Boaravia
04-03-2004, 16:28
We, the honored Boars, do indeed support the Current "Children in War" proposal, for the following reasons:
1) It is, for the most part, grammatically correct. The mistakes within can be ascribed to everyday typos, and not to the intelligence of the draftee.
2) It is of noble purpose, and will boost our nations in their much-needed civil rights statistic.
3) Most importantly, this sweet baby comes with its own lovely loophole. Read part 9 of the proposal. It basically states that nations do have the right to train a juvenile army. We of Boaravia will immediately open these schools, and require all residents to serve for 4 years in a legally subsidized military academy and for 2 years in post-graduate civil service (that's our military, kiddies) before the age of 18 to qualify for the right to vote. Power consolidation and UN approval, all in one beautiful package.
I urge you other UN members who are on the fence on this issue to endorse the "Children in War" proposal today!
-Respectively yours,
-The Boars, Boaravia
1) It is, for the most part, grammatically correct. The mistakes within can be ascribed to everyday typos, and not to the intelligence of the draftee.
2) It is of noble purpose, and will boost our nations in their much-needed civil rights statistic.
3) Most importantly, this sweet baby comes with its own lovely loophole. Read part 9 of the proposal. It basically states that nations do have the right to train a juvenile army. We of Boaravia will immediately open these schools, and require all residents to serve for 4 years in a legally subsidized military academy and for 2 years in post-graduate civil service (that's our military, kiddies) before the age of 18 to qualify for the right to vote. Power consolidation and UN approval, all in one beautiful package.
I urge you other UN members who are on the fence on this issue to endorse the "Children in War" proposal today!
-Respectively yours,
-The Boars, Boaravia