Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: July 5475
Next month in: 00:33:46
Server time: 19:26:13, April 26, 2024 CET
Currently online (6): Arusu-Gad | caesar8293_ | Dx6743 | luthorian3059 | Moderation | SocDemDundorfian | 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: The Adelia Religious Union's Platform on Military Reform

Details

Submitted by[?]: Adelia Religious Union

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: September 3858

Description[?]:

The Defense of our Nation is of paramount importance to our party, and we believe these few key reforms are what is necessary to secure the constant safety of our fair Nation.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date06:05:08, June 08, 2015 CET
FromFederal Heritage Party of Hutori
ToDebating the The Adelia Religious Union's Platform on Military Reform
MessageMadam Speaker,

As for article one we already have something similar in effect. (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=434195). Article two however, may prevent Hutori from taking action that may benefit Hutori as each case is reviewed already we feel further restrictions are unwarranted. In the case of article three or four we can not support them on moral grounds.

I yield.

OOC: Two questions, the first being who is the Ultra-Conservative party? And are you RPing your RL political philosophy? I would understand if you didn't answer the second question.

Date15:05:44, June 08, 2015 CET
FromAdelia Religious Union
ToDebating the The Adelia Religious Union's Platform on Military Reform
MessageMadam Speaker,

While we understand that we already have something similar in effect for article one, and would by no means wish to overturn any aspect of this previous act, we wanted to explicitly incentivize temporary military service over civil work, not because civil service is unimportant, but rather because incentivizing military service will increase the effectiveness of a future draft in the case of it becoming necessary, if the majority of the nation had already served.

As for article two, we would like to point out that as it currently stands, all the law requires is for the "government" to review each case of arms sales. Were this body the exclusive entity to review such sales, this seems reasonable. However, it would appear, due to the vague and open nature of the law, this could allow the HIC to make some potentially destabilizing and dangerous actions that could severely backfire on our fair nation.

Since you have raised no specific objections to articles three and four, we cannot debate their merits with you. We hope you will be more open to such a debate in the future.

I yield.

OOC: First, I'm most certainly the Ultra-Conservative Party. I hope you don't mind that I took the spot, I reviewed all the other party positions and it looked like none such existed. Second, no, this isn't even close to my RL Political Philosophy, I'm more or less a diehard Liberal Quaker. I'm just experimenting with the state political belief systems to see if it really works properly. Should be some fun along the way.

Date19:52:00, June 08, 2015 CET
FromFederal Heritage Party of Hutori
ToDebating the The Adelia Religious Union's Platform on Military Reform
MessageMadam Speaker,

While we understand the ARU's position on article 1 we must respectfully disagree.

As for article two while as unfortunate as it maybe sometimes we are required or at least it is logical to sell arms to militia groups that support our cause. And while it is unfortunate the current proposal in article two as it stands does not provide for that inevitability. Again while we understand your concerns we would suggest instead of trying to change the law perhaps add regulations that would inhibit “potentially destabilizing and dangerous actions"

As for article 3 as there is no such thing as a selective targeting biological or chemical weapon and we cannot condone such an unpredictable weapon(s).

In the case of article four the reasons are two-fold the first being that we believe that both men and women should have the same opportunity for advancement and the fact of the matter is that combat is an area in which rapid advancement is made. The second being that there are certain combat positions in which women far out preform men. Such is the case for medics, fighter pilots, sharpshooters, EOD and space combat to name a few so to remove them from those duties would do a disservice to our military.

I yield.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 0

no
   

Total Seats: 535

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval.

    Random quote: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 64