Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

A Framework for the Future

Author Message
Malachi Benito
Junior Member

Posts: 22
Words count: 3,235
Group: Basic
Joined: Sep2017
Status: Offline
Reputation: 3
Experience: 171
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #11
RE: A Framework for the Future

Scenario 1:
Rogue regimes that are members of alliances shall be dealt with by that alliance.

Scenario 2:
With no alliance membership, or if the alliance chooses not to address, , a rogue regime shall first be handled by another nation or alliance which sits on the same continent.

Scenario 3:
Shall no nation or alliance on that continent wish to handle that rogue regime, a nation or alliance on the two neighboring continents may act.

Scenario 4:
For instances where there are two alliances or dominant powers on the continent where the rogue regime resides, there shall be a queue established which creates a hierarchy for action.

Alliances or dominant nations can waive their place in their queue and those below on the queue can position the next in line to do so.

The queue will also be referenced if the above scenarios do not lead to a handling of the rogue regime.

Of course, the rogue regime can be allowed to fester and die naturally if all scenarios and nations/alliances within the queue decide to pass.

This is a rough proposal, but I think you can understand my points.

17.07.2018 21:21
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lee Lee
TyPin 2.0 - wer hat meine EP geklaut?

Posts: 1,698
Words count: 200,718
Group: Premium
Joined: Aug2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 85
Experience: 6544
Glory Points: 231
Medals: 12

Post: #12
RE: A Framework for the Future

Voice Lagatha Pin, for the Unseen King of Tyr

Defining a Rogue Regime
I do not believe such a definition is warranted. What would be the end-goal? Conquering of states based on bureaucratic rule? This is exactly, what we do not want. If a state is become dangerous to its own people or to other peoples, then this would need to be made public and discussed through means of intelligence, the media or similar means. ((meaning: role play the need to conquer inactives))

Need of military intervention
Local, global and allied responsibilities need to be discussed nonetheless. And for this purpose the proposal of the honored Kansler Benedikt Magnus of Ryssland is reasonable in containing elements of local integrity and interests as well as allowing a somewhat international participation. It might not be the perfect solution, but is to be preferred over the proposal of the Preacher James Berkeley.

The following should serve as an example, not as accusation: Zorostria, from where the Preacher originates, is one of two states classified as a power-state in South America of which the other may very well fall in some definition of rogue based on the propositions so far. The Preacher's proposal would put Zorostria in a very advantageous position. Your initial words seem to insinuate unwarrantedly a connection between Rysslandian interests and imperialism. However, the Kansler's proposal would allow for a more globally balanced intervention frame and would prevent certain continental configurations to be of single advantage for certain states.

Therefor, I believe it is of importance to review the Kansler's proposal and expand on it in order to maintain local and global interests and which does not rob any peoples of their honor and strength.

One point, I will admit, is of note in James Berkeley's proposal: A principle of homogeneity. This should be of consideration in any kind of interventional policy.

This post was last modified: 17.07.2018 21:33 by Lee Lee.

17.07.2018 21:28
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Unicorn of Leftism

Posts: 869
Words count: 107,974
Group: Premium
Joined: Aug2015
Status: Offline
Reputation: 42
Experience: 704
Glory Points: 200
Medals: 8

Post: #13
RE: A Framework for the Future

Preacher James Berkeley, International Representative of the Noriteran Church Confederation

Thank you for your input, Mrs. Pin.

I am sorry to inform you but we have to take our first proposal back. After some discussing in our confederation we have come to the conclusion that a radically different aproach is necessary for the good of mankind, for the light of christianity to survive and for the promotion of eternal peace, a heaven on earth if you so will.

Please listen to my proposal 'till the end. We, the Noriteran Church Confederation, believe that it is in everyones best interest to abandon the whole idea of an bureaucratic apparatus that we, myself unfortunatly included, have build so far.
Every form of bureaucracy will in time either grow unstoppable to prevent exploitation or become a simple tool for the oppressors of this world to legalize and formalize their oppression. For invadors to veil their ambitions behind good intentions, humanitarian missions and what-not! To prevent any and all of those actions, to prevent war and to prevent escalation of conflicts, we have to do one thing, and one thing only: Problem-based solutions while banning invasions!

For this, we first need to abolish the whole notion of "rogue states" or anything similar vague. Every nation, or nation-like construct like our confederation, has the right to make an inquiry regarding any problem they seem to have with either another nation or with domestic problems. Those will be judged by the international community as a whole and if the problem is deemed worthy by said community, then we as an international community shall create a solution for the problem that fits the problem.

Famine will be fought with food and resources, natural catastrophes will be fought with reconstruction and with international aid, dictators with sanctions and support for opposition. A solution fitting the problem is the only moral thing to do. No bureaucracy that tells us how to act in what scenario! No dictator or tyrant telling us what is wrong and what is right! The entirety of the worlds community shall be it's own judge and it's own executioner!

We propose nothing more than complete pacifism from this institution! No agressive war can ever be justified! Never can humanitarian aid involve the same weapons that make those actions necessary! Never shall a war of aggression be justified by this very institution! Because if it allows only one mistake, then all of mankind could be at stake! As such, we can not allow any mistake at all. And the only way to ensure that is to make sure that no war will ever be made legal in these halls and that opposition to war is enshrined in the bedrock of this summit!

20.07.2018 18:00
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Framework For The Future Summit Malachi Benito 0 627 17.07.2018 13:51
Last Post: Malachi Benito

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump: