NationStates Jolt Archive

I am seeking support for the "Boost Secur At Major Location" I proposed. Here is the description of it:

Description: Security has always been a problem around the globe and the every country should step up and try to boost it, most especially at critical locations such as governmental buildings, world banks, major bridges, major ports, and anywhere else that requires the constant attention of security officers to protect the interests of the people . By doing this, we can easenthe amount of terror and fear that strickens the citizens about another terrorist attack. To do this, more funds will be needed, but if every country contributes their share, we can have a much safer, and peaceful world.

I would be glad if the regional delegates endorsed this proposal and spread the word about it :)

First, it's spelt "secure", and even if it was spelt right, it would still be grammatically incorrect.

Second, terrorism is not a threat to us. Don't assume that it is. And I would think that stepping up security visibly would make people MORE scared. Think about it. Would you feel more secure if army tanks were rolling down your street every few minutes, or would you get scared and wonder why they're needed there?

Third, while this might be debatable, internal security is usually a national issue.

This one of the few times I will say "leave it up to national governments". Not because I feel that you're right but it's a national sovereignty matter, but because what you propose would not actually be appropriate in many nations.

Some nations already devote massive efforts to security and need no more. Other nations don't actually need to worry about terrorist threats. Other nations could perhaps do with more security, but have other things that need the money more. Finally, there are some nations which use internal security forces to oppress their populace, and they could do with reducing their security forces, not have us encourage them.

...

Actually, in the context of that phrase, the word is " Security " in fact ...

" Cool, we have tanks ... hey, HEY ! THAT WAS MY PRIZE ROSE BUSH ! BASTARDS ! YOU - "

* Recording ends in sound of explosion and static ...

...

Actually, in the context of that phrase, the word is " Security " in fact ...

" Cool, we have tanks ... hey, HEY ! THAT WAS MY PRIZE ROSE BUSH ! BASTARDS ! YOU - "

* Recording ends in sound of explosion and static ...


:p

"Proposal - Requiring of Drivers Licenses for Tank Drivers"

HORRIFIED by the number of rose bushes run down by errant tank drivers...

Actually, in the context of that phrase, the word is " Security " in fact ...


Only the most obvious error jumped at me... And "location" should be pluralized as well.

Maybe I'll come up with a Haiku Appreciation Resolution.

Recognizing the
inherent cultural value
present in Haikus,

Seeking to further
promote the arts and culture
in the NS World,

The NS UN
declares December nineteenth
as World Haiku Day.

Yes, I'm really bored... Why do you ask?

i couldn't fit security so i put secur :)

If you write in complete, accurate sentences people would be able to read your posts more easily.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I am seeking support for the "Boost Secur At Major Location" I proposed. Here is the description of it:

1) Security
2) Locations

Those words undermine your proposal because they are the first, and often last, words anyone reads.

Description: Security has always been a problem around the globe and the every country should step up and try to boost it, most especially at critical locations such as governmental buildings, world banks, major bridges, major ports, and anywhere else that requires the constant attention of security officers to protect the interests of the people . By doing this, we can easenthe amount of terror and fear that strickens the citizens about another terrorist attack. To do this, more funds will be needed, but if every country contributes their share, we can have a much safer, and peaceful world.

You know, I don't think you can much more secure than having three orbital platforms in orbit, each armed with 30 disruptor cannons, 4 ion cannons, a plasma cannon, and an AI in control of the whole thing. That's in addition to 300 ships patrolling in orbit with sensors constantly active and weapons constantly charged.

So, no, I don't think this is appropriate for every nation.

I would be glad if the regional delegates endorsed this proposal and spread the word about it :)

It's not appropriate for every nation, so I cannot help you on this.

i couldn't fit security so i put secur :)

Please, if you can't fit what you want to write, come up with another title. Don't abbreviate the words, unless perhaps you can make it an acronym with the full title at the top of the description.

You know, I don't think you can much more secure than having three orbital platforms in orbit, each armed with 30 disruptor cannons, 4 ion cannons, a plasma cannon, and an AI in control of the whole thing. That's in addition to 300 ships patrolling in orbit with sensors constantly active and weapons constantly charged.
If you where just a little bit nicer :p

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World