Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 02:30:13
Server time: 01:29:46, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): albaniansunited | hexaus18 | 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: Humanization of Military Practices Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Together!

Status[?]: passed

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 4001

Description[?]:

In light of the atrocious practices in place, the Together! movement makes the case for the adoption of a more pacifist, humane military policy.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:56:40, March 14, 2016 CET
FromLibertarian Solidarity
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

once again, we support this bill.

Cecil W. Monroe,
Chair of Libertarian Solidarity

Date22:09:16, March 14, 2016 CET
FromAnarchist Workers' Union
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

My party supports this bill, though we would go further to ban all use of nuclear weaponry.

Elizabeth Williams,
DSPL Chairwoman

Date03:08:27, March 15, 2016 CET
FromPro Lodamunese Unitarian Party
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageWe will not be supporting a bill that would Hurt our nation's military.

Nor would we support the banning of paramilitaries.

Daniel Lodamun
President of Lodamun

Date03:44:31, March 15, 2016 CET
FromAnarchist Workers' Union
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

How does this weaken the military? Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare is inhumane and harms everyone, including the environment. Why would you oppose POW treatment reform? While I acknowledge mistreatment could be more "efficient" in the military's eyes, would we like others to do the same to our fighting men and women? We need to progress out of the stone age and treat others well. I do, however, agree with the PLUP's stance on paramilitaries.

Elizabeth Williams,
DSPL Chairwoman

Date22:33:03, March 16, 2016 CET
FromPro Lodamunese Unitarian Party
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageWhile we don't advocate the use of these things, chemical weapons, mistreatment, but we believe it necessary to have it available for use.

That is essentially our stance on the military as a whole, "better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it" we feel the same about the chemical/bio weapons, even though civilians can be harmed by them, and we feel the same way about mistreatment of POWs, to leave it open as an option.

Make no mistake, we don't advocate the suffering of others, but we do feel if a nation believes they can declare war on us, and there won be any consequences, they are foolish.

Paul Adams
Minister of Defense

Date23:33:41, March 16, 2016 CET
FromTogether!
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

Endorsing the possible use of chemical and biological warfare, as well as the practice of torture and mistreatment towards POWs, is not something to have institutionalised.

In fact, this much affects how our nations is perceived among the international society: a belligerent country with a structural lack of human rights protection.

We do understand PLUP's and the honourable Minister of Defence's position, but we cannot let such possibilites open in terms of the broader law.

Together! humbly asks for PLUP to compromise in favour of this bill. In return, we will have Article 4 of this proposal removed, so to comply incidentally with requests DSPL.

--
Kristian H. Zackheim
Chairman of Together!

Date06:39:47, March 17, 2016 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

Can Zackheim prove whether the international community currently views us as "a belligerent country with a structural lack of human rights protection" ?

Right now, Lodamun can boast that it is one of the bastions of LGBT rights in the world. We also essentially have freedom of religion. While one may argue that some religions are not recognised, it does not prevent them from existing or being organised; it only prevents them from building schools. We are also possibly the best country when it comes on to guaranteeing the rights of workers and the poor.

Lodamun has avoided war for centuries. The Federal Republic, which was recently abolished, had hostile relations with many powerful nations. Now, Lodamun is becoming friendly with Indrala, Vanuku, and other nations, and it intends to continue its efforts to repair relations that were damaged during the last Federal Republic era. With a global war looming, Lodamun is one of the few countries that is expected to remain neutral.

Neither the claim that the international community views us as belligerent, nor the claim that the international community believes that we have a structural lack of human rights, is grounded in actual recent statements by foreign governments. The Great Democratic Republic, in both incarnations, has avoided war and always pursued peace. In any discussion of military conflict, we are usually on the defensive.

Our current laws serve as a deterrent for countries to consider waging war against us. It is possible to maintain our current laws without becoming a pro-war state.

--

Albrecht Scott,
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Date09:42:25, March 21, 2016 CET
FromNational Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Humanization of Military Practices Act
MessageMt Speaker,

We cannot legislate on the basis of noble intentions but realism instead. This bill will only tie our hands and not those of our enemies. Our armed forces must have access to every available type of technology to defend our country as our enemies won't be like, "Oh Lodamun's so cute with its bans on chemical weapon use...we won't attack it". We would support amending Article 2 only if our national laws would prevail while Article 3 is as naive as Article 1, should we wait to be nuked first, really?

Brian Hinn
NLA Leader


subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 302

no
    

Total Seats: 250

abstain
  

Total Seats: 47


Random fact: "Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned.

Random quote: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 84