NationStates Jolt Archive

You can read the article here:

http://www.angelfire.com/un/update/

and post your comments below.

------------------------------------------

We also wrote an article on Common Sense Act II, but that thread has disappeared into oblivion :( Anyway...

It is more Editorials, not news, so therefore it isn't a newspaper.

"Wolfish Convention on POW" is a stupid name. Think of something more un-furry.


Many theoretical ideas about cases in which valid lawsuits would be thrown out by this bill have been placed on the UN Message Board, so none will be repeated here. But the important point is that this proposal puts the right to protection from lawsuits over the rights of nations to self-determination.

The UN continually underscores nations self-determination. Nothing new here.



The "THE RED CROSS" wouldn't be endorsed by people who are islamic and anti-theistic. Come up with a stupid Acronym like the UNHO. And the proposal is horribly put together for it anyways.

It is more Editorials, not news, so therefore it isn't a newspaper.

"Wolfish Convention on POW" is a stupid name. Think of something more un-furry.


Many theoretical ideas about cases in which valid lawsuits would be thrown out by this bill have been placed on the UN Message Board, so none will be repeated here. But the important point is that this proposal puts the right to protection from lawsuits over the rights of nations to self-determination.

The UN continually underscores nations self-determination. Nothing new here.



The "THE RED CROSS" wouldn't be endorsed by people who are islamic and anti-theistic. Come up with a stupid Acronym like the UNHO. And the proposal is horribly put together for it anyways.

It is more Editorials, not news, so therefore it isn't a newspaper.

"Wolfish Convention on POW" is a stupid name. Think of something more un-furry.


Many theoretical ideas about cases in which valid lawsuits would be thrown out by this bill have been placed on the UN Message Board, so none will be repeated here. But the important point is that this proposal puts the right to protection from lawsuits over the rights of nations to self-determination.

The UN continually underscores nations self-determination. Nothing new here.



The "THE RED CROSS" wouldn't be endorsed by people who are islamic and anti-theistic. Come up with a stupid Acronym like the UNHO. And the proposal is horribly put together for it anyways.

I think he called it 'Wolfish Convention on POW' beccause a country named Wolfish proposed a convention which would decide how to treat prisoners of war, thus being 'on POWs'. There's a very logical explaination for it if you think about it.

It is more Editorials, not news, so therefore it isn't a newspaper.

Fine it's not a newspaper. It's a method for me to take over the world by taking over your minds, one by one </sarcasm>

Just because newspapers are theorietically not biased does not mean that they aren't. Its just that NS-UN Update is more honest than most, as we have no intention of hiding our opinion.

Note that I have offered several times to let opponents put their view (if a well written, short article) on the page by e-mailing nsun_paper@yahoo.com.

"Wolfish Convention on POW" is a stupid name. Think of something more un-furry.

If he had just stuck an "s" on the end, it would be perfectly fine. Just like the "Geneva Convention" or the "Kyoto Convention", etc.


Many theoretical ideas about cases in which valid lawsuits would be thrown out by this bill have been placed on the UN Message Board, so none will be repeated here. But the important point is that this proposal puts the right to protection from lawsuits over the rights of nations to self-determination.

The UN continually underscores nations self-determination. Nothing new here.

In the 1840s, African-Americans were continually treated as slaves. Slavery was nothing new. But did that make it right?

(I can't believe I am arguing a progressive opinion like that!!!)

The "THE RED CROSS" wouldn't be endorsed by people who are islamic and anti-theistic. Come up with a stupid Acronym like the UNHO. And the proposal is horribly put together for it anyways.

Anyone who is Islamic or anti-theistic and feels so offended that they don't wish to accept the offered help is free to do so. Has the US ACLU sued the Red Cross? Why not? Same logic! The US is certainly NOT a Christian country (it may have a high percentage of Christians, but is NOT a Christian country!), so why hasn't the ACLU sued the US gov't and the Red Cross for Separation of Church/State Violations?

bump

Underscores or undermines?

Actually - I have a thing for grammar - had I put a "s" on the end, it'd be incorrect, reading Prisoners of Wars - I know that's the way its said - but, just couldn't do it.