NationStates Jolt Archive

"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.’ "

This is absolutely ridiculous! My nations country has many towns with fewer than 500 people, some less than 100. The idea that they must have at least 3 non-profit "cleaning" organizations is clearly illogical. Also, in my country, all non-profit organizations must register. Even if you count only the larger cities, there are over 500x3=1,500 new organizations that must be watched! This is an unfair burden upon the government and only shows the stupidity of all who vote for this resolution.

Mr. Josephs
NEU Ambassador to the UN

we agree, please see my forum article on the resolution.
Heil Uphoff

The RoJ puts full support behind Neo Unita Estadas. We also believe this is an absolutely ridiculous proposal!

This New UN Proposal is just ridiculus. The UN is not supposed to be about controlling how countries run themselves. But about how international affairs get solved. And protecting each countries rights to represent their case to one another. This new proposal would just make the UN more like a central government instead of a sort of guideline.

VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL!!!!!

I can most certainly take issue with all the....ideas...found within this proposal, but I really feel I need go no further than to point out the fatal flaw in #1.

Not allowed to dump waste *of any sort* into water systems, including public water removal systems.

Were will we all go to the bathroom? How shall we wash ourselves?

This proposal is at its best, ill thought out, and at its worst an intentional attempt to , quite frankly, make us all look like fools, and cause inane difficulties for our respective nations.

I am certainly not going to vote for this proposal, and I most sincerly hope that the majority of the UN member nations will take the time to think this proposal thru before they cast there vote.

Lady Jane of Some Where Else
Ambassador

Manny and Moe would like to support this type of resolution, but this one is quite weakly reasoned and ill considered.

First, it insists that such programs are voluntary - and then issues a requirement for the programs to be followed. That's inconsistent and violates a number of UN Charter points.

Second, it doesn't provide any means to measure effectiveness. it only offers hand waving and shouts of "something must be done!".

Effective legislation contains a number of key elements. First, it provides inducements to cooperate - not threats. Second, it provides consistent means for measuring progress towards a goal. Third, it takes into consideration that a variety of means may be found that permit a nation to conform. Fourth, such legislation must consider the economic impact - particularly on our less well-off nation members.

Historically, the worst pollution occurs not in economically developed nations, but in the developing world. A UN trust fund program that works with the international community to identify such environments and can assist in guiding governments towards better sanitation would be a better approach.

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. :)

Since the author clearly did not seriously intend this resolution, it should be withdrawn.

Anyone on who can guide us on how to have this player's resolution revoked?

Ah, but I did indeed want the resolution to be enacted. I'm just glad its having this reaction!

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. :)

It is obvious this individual does not even take his/her own resolution seriously: "To see you all fight over a stupid game"

I am glad that we are simply here for your amusement: "I'm laughing so hard its uncontrolable" although I wonder what emptiness his/her life is like if "heck you made my life!"

To really show that this individual is simply on some 'power trip' and not bothered at all in this, can be found in their own words: "make all of you enforced by it"

Since this individual has no true interest in this resolution other than a means of getting their jollies, I cannot see why this resolution should not be withdrawn completely and the proposing member be censured.

Take down this man's resolution! Take down the insanity of the recent proposals! The UN has become something we all hated! We must band together and not only destroy this proposal, but also bring back the personal freedoms of our countries!

The 4th part of this resolution is horrible. The 3rd point should be left up to every individual nation to specify by its own standards.

All who agree in my recent saying :

Take down this man's resolution! Take down the insanity of the recent proposals! The UN has become something we all hated! We must band together and not only destroy this proposal, but also bring back the personal freedoms of our countries!

Let us fight back for our sovereignty! For our peace! For our individuality of nations!

This resolution is simply ridiculous. First of all, if the cleaning companies are going to be funded by donations only they will quickly go bankrupt. Second of all, once we clean up the sites where we have dumped toxic wastes, where are we going to put what was cleaned out of those sites? And last, the UN has no business telling countries how they should run their individual governments. It is merely to keep peace between all nations and peoples.

Sincerely,

The Most High Lady Niphrandl

Idiots I tell you! If you don't like it then make a proposal aganist it! Don't try and use the "it's not fair, delete it :cry: " oh please! Either leave the UN or make a proposal aganist mine!

