GA Resolution: Medical Facilities Protection

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Medical Facilities Protection
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Warzone Codger


Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that war extends beyond those engaged in combat

ACCEPTING there are always dangers presiding in conflict zones

BELIEVING however that it is immoral to target those providing humanitarian aid

NOTING the costs of recovery would be lessened if vital infrastructure and supplies are undamaged

PROPOSES the following:

1. PROHIBITS the deliberate targeting of medical facilities clearly displaying the emblems of an recognised international humanitarian movement during a conflict.
a) Defines a medical facility as a structure whose primary function is to repair damage or preserve life after the immediate effects of injury or disease.
b) Defines deliberate targeting as any intentional attack, raid or sabotage at the above while they in the performance of their duties

2. CHARGES the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee to identify recognised international humanitarian movements and that knowledge of them is provided to World Assembly members.

3. WAIVES the protections of this resolution where it is shown that:
a) The facility has been used in a role other than medical assistance, such as the production or stockpiling of non-medical supplies.
b) There is evidence of camouflage or attempt to abuse these protections for strategic advantage
c) In dealings with non World Assembly nations this resolution has not been followed.

4. URGES nations to conduct war in a manner that causes the least loss of life.

Co-authored by The New Aryan State

[Guy]

This is written by our friend Warzone Codger, and seems like a good resolution to me. The waivers granted in section three seem sufficient.

[Warzone Codger]

Hi all, I'm here to answer any questions.

Unfortunately the proposal only allows one co-author, but a 10K Islander and TITO member Magthere had the original idea for the resolution. Thanks!

[Wordy]

Nice job Codger and Co

[La Vida De Sangre]

For me it looks like one of the best resolutions we had in some time.
I am for.

[Consortina]

FOR. No objections.

[Takaram]

Aye

[Echolilia]

Against, just because I think it's too easy to get resolutions passed. I wish a 2/3 majority was required - we could effectively make that the case by always having the 10ki WAD vote against.

[Guy]

No. WA resolutions are a good way to increase activity in-game. I see absolutely no reason to require a higher majority from them.

Besides, engaging in a war against the WA (i.e. shutting it down) is something I'd like to reserve for very special circumstances, as it's going to get a lot of people pissed at us.

[Echolilia]

I didn't think you'd agree, just explaining my vote against.

[Guy]

Well why do you think there should be a supermajority?

[Walabamba]

I'm for.

[ImperialPoland]

@guy he just explained it. Because its too easy to get resolutions to pass. Stop trying to argue with everyone that doesn't share your opinion. Just accept it and move on. Isn't that what you liberals always preach?

I'm also against, it's not the WA's duty to dictate how wars are fought. Next there's going to be a resolution that sets the standard rifle of all WA members to air-soft guns. Granted this resolution does give some wiggle room, but I'd still like to see a bit more.

[Echolilia]

Paint ball!

[Consortina]

Nov 28, 2010 13:29:42 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

I'm also against, it's not the WA's duty to dictate how wars are fought. Next there's going to be a resolution that sets the standard rifle of all WA members to air-soft guns. Granted this resolution does give some wiggle room, but I'd still like to see a bit more.

Uhm, what? What IS the WA's purpose if not setting rules for resolving conflicts between nations? If you don't want the WA meddling in your affairs on principle, you're free to leave.

[Guy]

@guy he just explained it. Because its too easy to get resolutions to pass. Stop trying to argue with everyone that doesn't share your opinion. Just accept it and move on. Isn't that what you liberals always preach?

Oh please.

I think "it's too easy" is too vague. I was not completely dismissing his opinion, just wanting to know why he thinks the current system does not work -- he might even change my mind!

The second part of your post constitutes flaming.

[Walabamba]

@guy he just explained it. Because its too easy to get resolutions to pass. Stop trying to argue with everyone that doesn't share your opinion. Just accept it and move on. Isn't that what you liberals always preach?

Don't flame Imperial Poland, it's a debate, treat it that way and don't flame.

[Sir Lans]

Nov 29, 2010 17:28:44 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

@guy he just explained it. Because its too easy to get resolutions to pass. Stop trying to argue with everyone that doesn't share your opinion. Just accept it and move on. Isn't that what you liberals always preach?

Don't flame Imperial Poland, it's a debate, treat it that way and don't flame.

Agreed

[ImperialPoland]

Nov 28, 2010 17:25:45 GMT -5 Consortina said:

Uhm, what? What IS the WA's purpose if not setting rules for resolving conflicts between nations? If you don't want the WA meddling in your affairs on principle, you're free to leave.

nay, the WA's purpose is to instill a unicameral world legislature that forces the minority to follow one final ruling, no matter how close a vote comes or how one sided it is.

My whole thing is that it isn't the WA's job to get into specifics on how an independent nation should behave in such things as warfare. And (again) although this proposal gives a member some wiggle room, I'd have liked to see more.

True, i have become disgusted with the WA recently, but should that stop me from lending my support to our delegate, guy?

