NationStates Jolt Archive

this is the dumbest resolution i have ever seen. the U.N. is going to tell me it is illegal to dump waste without defining waste or dump. this opens the door for the U.N. to bring down stiff fines on countries for any indiscriminate reason by not defining what is specifically outlawed. what if i dump the chicken fat from my deep fat fryer, is that illegal? did anyone ever think of bodily fluid? where do you think that ends up after you flush? rewrite the proposal in language that is specific or vote no. a yes vote to this resolution is a yes vote to "please take my liberty and make decisions for me becuase i am a moron". think for yourselves and demand accountability for the schlubs that suggest such vague intrusive resolutions.
Heil Uphoff

These proposals are complete stupidity. Go ahead pass your idiot laws. your breeding nothing but idiots.

Your resolutions are weak, they lack clarity and focus, YOU will pass anything as long as its warm and fuzzy....

Well you are STUPID!!!! The world does not and can not work that way. I will be no part of your UN.

You have become just like the REAL United Nations....OBSOLETE and USELESS.!!!

I am doing what the U.S. should have done a long time ago......I'm leaving the united Nations.

If you cross my borders you will live by my rules....UN or not!

This legislation will REDUCE the penalties we enforce for dumping and screwing with environment. Although we support the spirit of the legislation we are opposed to the wording, and feel it will be unenforceable.

Further more we do not like the way it enforces RL US style justice upon otherwise unassuming nations who are seeking to follow a different way of life.

Reword this proposal then we will support it.

The last proposal was workable because even though it was vague the wording did not suggest any fines or other methods of enforcing it, pretty much a yes vote came down to I don't support poluting the Oceans and my nation will do something about it without the UN telling me what to do. However, this is the can of proposal that we should be disguested with and not vote for because not only is it vague but it proposes penalities which makes something that can be easily misused much like the no embargos on medicine. Jurian States is voting no on the proposal prehaps its time that we pass a resolution that only allows none vague proposals to be voted on.

I am getting sick and tired of resolution after resolution on the enviroment. There are wars going on and we stand by and complain about the enviroment? This resolution mirrors one that has been passed already. What if I refuse to comply with this one? Will it mean war with some leftist leaning enviromental nut judge. I welcome that since I would crush them like a bug.

Did we not just vote on making waste dumping in waters illegal?

This bill is nothing more then a rehash of the last bill that passed, with just enough added to make it look different.
Vote this bill down, show our nations the same respect we show our citizens, by not allowing our nations to be penalized twice for the same thing.

At the very least, vote it down, and propose a "Clean-up" bill with out the parts that are already covered in other bills. Do some research people..

See my poll on sick of dumping resolutions.

Catholic Europe is overjoyed that someone has finally taken action against the dumping of toxic material and that it has finally reached the approval stages, where it looks like it will pas.

This resolution is a farce. It would require nations to create laws that based on a piece of legislation that an individual nation does not have any say in. The sentiment is nice but this resolution violates a nations right to self government. There are step that need to be taken to protect the enviroment, however, this resolution is not the way to go. Forcing nations to create laws it may not normally create is an insult to the United Nation.

Brian Nary
Lifelong Dreamers

This resolution is idiotic. It's not an international agreement. It's a violation of individual sovereignty. This is the kind of thing a Congress can pass for itself. A revised bill would be great, but this one flat-out BLOWS.

Varin Mikhail,
Interim President of Cretal
Former UN Ambassador

Our problem with this resolution is that it penalizes the dumping of "wastes of any sort," not just toxic wastes. We feel this is not only impractical, but impossible to enforce. We will not support this resolution.

What will we do about non-UN polluters?
How can we enforce regulations on them, and will our efforts do any good if we cannot?

We in the land of Little orange kittens are quite concerned about the environment. We are also concerned about the ability of our industries to go on earning a profit as this is how much of our taxes are generated. A further concern we have is the additional power handed to the UN to control events within our borders.

We feel the last resolution regarding this issue, which was passed, was adequate and an appropriate statement by this body. Therefore, we must vote against this proposal.

I am all for the no dumping of wastes but I believe that the punishment is not good enough if you dump wastes into the ocean you are potential killing thousands of people. MASS MURDER! a few years in prison is by no means hard enough we should put these "dumpers in for life if not execute them!!!

Feel free to do so in your own country...but don't tell me what to do with those violators in my country!

yeah because not putting it in the oceans would clearly make it disappear altogether.

hey, lets just put it in our groundwater instead!

I'm all for keeping our environment clean. If our environment stays clean we will ultimately be benefitted.

Once again, the UN sees another undefinable issue about "toxic" waste and "dumping". Of course, as the majority of the people will just vote in favor because to vote against supposedly means you hate the world, it will pass. These people really need to put forth the effort to properly define things and make things clear before they just go and submit a resolution for vote. All you have to do is mention "environment", "trees" or "animals" in the same resolution as when you mention "toxic", "dumping" or "deforestation", and no matter what the hell the resolution up for vote is, people will vote in favor of it. It's really sad that people can't see beyond that matter to get to the real meat and bones of the issue and address it properly. :twisted:

You can set all the resolutions you want in the U.N. I am no longer a memeber and here is what I intend to do.

I intend to employ small children of any age in dirty little sweat shops. I will strive to be the country that manufactures the most toxic of all toxic waste. We will assure this through frequent testing on animals. (only the cute ones)

We will then form the worlds first Anti-Environmentalist Movement, from which we will send forth suicide toxic avengers to poison the lands of all you power-mongering infidels.

Of course everyone will then have to feel sorry for my country because we must just be misunderstood. After all just like the palastinian bombers, it is our only way of fighting against being dominated by a U.N. that cares nothing for my people or their freedoms.