As a new UN member i find it saddening that it spends as much time on simplistic and idiotic measures. The People's Republic of Plenetia has neither the facilities or the money to imprison offenders for 5 to 7 years its absurd. Fraud carry's a smaller penalty than this! And do you realy expect me to fine my people $10,000 when they have just enough to get by!

Now I am all for ecology but passing this right after the oceanic waste dumping law is stupid. We must give time for the laws to take effect on the enviroment.

I have already voted against this and hope that fellow UN members will do the same, I refuse to see the UN be dragged down to the point where every flashy proposal gets passed

as for Whoway well hey this is the only place where we can be rulers of our on little land role playing is fun.

Pascal Leduc Prime-minister of Plenetia

How about that!? Challenged by the man himself! Let us do what he says and make a resolution against his! Let us explain that we, as individual nations, dont want to be "controlled" as the UN has done in the recent resolutions! The UN shall recieve a resolution against the "Whoway" government's recent resolution and against the current UN resolutions which have been attacking our freedom! The only question is who is brave and educated enough to make this proposal! Step up and show yourself, brave one!

This proposal, "Stop Dumping, Star Cleaning", is the worst one since Davilvania has joined the UN. Aside from probably being unworkable, it is extreme invasive of areas that should be decided by the peoples of a nation, not imposed from outside. It not only dictates what priorities every nation should set for environmental protection, but micromanages who they do so in an inflexible way.

For example, if a country falls into economic hardship, what right does the UN have to tell its people it has to put pristine air ahead of everyone being able to eat?

After a number of a number of ill considered "mom and apple pie" proposals (the were often invasive of national rights or counter productive), the Republic of Davilvania was relatively pleased to be able to support the last proposal on dumping. Since it addressed sources of pollution of one nation affecting another, we considered it appropriate for UN action and we don't believe that one nation should build up there industry at the expense of another. However, this one is not only a return to a disturbing trend but an escalation of that trend. The fact that the votes for such a bad proposal are, at the time we right this, actually running in favor of passage is additionally discouraging. If this proposal get to the point where it will actually pass, we will have no choice but to withdraw from the UN. Either way, it will not take effect on Davilvanian soil

"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.’ "

This is absolutely ridiculous! My nations country has many towns with fewer than 500 people, some less than 100. The idea that they must have at least 3 non-profit "cleaning" organizations is clearly illogical. Also, in my country, all non-profit organizations must register. Even if you count only the larger cities, there are over 500x3=1,500 new organizations that must be watched! This is an unfair burden upon the government and only shows the stupidity of all who vote for this resolution.

Mr. Josephs
NEU Ambassador to the UN

This is exactly why I voted against this proposal. In addition to those above arguments: Why should the people pay for what other groups have caused? It would have been a better proposal if it stated that the company/individual found guilty of dumping had to fund the clean-up.

I am simply horrified by the potential problems in this proposal. In fact, it is so contradictory, it should have no effect at all. Lawyers would have a field day wth this. it does say everything is volountary, and my nation will treat it as such. I am to fine every person who happens to get an oil leak in his car and it falls into the street, where it contaminates the local water supply, but no, that person gets FIVE YEARS IN PRISON!!!! That seems a little excessive for forgetting to get a tune-up.
WWJD
Amen.

I voted for the last resolution, but this goes too far. Forcing nations to create 3 Not For Profit (NFP) Agencies is absurd. Almost all NFPs have funding at some higher level, either state or national. It's nice for the UN to say "do this" and not provide any monetary assistance. I urge everyone to think about what this going to cost your nation. It's easy to say it will be funded by donations, but do you really think every city will receive enough to pay for buildings, equipment, personnell, and bills for three agencies? Some cities will have to subsidize other cities, and this will lead to a decrease in giving for those cities. The costs will be ongoing. This isn't a one time donation. There are ongoing costs associated with this.
And who will police the three agencies? Having three per city is inviting embezzlement and fraud. I can think of some well established, well respected, and well known NFPs in my nation that have recently received a black eye due to deceitful practices, and I know that my nation is not alone. I think many nations can think of examples. Because of this, people are less willing to give.
I would consider endorsing this if each nation established one agency to oversee, and another agency (hopefully already in existence) to police it. As it is, I urge everyone to vote against this resolution.

