We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Repeal of War Declarations
#11

Unless specifically recommended by the Cabinet/CSS and approved by the Assemby, no.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#12

I would support this as there is no reason to be at war with ether of them.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice
#13

I would also support keeping them on the prohibited groups/organizations list.

#14

I ask everyone to read Article 9 and see if those regions really meet the requirements. I am inclined to say they don't.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#15

Well, I suppose removing them from the list doesn't really change much. It's not like we'd be inviting them here.

#16

As current Minster of the Army, I feel they should stay. GGR is both about ideaologies in region politics AND in game actions. It also gives the SPSF raiding/liberation targets without need of worrying about stepping on toes. They have attacked friends and as raiders truly made a mess of the regions they took. Gaitsville, too, also doesn't need the recognition and we don't need TSP to be known as we no longer have an issue there.

BOTH these organizations are nothing anymore, both having splintered/died off and gone silent. I think leaving the documents in place "just in case" they decide to wake up again, will know not to come knocking here and announcing they are our new best friends.
#17

I can see where you're coming from QD, but what are the odds they decide to actually do something? Even if they did, do they really have the power to?

As far as them showing up to say "Hey, the wars (officially) over, let's be friends." Not likely to happen either.
I bet if we went over and said "hey, did you know we're still at war?" I imagine their reaction would be something like "Seriously? you guys are still on about that?"

A State of War at this point seems moot, but on the off chance they decide "Let's f*ck sh*t up again" A new, more up-to-date declaration can be drafted. Speaking of, when was the last time TSP actually went to war?

#18

(11-20-2014, 06:50 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I ask everyone to read Article 9 and see if those regions really meet the requirements. I am inclined to say they don't.

As far as I can tell, this seems a bit vague on what "war" consists of. Right now, these regions may not be a major threat to the region, but as I am a bit unclear as to what being at "war" with these regions means, I won't be voting to repeal this.

It probably is defined somewhere though, will look after work if somebody doesn't clarify first.
#19

Why do we even need to be at war with these regions? We are not actively fighting them, nor are they actively fighting us. War should be the last-instance foreign policy tool, almost never to be used, not something that we keep just in case.

The fact that almost nobody even knows of these wars is enough reason to agree they have outlived their purpose.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#20

The SPSF does jump on GCR/Nazi startups as we find them so that's there. There's nothing to jump on with Gatesville really, They're Gatesville, Inc now.




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .