons against any other UN member, while still leaving you the option of using lethal chemical weapons against non-UN members, should you feel it is necessary to do so. Your nation is no less protected by this alternative proposal than it is by the current at vote proposal, and you can still deter rogue nations with chemical weapons if you so choose. It is currently on page 10 of the proposal list, but may have moved by the time you read this. We strongly urge you to vote AGAINST the current at vote proposal and approve this alternative proposal so it can reach quorum. We thank you for listening and for the time it took to read this immensely long telegram.
Sincerely,
Big Friendly Fat Guy,
General all-around nice guy representing Fatus Maximus [/quote]
My reply:
Groot Gouda Greetings, Delegate,
With some interest I read your telegram about the current UN resolution. Let me first tell you that my for-vote can still be changed, if my region wants to.
But most important is why I am for this resolution. My nation is pacifist, and will support any global disarming resolution. We can see that with nuclear weapons, they can pose a threat so big that a war won't actually happen. With chemical weapons, this is different. The inhuman effects on both soldiers and, more importantly, civilians are simply too big to support the use of these, while not big enough to work as an effective deterrent. The use of them often has negative long-term effects on the local environment and health of inhabitants. It it therefor that we encourage the banning of these weapons, so less bad alternatives will be used.
I hope this clarifies our position.
Sincerest regards,
President Michel
People's Republic of Groot Gouda[/quote]
Fatus Maximus Dear madam or sir,
We noticed you?ve voted in favor of the current UN proposal, ?Ban Chemical Weapons.? We believe this may perhaps not be in the best interest of the UN and your reason. Allow us to explain. This proposal is vague and poorly-written. It provides no definition of what chemical weapons are, and bans everything from tear gas to tranquilizer darts, and handguns- which are powered by gun powder, a chemical. It also bans any research on all chemical weapons, even medical antidotes for your citizens. More importantly, however, it ties one hand behind your back if you come up against a non-UN member who can use chemical weapons. Non-UN member nations do not have to comply to UN resolutions. Only UN members would be affected by this proposal (check the FAQs if you don?t believe me), so rogue nations who do not belong to the UN could still use these weapons of mass destruction. If you come into a conflict of one of them, it could quickly become one-sided, seeing as they?re allowed to gas your troops but you can not respond in kind. A considerable number of nations, Fatus Maximus included, do not desire to be handicapped in conflicts with these rogue states. I urge you to reconsider your position
We respect, however, your intentions in approving this proposal. Saving the lives of many innocent people is a noble cause, and in an endeavor to help the UN do so, we have written an alternative proposal, entitled ?Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons?. (Here?s the part where I trumpet it.
) It was an attempt to compromise between nations who are against the current at vote proposal and those who are dedicated to reducing the use of chemical weapons in the NSworld. The gist of it is this- all UN member nations are banned from using lethal chemical weapons against any other UN member, while still leaving you the option of using lethal chemical weapons against non-UN members, should you feel it is necessary to do so. Your nation is no less protected by this alternative proposal than it is by the current at vote proposal, and you can still deter rogue nations with chemical weapons if you so choose. It is currently on page 10 of the proposal list, but may have moved by the time you read this. We strongly urge you to vote AGAINST the current at vote proposal and approve this alternative proposal so it can reach quorum. We thank you for listening and for the time it took to read this immensely long telegram. Sincerely,
Big Friendly Fat Guy,
General all-around nice guy representing Fatus Maximus [/quote]
My reply:
Groot Gouda Greetings, Delegate,
With some interest I read your telegram about the current UN resolution. Let me first tell you that my for-vote can still be changed, if my region wants to.
But most important is why I am for this resolution. My nation is pacifist, and will support any global disarming resolution. We can see that with nuclear weapons, they can pose a threat so big that a war won't actually happen. With chemical weapons, this is different. The inhuman effects on both soldiers and, more importantly, civilians are simply too big to support the use of these, while not big enough to work as an effective deterrent. The use of them often has negative long-term effects on the local environment and health of inhabitants. It it therefor that we encourage the banning of these weapons, so less bad alternatives will be used.
I hope this clarifies our position.
Sincerest regards,
President Michel
People's Republic of Groot Gouda[/quote]