Change it to stop cleaning and start dumping and Im there 8)

I have to agree - this act is simply too much, especially following the previous act. If it appears to be passing, I intend to leave the UN.

Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning Resolution
Kyei is Against the resolution for the following reasons:
Concerning part #1, that is same thing which is already in effect (Geidi's Oceanic Waste Dumping Resolution). Concerning part #2, it seems to vague as to what filter means and how to implement it. As for #3, that is where Kyei has the most problem with the resolution. Even though it makes an attempt at enforcement, the punishments are not applicable. The nations themselves should be able to decide what punishments are needed for their own citizens or businesses. 5-7 Years in prison - seems to be targeted at individuals but businesses and governments are the main culprits of toxic waste dumping. Fines up to $10,000 - Chump Change for businesses who donate much larger amounts to politicians. Community Service - Again seems to be targeted at individuals. #4 seems serviceable, however it would be better to create an organization that would go in for inspections of local waterways (UN inspectors?), and if the nation should disobey the UN resolution, to have sanctions on the said nation.
The resolution has good intentions of course but Kyei cannot vote for a toothless resolution.

Seeing the "state" of the nation that originally raise this proposal, I will be voting against this issue and urge others to do likewise.
The bunnies will also alert other nations within our home region to this same fact, and hope other nations here will do the same.

(if something this stupid passed I'm leaving the UN as well)

I would like to add my support to the "VOTE AGAINST, START CLEANING- STOP DUMPING PROPOSAL", the current United Nations proposal is unjust, firstly it is annoyingly simmilar to the previous one, which had fair points made about dumping in water infecting other nations water. But however, this one has no such implications, surely it is a nations own buisness if it wants to dump material on itself when it will not effect a neighbour! I put it to you that you should vote no to the current proposition, as i will be doing!

Jonathan Matthews
UN ambassodor from Minvonia

Nighttide's ambassador to the United Nations, Melvin Harper, stood before the assembly, quivering with indignation.

"The 'Stop Dumping, Start Cleaning' resolution is an outrage! You will find no greater friend to the environment than Nighttide, but we refuse to be bullied into forming enviro-gestapos to enforce laws that were created by nations other than our sovereign state! We will not back down, and will defy this resolution if it passes. We will formulate our own environmental protection laws and we will do so while remaining a free nation! Nighttide votes emphatically AGAINST the current UN resolution and urges all nations to realize the consequences this resolution will have on your nation's sovereignty, and also vote against it!"

*Meulmanian UN address on the latest proposal*
I agree with the vast majority of you here before me, the oceanic dumping and clean up proposal should not go ahead. I support the environment but this proposal is too heavy handed, unfortuantely I see it's going to make it through. Our economy is travelling strongly at the momment, something our citizens have been working hard for but this will severely cripple it as it affects every industry even industires not located on the water. Clean up groups in each city, I wonder hpw many people will have to be taken out of good paying jobs to do it and keep our UN obligations up. So I urge anyone who has not voted on the oceanic dumping and clean up proposal to VOTE NO.

My region the Coalition of the Unwilling will do it's best to Vote No but I fear it is all in vain.

but now i see a much greater problem with (point 4) of the resolution. I want someone to amend this proposal!

Modify (point 4) so poorer countries can comply. Modify the fine for breaking the resolution from that measly $10,000 to $200,000 or more! Otherwise, it will not be a sufficient deterrant against pollution, and that is the sole intent of the clause.

Also, may someone inform me how i see the stats on my country? how do you know your cities have 100 inhabitants and such?

I never knew you could even do that...

I suppose you cannot amend proposals. :(

I would like a system to review and amend proposals, could it be done? :_(

I always thought politics were complicated, but this is demonstrating me! :D

The Borderlands of Snub Nose 38 firmly believes that there is only one way to "clean up". And, although it would be extremely painful at first, it will work.

No one should be allowed to make or manufacture anything until they first create a fool-proof plan for disposing of the product safely, economically, and in an environmentally friendly way. All plans developed must FIRST attempt to re-cycle the product in whole, and if that is not possible, than as much as is possible. Included are any "by-products" created or caused to come into existance by the manufacturing process.

No exceptions, regardless of whether the manufacturer or anyone else claims the product will never have to be disposed of.

