We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: The National Security Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aldegar Freedom Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2384
Description[?]:
| The TCP has proposed several changes and improvements to the national defence and security of this nation. All of these changes will ultimately make this nation a safer place for its people to live in, and the safety of our nations people is something that should be pursued at all costs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Nation's policy with regards to an intelligence agency.
Old value:: The nation has an intelligence agency, but it is limited to counter-intelligence and surveillance of other countries.
Current: The nation has an intelligence agency, but it is limited to counter-intelligence and surveillance of other countries.
Proposed: The nation has an intelligence agency that is permitted by law to undertake all types of covert operations in other countries.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve a term of civilian national service.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:42:55, March 14, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The TCP has proposed several changes and improvements to the national defence and security of this nation. All of these changes will ultimately make this nation a safer place for its people to live in, and the safety of our nations people is something that should be pursued at all costs. |
| Date | 14:15:19, March 14, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We approve just the art. 3. We disagree with other bills. |
| Date | 18:01:44, March 14, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We feel that this bills have already been covered in our past reforms. We do not agree with any article. We will not support this militaristic bill. Every military act is just showing muscles, we cannot see reason in it. |
| Date | 12:32:03, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Greenpeace Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We nerver support a militaristyc bills! |
| Date | 15:04:54, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The TCP sends this message to the leftist parties of this nation: every leftist party can complain about war, and how inhumane it is, and how unnessicary it is, etc. But this does not change one thing - that is, other nations in this world don't care one iota what the leftist parties of this nation believe. The other nations in this world don't care if everyone in this nation is sitting in drum circles, holding hands and singing 'koombaya'. This does not change the fact that there are numerous nations out there with arms FAR superior to ours. They will STILL attack us regardless of whether we're all thai-dye t-shirt wearing, long haired hippies or not. But the only thing that CAN save us from being attacked, the ONLY thing, is to have a strong defence! Not to leave ourselves WIDE open for attack! The TCP would like to suggest to all leftist parties in this nation to please, please see the blatant logic in this. The TCP is not proposing that our nation invade another, or that we should drop bombs on another nation. The TCP is merely suggesting that the lack of any proper military defence, whether a party or person hates war with a passion or not, is just plain ignorance, and will ring alarm bells world wide that this nation is a sitting duck, an open target. |
| Date | 16:11:38, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We apologise for not seeing the logic behind it. Our logic is this: if we do not provoke our neighbours we will not be attacked and thus do not need to spend trillions on defence. However if we use inteligence services and show our muscles with a "superior" army, we will have drastically more chance to be attacked. We feel that bad peace is better than a good war. We are fighting wars with treaties and alliances. Our long term goal is to have this continent united under a common treaty. |
| Date | 01:28:03, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We will not support this belligerent act. |
| Date | 01:36:07, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | Even if our nation does not provoke or flex any military muscles whatsoever, the TCP reasons that this will not stop super powers from easily plucking our nation for themselves like a kid at a candy shop. There are several jingoistic, imperialist nations out there who may want to expand their empire at any given moment. To have a weak defence, or in the case of this nation, a virtually invisible defence, is leaving this nation up for grabs for whichever imperialist nation fancies it. The TCP endorses and encourages strong treaties and alliances - these alliances are safety nets for our nation. But again, these alliances could see us in trouble. The TCP does not want war. But in the chance that other nations do want war with this nation, we need to be prepared. |
| Date | 01:37:54, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | Even if our nation does not provoke or flex any military muscles whatsoever, the TCP reasons that this will not stop super powers from easily plucking our nation for themselves like a kid at a candy shop. There are several jingoistic, imperialist nations out there who may want to expand their empire at any given moment. To have a weak defence, or in the case of this nation, a virtually invisible defence, is leaving this nation up for grabs for whichever imperialist nation fancies it. The TCP endorses and encourages strong treaties and alliances - these alliances are safety nets for our nation. But again, these alliances could see us in trouble. The TCP does not want war. But in the chance that other nations do want war with this nation, we need to be prepared. |
| Date | 01:38:24, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The TCP apologise for posting the same thing twice. |
| Date | 05:27:44, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The logic that the existence of a strong military would somehow provoke military action against our own nation is flawed. It is only when we begin to threaten others with our military that they will feel the need take preemptive military action. The only thing besides that would most likely be a large expansion in the size of our armed forces, which this bill does NOT do. Only the second article could conceivably provoke any kind of serious worry in foreign capitals, but since we have not threatened the USE of such weapons, much less against any specific nation, the chance of some foreign government spontaneously invading our own nation because we announced our willingness to use chemical and biological weapons if we feel we need to is rather low. If history was filled with instances of strong nations being invaded for no other reason than their strength, then perhaps we could agree with the Leftists. The truth, however, is that the weak are preyed upon by the strong in the world. They always have been, as history clearly shows, and they always will be. Possible aggressors look for easy targets, and it is those that they choose to invade. The weak are able to arm themselves to protect against such attacks, and it is only the neglect to do so that would allow their conquest. Apart from the strong attacking the weak, the only other causes for armed strife are, again, specific disputes between nations. And it is clear that a clever and careful foreign policy is able to prevent such disputes from escalating beyond control. All of that said, we would like to suggest amending Article 2 to: "The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first." This would prevent such weapons from being employed for offensive purposes, something that we should be able to agree is abhorrent and unacceptable in a civilized world. |