You liberals make me sick....the difference between a liberal and a conservative is the ability to separate logic from emotion.

Hey theres and Idea, My nation is creating a law that NO LIBERALS are allowed to swim in any water supply which directly or indirectly flows into international waters. The reason for this new law is that in my country, Liberals are considered Toxic Waste. They are Toxic to your brain and a Waste of space. The penalty for this new law will be worse than capital punishment to you liberals, you will be subject to 24 hours a day of Rush Limbaugh for the rest of your life or until you have been converted.

Tree huggers beware! While Calamshan agrees that it is wrong to intentionally go out and try to ruin the earth, I also take the view that the earth is here for our use. I would suggest in the future that you spell out what you consider as "toxic" and at what levels you intend to declare a nation in violation. I support "some legeislation" but will not back a law that ties the hands of buisnesses to the point the cannot operate.

also part 3 of the proposal to me is pretty stupid its either you have the money to pay the fine or not...it all depends on the class too...if a poor person had done it how can he pay for the fine? he can't so atuomatically goes to jail? not fair....

The cost for this resolution would be incredible. Where do you suggest that we get the money to filter ALL of our wastes. Passing rediculous resolutions that have not been well-thought only hurts our nations and the world in general.

"Dump the resolution" is precisely what should happen. It is broad and vague. Furthermore, what proof is there that waste in one nation affects another? Are we resolving to govern sovereign states?!?!

You all have made my day, week; heck you made my life! To see you all fight over a stupid game as if it were real life. HAHAHA, I'm laughing so hard its uncontrolable!

Glad my proposal has made it to the Resolution stage and I'm mostly glad that it will pass and make all of you enforced by it. :)

hmmmm...perhaps I should have said something about making resolutions responsibly.....

"You all have made my day, week; heck you made my life! To see you all fight over a stupid game as if it were real life. HAHAHA, I'm laughing so hard its uncontrolable!

Glad my proposal has made it to the Resolution stage and I'm mostly glad that it will pass and make all of you enforced by it."

= I'm glad you have found this topic to be such a cornucopia of mirth Whoway. Then again, it was you who proposed the topic. :roll:

Some observations as to why this resolution was not thought out logically:

"4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’ "

- no govt in their right mind would allow 'minimum 3 non profit organizations' to affect law in their respective borders
- the fact of non-elected NGO's (non governmental organizations) enforcing laws and/or fines equals taxation without representation; no state nor people would find such actions tolerable
- 'distribute citations for dumping': this is vague in the greatest sense, as what is deliberate dumping versus seepage due to external factors
- 'use community service workers to clean up': according to this, are we to assume giving them shovels & pails??? It is the height of lunacy to use untrained individuals for environmental recovery.

Overall, your position may be well intentioned, but too many vague statements and conditions exist for this resolution to be adopted. I suspect that the number of people that have voted in the affirmative have not truly examined the ramifications of your proposal and simply assume that the concept will somehow 'work itself out'. However, as it is worded in the present resolution, it is faulty and totally without merit. I cannot, and will not, support such a fundamentally unsound proposition and encourage all others to seriously read the resolution and observe for themselves the illogical and poorly worded resolution to which they are being asked to approve.

"You all have made my day, week; heck you made my life! To see you all fight over a stupid game as if it were real life. HAHAHA, I'm laughing so hard its uncontrolable!

Glad my proposal has made it to the Resolution stage and I'm mostly glad that it will pass and make all of you enforced by it."

= I'm glad you have found this topic to be such a cornucopia of mirth Whoway. Then again, it was you who proposed the topic. :roll:

Some observations as to why this resolution was not thought out logically:

"4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’ "

- no govt in their right mind would allow 'minimum 3 non profit organizations' to affect law in their respective borders
- the fact of non-elected NGO's (non governmental organizations) enforcing laws and/or fines equals taxation without representation; no state nor people would find such actions tolerable
- 'distribute citations for dumping': this is vague in the greatest sense, as what is deliberate dumping versus seepage due to external factors
- 'use community service workers to clean up': according to this, are we to assume giving them shovels & pails??? It is the height of lunacy to use untrained individuals for environmental recovery.

Overall, your position may be well intentioned, but too many vague statements and conditions exist for this resolution to be adopted. I suspect that the number of people that have voted in the affirmative have not truly examined the ramifications of your proposal and simply assume that the concept will somehow 'work itself out'. However, as it is worded in the present resolution, it is faulty and totally without merit. I cannot, and will not, support such a fundamentally unsound proposition and encourage all others to seriously read the resolution and observe for themselves the illogical and poorly worded resolution to which they are being asked to approve.

Then make one aganist it. I swear, if you dont like it, crying about it isnt going to help!

Heres it plain and simple. If we dont dump the waste wheres it gunna go? We just gunna let it fill up our factory untill it is impossible to survive a work day? No. We dump it. Maybe no it streams and such but we need to dump it. Now what if we where to throw it in a valcano. I think we should all find an empty island with a valcano and dump it in there. Filtered of course. And then we can just burn the filter meaning less pollution and less waste around the world. Hmmm maybe i should propose a legal "Volcano Dump"... hmmm.

I think creating 3 Not For Profit (NFP) agencies per city is insane. There are two well know and well respected NFPs in my nation that have recently been involved with scandals. Creating more (many, many more) agencies is not going to help us get this under control. It is asking for problems with embezzlement and fraud. Who is going to accept the "donations" and who is going to make sure the money is used wisely? Will larger cities have to subsidize the smaller cities? This is not the way this government works.
I'm pro environment, and I supported the last resolution. However, this goes way too far, and is much too intrusive. Give me an evironmental plan that is well put together and well thought out, and I will support it. Creating vague resolutions just to have something to vote on is not right. It's not the quantity of resoultions the UN passes, it is the quality.