FOOL PROOF means exactly that - a method that cannot be avoided or gotten around, and will work for the future (including the extremely distant future) as well as for now. In other words, can you dispose of, say, nuclear waste in such a way that there is absolutely no chance that it will somehow find it's way back into the environment BEFORE it no longer poses a threat to ANY part of the environment?

Anything short of a plan that covers every possible waste product for as long as that waste product remains a waste product will not work, in the VERY long run.

if you are against this issue please read the proposal submitted by our free land: Stop Invasive Resolutions

The current resolution on environmental waste is so poorly worded I wouldn't dream of voting for it, no matter how well intentioned it may be.

I will vote no on this inept,poorly worded resolution.

Instead I invite Mann&Moe to write a polution solution that we can live with.

This invitation is tendered because of the expertise they demonstrated in their post on this issue.

I invite one and all to visit Whoway's nation. Do it before you vote.

Maybe what you learn there will have an impact on your choice.

It sure did mine


ps. for cofrimation check his posts on this issue :D

So, make a proposal that the country that made the proposal can't propose anything anymore.
lol

I'm curious, where do we intend to put our waste if we can't dump it? I'm all for saving the environment, but we need a clearer plan before I'll put my nation's for behind it

Does anyone really think they can enforce this without raising taxes? Will nations be dependent on fines in order to pay for the large number of agencies that will be created? What if everyone complies? Will CITES still be requried to fund THREE agencies? I have not been a UN Member for long, and joined to make a difference. Our UN Delegates could make a difference by not bringing unthought out resolutions to a vote. It appears to me that in order to have the appearance of doing something, they bring issues up for a vote that have no business being discussed, let alone voted on. It's not the quantity of resolutions they bring to a vote, it is the quality. I want someone to honestly tell me they can implement this without raising taxes.

The Federation of Glorious Humanity at first passed a vote for this proposal, but upon careful rereading of Article 4, we have changed our vote to take a stand against it.

While this proposal is indeed well-intentioned, as some of the representatives of our excellent fellow nations have already pointed out enforcing it would be a nightmare, due to the ambiguity and some difficult, even ridiculous, requirements. In addition to the cost problems already pointed out, three agencies in one city who all possessed the power of enforcement would inevitably be tripping over each other, making contradictory citations and ultimately accomplishing very little, if anything at all. On the other hand, if they all closely coordinated with each other to avoid this potential disaster, they would become one agency, acting in concert and in unity of purpose... and breaking the requirement of three separate entities.

This resolution is patently unenforcable, and would waste money to no good. Glorious Humanity now stands against it, and urges others to do the same.

Alexander Johnson
Ambassador to the UN
Federation of Glorious Humanity

None of you are thinking out-side the box! Youre all saying that it would never work, it could never happen. As of right now it is going to happen, so you better start thinking, how can I make this work 'cause its going to happen!

For anyone who's interested, THIS is WHOWAY. Exactly. I simply copied the 3 paragraph description of Whoway and pasted it here, and put it in bold type. Wanna be like this? Not me.

The Federation of Whoway is a massive, devout nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, hard-working population of 1.265 billion are highly moralistic and fiercely conservative, in the sense that they tend to believe most things should be outlawed. People who have good jobs and work quietly at them are lauded; others are viewed with suspicion.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it devotes most of its attentions to Defence, with areas such as Healthcare and the Environment receiving almost no funds by comparison. The average income tax rate is 100%. Private enterprise is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining.

Employers may fire workers without giving any reason, euthanasia is illegal, artists are jailed regularly and art-burning parties are common, and torture is commonly used to extract information from suspected criminals. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Whoway's national animal is the Koo Koo fly, which is also the nation's favorite main course, and its currency is the Kwate.

P.S. Whoway -
First, thinking outside the box does not mean "accepting some stupid proposal."
Second, I don't have to figure out how to make it happen. I just have to Ignore it. Or, worst case, drop out of the UN

I will automatically vote NO on all proposals which require me to do something within the boundaries of my own, sovereign, nation. What will the UN do if I fail to comply? Invade?

Lord Corvus of The Corvidae
:x

Actually, whoway, it's not gonna happen. not for me. I'm leaving the UN. Byebye! And here i was hoping that maybe my presence and my vote could make a difference, but obviously all you commie retards are supporting anything and everything with some kind of a hippie slant to it. I voted for the resolution before this one, but this one is a clear example of the UN assuming dictatorial governmental powers onto itself. And all you morons voting for it dont even realize that you are being tricked into renouncing your sacred rights, through the rationale of "save the whales"!

