Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 00:20:17
Server time: 11:39:42, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Brazil25 | FireboyUK | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Ratification of the Freedom act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Labour Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: October 3105

Description[?]:

This bill asks for the ratification of the Freedom act. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:58:58, April 10, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageThis will ensure that our military is in line with what is right and up to standard.

Date13:26:56, April 10, 2011 CET
FromRevolutionary Worker's Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageWe will agree to this

Date17:43:58, April 10, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageWe would support but we have to vote no. The reason for this is because of Article 2 the People's Party does not support manadtory miltiary or civilan service, and Article 2 of this treaty prevents us from having that law.

Date02:22:21, April 11, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageThat is what we need! What do you want? A nation full of pansies and bludgers! A good defence is the best offence, remember that!

Date05:29:29, April 11, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageSo people who dont do service in a miltiary are pansies and not brave or strong enough? Maybe it's not for them, have you thought of that? It doesn't destory our country or make it any weaker. Our countrys sprit doesn't disapper. You want to froce people to have miltiary or civilan service, then go ahead and vote for it, this party will not allow it.

Date05:40:19, April 11, 2011 CET
FromChristian Democratic Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageIf anything, those who choose not to serve, in the face of criticism and humiliation by those like yourself, are the courageous ones. Imagine how they feel being viewed as a coward for not wanting to fight, but still put up with the shame cast upon them for not leaving up to "culture standards".

I would rather have men and women who want to serve in the military, than those who rather do something else, as those who a filled with the desire to fight would be more effective.

Date07:08:47, April 11, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageI love how you use the word "force' when you don't even know what the real meaning of it is. Forcing is physically using your superior strength to get something to do something. If they do not want to be conscripted they will not be forced into a training camp at at gunpoint like the picture you are painting. It will the ones who don't conscript will be fined but not physically "forced" into doing it. Please check the definition before hand.

Yes it will actually make our country weaker. Put it this way if a nation who has conscription invades us with experienced soldiers. Our country is full of unexperienced and unprepared ones. Who has the upper hand here? Hmmm....... difficult choice isn't it?

CDP, if the unscripted ones suffer bullying from the ones who were conscripted so be it! That has no effect to this policy and my attitude does not change because are few are upset that others were calling them names.

Date09:22:39, April 11, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageThe government telling you must, serve in the miltiary for a period of time, that is forcing. May not phsyicaly but it is still forcing, you are still making them do it.

It does not make a country weaker, you are putting out there that thousands of the people who have joined themselves in the past are not going to join to defend their country? People are still going to join even if we have not be manadtory because they want to defend their country, they are going to support it and want to do something great. Your basically saying that no ones going to do that and were going to have an unpreapred miltiary and unexpereinced. They are trained when they join, we have some of the best programs to train, best weapons, and we have a very productive counter terrisom agency as well.

OOC: Just a comment take a look at the USA. We don't force (or whatever you want to say) to join the Miltiary however, we have thousands and thousands who do so by their own choice. our military is one of the best in the world, and we don't make people join or have manadtory service. They do it on their own and they neither unexperienced or unpreapred or lack any american sprit and pride.

Date12:11:58, April 11, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageForcing is using your physical superiority to get someone to do something. We are using our legal superiority to get someone to be conscripted in the army. That is more like giving them no choice but to conscript but we are not forcing them to do it.

OOC: If you don't believe me with regards to the meaning of the word force, well here is the definition from the most respected dictionary source in the world- Oxford. It says "force- using strength of energy as an attribute of physical action or movement"

IC: it is common sense that conscription gives the country the upper hand in times of war. If we have conscription, at least the majority of our young citizens have the exerience of warfare. Like i said before, tell me who has the upper hand in war- a country with conscription or a country without conscription? You didn't answer it because you know you're wrong and you are trying to avoid the question by going around in circles with useless points.

OOC: We used to have conscription in the UK in WW1 and WW2. However, it wasn't really needed because so many joined up for King and for Country that we had an almost endless supply of men in the wars. However, the conscription was a safety buffer that if we didn't have enough men at least we could get some to defend Britain and Ireland. However, conscription was ended in 1960 and all that fanfare for war has since died out, but we still have a reasonably large army.

Date23:23:27, April 11, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageOOC: I didn't ask for the defination, I know it thank you very much. I am using it in a different way. Ok? Thanks :)

IC: I'll answer your question, Aloria would win because our huge amount of army, our superior defense technology we have to other nations. Aloria surrived a war with NWO and we didn't have this policy, it's because we had such a high count of army and the warfare we possesed was greater then them, and now that is double maybe tripple what we have now. The other nation may have higher miltiary count but they would also need to have the amount of technology and warfare Aloria has plus, Aloria's defense are very high last time we checked.

You want a majoirty of our young citzens have expericing of warfare? Maybe I am taking this wrong, if I am I do aplogize however we don't want to have our citzens to experience warfare but you are saying that they should and basically putting out it is a good thing. Many people who served in war have had changelles trasnation to normal life.

You are making them join, they have no choice at all and you seam not care about giving them a choice on such an important issue.

Date01:51:41, April 12, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageOOC: I thought you might of needed the definition because you are using it in the wrong way, this is not forcing drill that into that skull of yours. You are saying that a teacher "forces" at student to do their homework. They do not! They "Require" you to do it not "force", there is a difference there PP learn it before its too late.

IC: I don't care how advanced our defence system is, that makes no difference here. There are other nations which have just as good if not better defence systems than us, conscription is safety buffer which we need to keep us out of trouble. Lean that.

Yes you are taking it wrong when i said I want young citizens to experience warfare. i am not saying to start wars every couple of years so that they can go out and fight, no not at all. What I am saying is that they will still be conscripted in times of peace but when i am saying to experience warfare i am saying for the conscripts to see how its like in warfare like conditions like in training camps and all that. I am not saying for them to be killed, you took it wrong and that is why you are not making any sense.

Yes I do want to make them join but it is for their benefit. Most of our time we are in peace, it will only be for maybe a year and they will learn valuable life skills for the future.

OOC: If you have ever read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" then you will know what I am talking about.

Date08:18:20, April 12, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageOOC: Ok please stop with the defination crap.

We won't change our mind on this, we will vote no. Other then that article, the treaty would have been really good.

Date08:54:36, April 12, 2011 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageOOC: Well maybe if you knew what the word meant and in what context it should be used, then I wouldn't have to be correcting you would I? I don't know, is it just me or do some people just never learn?

IC: Well this thing surely won't pass but it is going to a vote regardless, I won't be doing any U-Turns here.

Date21:54:18, April 12, 2011 CET
FromNew Aloria Party (NAP)
ToDebating the Ratification of the Freedom act
MessageOOC: Ok seriously, cut it out. You don't need to be rude.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 333

no
  

Total Seats: 373

abstain
  

Total Seats: 44


Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules.

Random quote: "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money." - P. J. O'Rourke

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 65