Yes, I did vote for the current resolution. However, I do not see the merits of the document. Does it actually plan to do something? Will anything happen as a result of it? Isn't it simply an articulation of rights which we already know? I don't understand. :roll:
Yes, I did vote for the current resolution. However, I do not see the merits of the document. Does it actually plan to do something? Will anything happen as a result of it? Isn't it simply an articulation of rights which we already know? I don't understand. :roll:
Yes. those are questions that we subject a proposal, or a resolution to. Those of us who decide those questions have been satisfied generally vote yes, and those who do not vote against. Those who still remain unconvinced of the argument either way, abstain.
As you are a young nation, it is perhaps too much to expect that you digest all the arguments made in the forum over the last few days (weeks, years, decades, my ghooood it goes on and on *weeps*). Before voting. For future reference, the general rule is, ask questions first, then act, as opposed to the other way around.
Yours pompously,
G.P. Punkachu.
Frisbeeteria
20-02-2004, 15:14
Isn't it simply an articulation of rights which we already know?
Does it actually plan to do something?
It is an articulation of rights you already ASSUME you know. The UN has never passed a resolution defining its own sphere of influence, a mistake we wanted to see corrected. There is an extensive discussion of this issue here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123088). Check it out, please.
In the meantime, answer me this. Why does it have to DO something? Is there a requirement that all resolutions inflict damage to nations that don't want to be damaged? As a libertarian, I believe that is more important to define what the government can't do than to grant it permission to actually interfere. This UN hasn't seen enough of those sorts of proposals, in my opinion. It's time for a change.