The Resplendent Dawn's Immaculate Messenger to the United Nations has voted against this proposal as it represents as clear intrusion into the sovereign rights of member nations. The proposal is faulty, and certainly would fall apart if any decent lawyer took a look it. More alarming is the fact that it seeks to legislate within the borders of member nations. As a new member of this "august" body, The Resplendent Dawn is alarmed to see that the United Nations seems to have no desire to stick to it purpose of international politics. It appears that certain member nations are seeking to use it as a tool to impose their own governments upon the rest of the world.

This is the same message I posted in another thread on the same topic:

Press Release from the United Socilaist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the "Stop Dumping, Start Cleaning" legislation pending on the UN floor. However, it must be made clear that we are in full support of environmental cleaning and preservation. Our country spends billions of dollars a year on keeping our natural landscape clean and beautiful as well as regulating businesses which use dangerous chemicals. Also, the previous resolution, which banned oceanic waste dumping, enjoyed our full support. The current resolution is admirable in its zeal to prevent the destruction of our world's environs, but it is blatantly over-regulatory and steps too far in mandating a country's sovereignty. The UN exists to foster communication between countries and provide general rules by which we rule our countries, not micromanage our economies and social programs.

As the Incorperated States of Tom Joad and Kingdom of JBRoyal have previously stated, this resolution will cause an immediate rise of the bureaucratic regulatory state. While the USSK finds the aforemention countries' lack of existing environmental protections unfortunate, it is not within the UN's realm to dictate they follow a set standard. The USSK respectfully requests that the Federation of Whoway immediately withdraw its resolution from consideration so we may continue to more relevant business that the UN was charted for.

Signed,
For People of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Famich Myasnikov

Any support for this bill as an international anti-dumping law is misplaced. The preceeding legislation already takes care of dumping in international waters. This means that if any effluent from your river systems or water table reaches the ocean you better make sure that water is not toxic. You can dump byproducts without them being toxic or detrimental. This proposal is asking for the needless buildup of infrastructure that many UN nations simply do not have the budget for especially after the Anti-Ocean dumping law.

THIS PROPOSAL IS ALREADY A LAW WHEN ADDRESSING WATER POLLUTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. AS FOR RIVER SYSTEMS AND BODIES OF WATER KEPT INLAND THAT STAY IN THE LIMITS OF A COUNTRY, LET THE NATION TAKE CARE OF THAT!!!!!

VOTE AGAINST "STOP DUMPING"

Respectfully,
The Nomadic Peoples of Himes
Regional UN Delegate for 10000 Islands

"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.’ "

This is absolutely ridiculous! My nations country has many towns with fewer than 500 people, some less than 100. The idea that they must have at least 3 non-profit "cleaning" organizations is clearly illogical. Also, in my country, all non-profit organizations must register. Even if you count only the larger cities, there are over 500x3=1,500 new organizations that must be watched! This is an unfair burden upon the government and only shows the stupidity of all who vote for this resolution.

Mr. Josephs
NEU Ambassador to the UN

Well if the donations are pooled in the UN and then seperated over the different organisations, we see an intresting way of making a buck :P.

Other wise, donation and all that, well we are not forbidding anything. So that doesn't touch us. However I want to remind more dictatorial regimes that political opposition parties that gather under the flag of UN protection might form a slight problem :P.
Though I doubt if an effect of increase in political freedom has been included in the effects ;).

Five to seven years in prison for washing my car in the street? :evil: That is absurd. I urge all nations to vote AGAINST this proposal.

It looks like this resolution will pass. The Armed Republic of Zxquej will not stand for it. Our nation has resigned from the UN

I find it sad that so many would vote for this proposal. The general concepts behind it are acrually noble and admirable. But it does nothing to actually adress the situation other than to outlaw things, and increase the overall costs of running various industries. Nowhere does the proposal offer ways to handle pollution and waste other than to forbid it. Great. Lovely.

Yet another example of sheep voting.