| Date | 06:10:42, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The TCP thanks the Independant Right for seeing the logic inherant in maintaining a strong and respected military, and applauds the party for their reasoning, hoping that the leftist parties of this nation may follow this fine example. As the Independant Right have said, the fundamental nature of mankind, and even animals and primitive beasts, is that the strong will feed on the weak. In the human world, leaving yourself wide open for attack or invasion by having a severely inadequate defence and making legislation banning our own nation from competing in the world wide Arms Race, is virtual suicide amongst our enemies and friends alike - enemies may see an opening in which they can easily invade and take over our nation, and friends may implore us to make more weapons to help strengthen the defence of our alliances. Either way, if one hates war or endorses it, one must see the reason behind maintaining a strong defence to protect this nation and its people, and to eliminate legislation banning our nuclear weapon production, even if we do not intend to use it in warfare - the posession and ability to produce nuclear weaponry is a safety net that no powerful nation can afford to be without. As for the Independant Right's proposal to ammend Article 2, the TCP will gladly oblige. |
| Date | 00:33:42, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | We are sorry to say that we cannot see the reasoning in this proposal - if we may present our views, we can only agree with one article - no. 4 We feel that the use of nuclear and chemical weaponry is a huge attack on every individual - we cannot assure that only military targets will be affected and we are strongly against attacks on innocent civilians. That may be also considered a provocation. In our opinion we must prevent diplomatically the situation where we are to be "forced" to use weapons of mass destruction. If we do not, we are already too late. If we are nuked, for example, attacking with nukes as a retaliation is pointless, because the damage is already done. No nuke policy states clearly that we do not accept the option of our diplomacy failing, and we are sure that whenever the SD controls the foreign ministry, we will not go into any wars. We already had a debate about totalitarism where it comes to singing the anthem and we can say yet again that forcing people to go into the army is totalitarian. Furthermore it has been shown several times that a professional army of highly motivated and trained individuals is much better than a group of conscripts whose only motivation is to survive through the end of the army service. And when we talk about the police interfering in the military we have already said everything in the debate concerning the police bill. And the right wing parties stated that defensively we will not provoke - in our views the existence of an intelligence agency with a licence to kill is exactly provocation. We hope that we have enough political strenght to oppose it. |
| Date | 08:16:58, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The Party of Moderates is currently undecided over whether to support or attack this bill. We wholeheartedly support the first three articles. Unfortunately, we aren't as excited about the other two. We like the current system when dealing with government shelters. However, that article is only a minor problem. It could easily be overlooked. We could probably even support the measure if we were convinced it would make the government more efficient. The fifth article is another deal entirely. The current system is the only system acceptable to the Party of Moderates. It is unacceptable to allow the military to engage in affairs in which it has no right engaging. We have a civilian law enforcement agency for a reason. We have SWAT for a reason. |
| Date | 10:48:50, March 21, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | Whose to say that military assistance in certain matters would not provide a much safer environment for the decent, law abiding members of our society? Why can't the military act as a secondary police force? Afterall, the TCP knows that this nation needs more police. Why not adopt the military as a kind of pseudo-police system instead of trying to recruit thousands more policemen, leaving the tax payers with a heavy burden to make up for their salaries? The TCP would like to suggest that this system would provide a far greater level of national security and safety for our citizens, and urges the PM to see the common sense in this. Afterall, who is to say that the military has no 'right' to contribute to matters of national policing? These 'rights' are only dictated by current legislation, which the TCP is suggesting to be inferior to the system that we have proposed. As for the SD's comments on 'forcing' people to join the military - the TCP is not suggesting this at all. The TCP is only suggesting that every man upon completion of schooling must serve only ONE term of civilian national service. This is hardly unreasonable or totalitarian, and will not only provide everyone with the ability to discover whether or not - afterall, one must 'try before they buy'. By the SD's definition of totalitarianism, a free country would have people running around taking drugs, having sex with prostitutes, etc. There's a difference between totalitarianism and social order, social structure. The TCP is not forcing everyone to go to war. We merely want to provide everyone with the chance to feel how it is to contribute to their society through national service. After serving one term, they are free to decide whether or not to join the military. This is hardly unreasonable. |
| Date | 17:17:21, March 21, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | Why are there articles that are also in some other bills? There is a direct conflict between them, they are different. At the same time we are compromising about them on a different debate. We feel that this bill is not acceptable out of two reasons - we should not have conflicting bills, and we feel that it is still unreasonable. Our arguments are clear and we stand by them. In addition we must express that even though we (as the ruiling party as of the last election) have so often compromised even with parties without votes (!!!) that we feel a certain level of gratitude is in order. Therefore we will make our stance clear - drop this bill and contribute to discussions elsewhere. We will not support it! |
| Date | 16:55:58, April 03, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | This is somewhat outdated. Most of the proposals in this bill have already been passed. |
| Date | 22:30:12, April 03, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Liberty Party | To | Debating the The National Security Act |
| Message | The parts of this bill that we support have already passed and we don't support the final part of this resolution and thus we will vote against it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 101 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 308 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 241 |
| Random fact: The Real-Life Equivalents Index is a valuable resource for finding out the in-game equivalents of real-life cultures, languages, religions, people and places: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6731 |
| Random quote: "If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement." - Leon Trotsky |