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: Draft
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Liberals
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: June 2157
Description[?]:
| For our defense. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:34:47, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Liberals | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | We should require them to fight in times of war. Since we are a defensive nation they will be called to help protect the nation NOT go off and take over another. |
| Date | 05:37:36, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | This makes sense to me if we get into a major war and need a draft of sense this is definitely a good idea but only in the event of war shall they even be called up. |
| Date | 12:37:21, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Malivian Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | There a different option for a wartime draft which we would support but other then that no. |
| Date | 18:29:19, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | Whoops overlooked the one that has wartime so I will be voting no on this bill. |
| Date | 19:14:14, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | nevermind bill proposal has been changed to the war one will vote yes |
| Date | 21:12:37, December 15, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | So we think that we are being invaded and suddenly we can pull up store clerks and computer programmers to defend the nation against their will. How is this going to help us. we think: a) if a person in the event of a war is still not motivated to help defend the nation it won't be doing us a bit of good to waste time training and equipping them. b) far better just to start lobbing nukes at the invaders then wasting our untrained people in an attempt to hold of the invaders. c) slavery at any time is immoral and should not be used by the government. |
| Date | 22:07:18, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Liberals | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | OKAY! NUKING AND THEN KILLING THE ENTIRE WOLRD! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST! YOU WHANT POWER FOR YOURSELF YOU POWER HUNGRY PERSON! LET US BE INVADED THEN, PEOPLE NEED TO BE DRAFTED TO HELP DEFEND OUR BELIEFS! NOT LET THEM WALK THREW AND KILL ALL WHO OPPOSES THEIR FORM OF GOV! |
| Date | 23:50:03, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | a) we want to be left alone as far as global politics go. We do not invade and expect others not to invade us. b) if we remove the nuclear option we are left with two options 1) a strong network of allies which will come to our aid or 2) a strong, expensive standing military to prevent thoughts of invasion c) If we go with option (1) we will be expected to defend them as well, so now we get mixed up in alot of wars that we don't necessarily believe in and kill of our citizens fighting wars that have nothing to do with us or our beliefs. d) if we go with option (2) we are pouring money into having a large military (take a look at nations like Deltaria, we would have to out spend them), thus we now have this big military. Other nations do not like that we have big military and become less trustful of us, and/or our large military becomes bored and threatens our lawfully elected government. e) we reserve the right to "nuke" a country that is invading us, not everyone. Thus we do everything we can to prevent them from invading us, but once they are they know they no longer have a homeland. We haven't invaded anyone nor are we a threat, thus any invasion is for either capital gain or ideological differences. 1) capital gain invasions will give second thought if they know we will use nuclear weapons. 2) idealogical differences will pause as well and give time for negotiation f) drafted fighters in the middle of an invasion are nothing more then cannon fodder. They will not be able to stop any sort of professional invasion. F is the key point behind the military philosophy Malivia has practiced since it has been formed. Once you accept this point we are left with either pouring tons of money into a standing military with all the related problems or looking at other methods of defense like nuclear weapons. |
| Date | 00:53:17, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Liberals | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | #1 Military does not get "bored" with their job. #2 What are we going to do Nuke them and be nuked back? #3 Nuke their troops on our soil? YOU BEING UN LAW FULL! |
| Date | 17:20:07, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Draft |
| Message | Militaries never overthrow governements? We where being glib when we said bored. But a large army would be a threat to our own existance. But the fact remains that troops drafted in the middle of an invasion will be slaughtered by the invading forces. You simply cannot put forth a effective fighting force that fast with unwilling troops. as for option 2 we are stating that since we have already lost, see the point on drafted troops fighting an invasion force, we make sure that the invaders pay dearly. If they nuke us then they are nuking land they just invaded. Why do that? no military targets since our nuclear weapons are primarily on subs. They are making the land they just conquered uninhabitable, not the best move. again we never suggest using this option on our own soil. we are being very lawful, we have just been invaded by an agressive nation, we have attempted all forms of diplomacy to prevent this, we have made our position clear since before the invasion was even considered, so the nation knows our plan. The result is that the nation receives exactly what we toldthem would happen if we are invaded. How is this unlawful? Your suggestion is to raise a force of unwilling drafted soldiers, give them minimum training and stick them in front of a professionally trained force. They will get slaughtered. Nothing else will change, except your policy just killed off our citizens. How is that lawful? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 208 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 291 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests." - Niccolo Machiavelli |