I would have to agree with all of you on this one. While article 1 of the "Stop-dumping, Start-cleaning" proposal seems reasonable enough (albeit repetitive considering the agenda of the preceding bill), articles 2-4 are ambiguous (2), invasive (3&4), inconsistent (3), and overall downright preposterous. It addresses nothing on the international level (which was a strong point in the "Oceanic Waste Dumping" bill), and the implementation of it would be entirely impractical and ridiculously expensive. The Dominion of Hydrogen Oxide is very concerned about the quality of its environment, especially that pertaining to water, and is willing and ready to vote or any reasonable proposal regarding such. However, the invasiveness and ambiguity of this bill force me to vote against it.

I would have to agree with all of you on this one. While article 1 of the "Stop-dumping, Start-cleaning" proposal seems reasonable enough (albeit repetitive considering the agenda of the preceding bill), articles 2-4 are ambiguous (2), invasive (3&4), inconsistent (3), and overall downright preposterous. It addresses nothing on the international level (which was a strong point in the "Oceanic Waste Dumping" bill), and the implementation of it would be entirely impractical and ridiculously expensive. The Dominion of Hydrogen Oxide is very concerned about the quality of its environment, especially that pertaining to water, and is willing and ready to vote or any reasonable proposal regarding such. However, the invasiveness and ambiguity of this bill force me to vote against it.

This legislation sounds nice, but it is not practical, and I do not like the idea of the UN forcing us to actively engage in anything. I will fully support legislation that makes dumping illegal, and that punishes violators with economic sanctions, or even military action, but this legislation is not good, and needs to be rewritten.

For anyone who's interested, THIS is WHOWAY. Exactly. I simply copied the 3 paragraph description of Whoway and pasted it here, and put it in bold type. Wanna be like this? Not me.

The Federation of Whoway is a massive, devout nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, hard-working population of 1.265 billion are highly moralistic and fiercely conservative, in the sense that they tend to believe most things should be outlawed. People who have good jobs and work quietly at them are lauded; others are viewed with suspicion.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it devotes most of its attentions to Defence, with areas such as Healthcare and the Environment receiving almost no funds by comparison. The average income tax rate is 100%. Private enterprise is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining.

Employers may fire workers without giving any reason, euthanasia is illegal, artists are jailed regularly and art-burning parties are common, and torture is commonly used to extract information from suspected criminals. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Whoway's national animal is the Koo Koo fly, which is also the nation's favorite main course, and its currency is the Kwate.

P.S. Whoway -
First, thinking outside the box does not mean "accepting some stupid proposal."
Second, I don't have to figure out how to make it happen. I just have to Ignore it. Or, worst case, drop out of the UN

Actually, with a few exceptions, this is a model of what Griffindon is becoming. There are some issues, however, that we are strongly against. 90% of Whoway's government is supported by ours, though.

This proposal of theirs, however, is ludicrous and we are still in utter disbelief that it passed.

Luindor agrees. This resolution might have had good intentions, but #3 and #4 are just wrong. #4 cannot be implemented in many nations and #3 takes away our right to decide upon the punishments ourselves and leaves us with far too mild punishments.

The Kingdom of Luindor

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

if they cant be cautious about where they dump there excess waste then they shoule be red tagged and shut down peoples health is at risk they need to understand and learn to care about our enviroment otherwise they are a waste and should be removed!

I don't see how nations (especially UN delegates) can read these postings and still vote for the resolution. I want to stay in the UN, but if they keep bringing stupid issues up for a vote, and they keep getting passed, I don't see how we can stay in. Give us good resolutions to vote for, or don't bring anything.

LOL! What about towns/cities/countries that aren't near an ocean?

:shock: I can't believe it passed!?! Ugh!

> deep breath, relax<

I do most certainatly hope that now the UN may see fit to move on to more....well thought out, and appropriate issues, now that all our water is so safe and clean we can't even dip our hands into it with out going to prison.

Lady Jane of Some Where Else
Ambassador

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

No, no, you got it all wrong. It will be in effect in all water systems!

As Whoway suggested a while back, The Federation of Glorious Humanity has placed a proposal in the list for voting that we hope will do something about all these conflicting environmental iniatives. Please read and support the Environmental Committee proposal to really improve the environment, instead of simply outlawing things.

Also, when reading the proposal please forgive the typos. Our typists were half-asleep.

Alexander Johnson
UN Ambassador
Federation of Glorious Humanity