 |
|  |
 |
|
academia
|
 |
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Dec 2001 time: 01:31
|
|
quote: I move that the Security Council should elect a General to command peacke-keeping operations |
Ok. I like the idea.
I propose that in our first election, 2 countries should run for the presidency of the Security Council; and the rest of the members will have to vote and choose one of them.
I think that we must establish the length of the term (like 10 turns) and the chance of re-election should not be allowed.
In my opinion, the Security Council should work as a mechanism to prevent unilateral first strikes and find a solution to political/territorial disputes all over the world.
For instance, in the case of my country (India) i have the capacity to attack pakistan and capture it on my own. The problem is that those actions may weaken the stability of the area, and maybe the US, Russia or other countries will send troops to the zone and adopt a hostile position.
Additionaly, those countries could begin to patrol indian air space, seas, impose a blockade against my freights, donīt share techs, etc.
Of course, if you donīt want to pay attention to the security council decisions and go on your own, you can do it. But there might be unpleasant consequences...
What do you guys think?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
Well, I haven't gone through them all, but this one stuck out:
@IF
RANDOMTURN
denominator=8
@THEN
CREATEUNIT
unit=Terrorist
owner=TRIGGERATTACKER
veteran=no
homecity=None
locations
127,57
130,54
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
endlocations
@ENDIF
and the other's are similar.
You said you added these via the in-game editor, right? They won't create an owner properly, but the event debugger would accept each as legitimate. I think that the modifications are fair, they just need a couple of corrections (and I'll adjust the lower case/upper case for the texts that are a bit muddled).
POTUS (and anyone else), please just tell me what you wanted added to the scenario and I'll give each suggestion fair consideration. I have never played this PBEM so other people are better qualified to say what amendments are needed. I'm just really pissed because in all the PBEM games no-one has ever bothered to contact me to say "your graphics suck" and "do this, do that; don't do that". Feedback is good; criticism is good, so how come I never hear it? 
But please do this in the creation forum so the threads aren't duplicated.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Prometheus
|
|
The Peoples Republic of China
1.)The beloved Chinese people of will not strike first.
2.)The Chinese support the UN security council to add legitimacy to operations, though the council members do have veto power. (sorry India)
3.)The Security Council can also make decisions such as the negotiations for the reunification of India and Pakistan, which China fully supports, and the reunification of the Province of Taiwan with China.
4.)10 turn terms for Chair of Council.
Also the PRC would like to enter into negotiations with the EU over the return of Hong Kong near the end of the century as is specified by treaty with the UK.
Turn,
Attachment: china1992july.net
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).
Last edited by Prometheus on 23-10-2003 at 06:42
|
|
|  |
 |
|
academia
|
 |
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Dec 2001 time: 01:31
|
|
Ok. Letīs recapitulate...
First of all, i think that before talking about specific situations and conflicts in the world; we must establish the powers/limits of the Security Council.
So far, this is the situation:
INDIAN PROPOSAL
1) Creation of a permanent United Nations Security Council
YES: India - US - EU - Russia - China
NO:
Neutrals?
In my opinion, the creation of a Security Council is almost a fact.
However, we still need to specify the powers of this council.
Some proposals were made:
US PROPOSAL
1) I move that the Security Council should elect a General to command peace-keeping operations
YES: US - India
NO:
EU? - Russia? - China? - Neutrals?
INDIAN PROPOSAL
1) 10 turn terms for Chair of Council.
YES: India - China
NO:
EU? - Russia? - US? - Neutrals?
RUSSIAN PROPOSALS
1) we want the right to reject ALL decisions as Russia is a sovereign nation among other sovereign nations (Veto).
YES: Russia - China
NO:
EU? - India? - US? - Neutrals?
India has 2 question:
A) In your opinion, what should be the "special" powers that the Chair of Council will have?
B) For Russia and India: Everybody will have this veto?
If anyone can veto a decision, then whatīs the point of creating a Security Council???
In my opinion, ONLY THE PRESIDENT of the Council should have this power. Or maybe, in case of a tie in the votaion, the Chair of the Council could use these "veto power" to make the final decision.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
POTUS
|
 |
How could I possibly not have a Mozambican flag, I mean, what other country has an AK-47 on their flag?
Jul 2003 time: 21:31
|
|
In accordance with previous agreements dating back to 1828, the US promises to defend the territorial integrity of all nations and territories, especially the British Commonwealth.
I would advise China that in accordance with the 5th Fleet Relocation Act and Treaty, the 5th Fleet will dock in Hong Kong and, until July 1, 1997, when the 5th Fleet will be based, for the indefinite future at Clark in the Phillipines, Oninkiwa, Singapore, or a location to be determined by January 1, 1996.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asaz989
|
|
I am for the American proposal of a U.N. General, at least to the extent of a coordinator who sets goals and areas of control for different nation's armies during a Security Coucil sanctioned operation. I am also in agreement India's proposal for term limits on Security Council President. However, I do have questions about the Russian statement of veto power, mostly those that others have voiced: does everyone have this power, and, if they do, how does anything get done?
P.S. By the way potus, on your statement
quote: I would advise China that in accordance with the 5th Fleet Relocation Act and Treaty, the 5th Fleet will dock in Hong Kong and, until July 1, 1997, when the 5th Fleet will be based, for the indefinite future at Clark in the Phillipines, Oninkiwa, Singapore, or a location to be determined by January 1, 1996. |
thanks
Last edited by asaz989 on 23-10-2003 at 09:39
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asaz989
|
|
and to the chinese: transfer of Hong Kong is good in July 97. any problems?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
POTUS
|
 |
How could I possibly not have a Mozambican flag, I mean, what other country has an AK-47 on their flag?
Jul 2003 time: 21:31
|
|
I do not question your nation's history of ruling land from Kallin to Svestapol. However, you must remeber that these countries rejected Russia and the Soviet Union. If they wanted to be protected and ruled over by Russians, they would have never seceded and declared independence.
Here is what I propose:
All land from Poland to the Ukraine, Russia will be allowed to control the security of, provided the nations there consent. From Moldova to Germany, the US and EU will control the security of, provided the people consent. After 5 years, elections will be held in all countries to choose whether to remain independent or to join Russia or the EU. Both Russia, and the EU will abide by the results of the elections. Also, during the five years before elections, no country may interfere in the autonomy of any of the nations, and may not station forces in urban areas (cities). The US will abide by the terms of the agreement and, with any other interested parties, will moniter that both sides are not violating provisions of the treaty.
Will Russia and the EU accept this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asaz989
|
|
Hold on a second, POTUS. What you mean is that Russia and the EU would have a "jurisdiction" of areas that they protect from attack, but they get to bribe those cities? correct me if i'm wrong.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|