[Walabamba]

I don't understand how you think the WA doesn't have a place in warfare. The WA is modeled after the UN and the UN has regulations on warfare which include weaponry. Realistically the WA has a place in everything nations decide that they want them to have a place in.

[ImperialPoland]

Nov 29, 2010 1:18:21 GMT -5 Guy said:

The second part of your post constitutes flaming.

you've made the assumption that i was being serious. i apologize, perhaps i should have added a "haha" or "jk" or something like that.


as for the "vagueness", i don't understand. I came to a quick conclusion that he meant that getting a majority is too simple and, maybe, fails to protect a minority no matter how close a vote comes (i mentioned that above as well) . That might be a bit of a jump but...

[ImperialPoland]

Nov 29, 2010 21:19:22 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

Realistically the WA has a place in everything nations decide that they want them to have a place in.

If you mean nations in "they want them to have a place in." that's the thing. i don't want the WA to dictate what i can or cannot do in times of war. Its one thing to sign a convention (as in the rl Geneva Convention where anyone who signs does so voluntarily) and another to force it on all members of an organization that prompts unity of the world despite the fact the we all have differing opinions.

[Consortina]

Nov 29, 2010 21:10:55 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

Nov 28, 2010 17:25:45 GMT -5 Consortina said:

Uhm, what? What IS the WA's purpose if not setting rules for resolving conflicts between nations? If you don't want the WA meddling in your affairs on principle, you're free to leave.

nay, the WA's purpose is to instill a unicameral world legislature that forces the minority to follow one final ruling, no matter how close a vote comes or how one sided it is.

My whole thing is that it isn't the WA's job to get into specifics on how an independent nation should behave in such things as warfare. And (again) although this proposal gives a member some wiggle room, I'd have liked to see more.

True, i have become disgusted with the WA recently, but should that stop me from lending my support to our delegate, guy?

You didn't anwer my question. What is, according to your idea of the WA, an example of a legislation the WA SHOULD pass?

[Echolilia]

By "too easy", I mean that there's too much legislation passed that people then want to repeal or criticize or feel irked about because they want something different. A higher bar for passing would (theoretically at least) lessen that. Also, I feel like a lot of nations vote purely based on the title or a simplistic idea of what the legislation does, not on an actual understanding of the pros and cons. A large vote against would balance that out somewhat.

Alternatively, the WA could have legislation go through multiple "readings", with a simple majority and then a time delay required before it could advance to the next step.

[ImperialPoland]

Nov 29, 2010 21:30:34 GMT -5 Consortina said:

Nov 29, 2010 21:10:55 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

nay, the WA's purpose is to instill a unicameral world legislature that forces the minority to follow one final ruling, no matter how close a vote comes or how one sided it is.

My whole thing is that it isn't the WA's job to get into specifics on how an independent nation should behave in such things as warfare. And (again) although this proposal gives a member some wiggle room, I'd have liked to see more.

True, i have become disgusted with the WA recently, but should that stop me from lending my support to our delegate, guy?

You didn't anwer my question. What is, according to your idea of the WA, an example of a legislation the WA SHOULD pass?

Anything that we can all 100 percent agree on. The WA is not an all powerful federal nation, and we should not act like little provinces voting on the next ultimatum that will be forced throughout the WA's extensive "empire".

There's your answer.

[Consortina]

Dec 2, 2010 21:08:18 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

Nov 29, 2010 21:30:34 GMT -5 Consortina said:

You didn't anwer my question. What is, according to your idea of the WA, an example of a legislation the WA SHOULD pass?

Anything that we can all 100 percent agree on. The WA is not an all powerful federal nation, and we should not act like little provinces voting on the next ultimatum that will be forced throughout the WA's extensive "empire".

There's your answer.

uhm....lulz?

I asked for an example and you gave me an abstract requirement. That was the exact opposite of what I had asked for.

[ImperialPoland]

Dec 3, 2010 0:53:48 GMT -5 Consortina said:

Dec 2, 2010 21:08:18 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

Anything that we can all 100 percent agree on. The WA is not an all powerful federal nation, and we should not act like little provinces voting on the next ultimatum that will be forced throughout the WA's extensive "empire".

There's your answer.

uhm....lulz?

I asked for an example and you gave me an abstract requirement. That was the exact opposite of what I had asked for.

ok, i'll repeat my first bit and elaborate in a comprehensible way, what I've been saying this entire time is that any resolution that cannot be agreed on by a very clear majority shouldn't be offered up as a proposal. Resolutions that force you to do what a slightly larger group determines is ridiculous. Think of it this way, there's a proposal in the WA that forces something on you that you really don't agree with. Doesn't matter what it is about but lets say that you just despise the idea of that proposal passing. Now maybe this proposal passes by just a few votes, is that fair? My feeling is that it is not. I prefer proposals that are not entirely open-ended or open to interpretation, but also not so dictating. These are the types of proposals i've noticed to pass a lot easier and these are the types that should be voted on in the WA.

i'm not sure how clearer or understandable i can make this. If you still need help understanding why i feel the way i do or have questions, just message me since the resolution already passed (which i would think signals the end of this topic).