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: Change Military Rules
Details
Submitted by[?]: Seosavists Republican party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2071
Description[?]:
| In order to excercise the utmost caution in the use of our military, the follwing rules must be met before action is taken. military actions should be noted either in bill form, or on the main page, under any one of thses categories: Nuteral Aid: -The defense minister, Foriegn minister, or Consul may send our troops into a territory with the permission of the leaders of said territory, to perform acts of humanitarian aid. A vote will follow this decision in parlimint to recall or not to recall the troops. The troops armarment while on foriegn soil will be decided on a case by case basis , a vote by parlimint can change the armarment of the troops.only if all involved parties in the situation agree to armed troops may they be sent. The troops must be recalled if the other two weilders of this power both vote to recall the troops or if the majority of parlimint vote to recall them. (ie: if the defense minister sends them, and the foriegn minister and consul vote against it, they must be recalled within two weeks) Aid of allies: -The Defense minister or Consul may send armed troops into foriegn allied territory in order to aid an allied nation, under the request of the government of that nation. The troops may not enter a nation's land, water, or airspace without the permission of the owning government. (ie: if we vote to send the troops, and they win the battle, we do not have permission to pursue the enemy past their border) A 50% vote of parliment in either country is needed to recall these troops. National Defense: The Interior minister, Defense minister or Consul may use our troops at any time to drive back a foriegn invasion. This does not include pursuing the enemy past the border. Which will require the agreement of the majority of CABINET (not parlimint) to begin and then the rule of Forgien Invasion comes into action while action takes place. Foriegn Invasion Any two of the following (Foriegn minister, Defense minister, Consul) must agree to send troops onto foriegn land, as well as a 2/3 vote in parliment. A 50% vote in parliment and the agreement of two or more of the above positions is needed to recall the troops. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:51:30, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | Resons for chages: 1. Guidelines changed to rules, it's more definte.(someone could say guidelines are to guide them not required) 2. A vote of parlimint may be held to cancel Neutral Aid.(so the will of the parlimint is what matters not just 2 out of 3 cabinet positions) 3.Armament is decided on a case by case basis for Neutral Aid. In case it's too dangerous to send them in unarmed. 4. The vote on aid of allies will be held while action is being taken so that we are not letting our allies be defeated while we talk in parlimint. 5. Troops will be recalled if 50% of the ally they are going to don't want them. 6. To take advantage of a retreating enemy, action will continue (if most of the cabinet agrees) while we vote wheather or not to stop. |
| Date | 18:58:05, June 19, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | I'm not happy about 3 or 6. 3) Neutral Aid is just that: Neutral. The entire purpose of Neutral Aid is to help save the lives of civilians without taking a part in the combat. tell me how charging in there with guns drawn is going to accomplish that. entering a tense region with guns may be interpreted any one of a number of ways by anyone who wants to be an enemy. there is no way to mistake unarmed men helping civilians as an invasion, or as an army getting ready to help one side of the fighting. Neutral Aid is for when we do not want to pick a side to the fighting, but still want to help innocents get to safety. one bullet from an eager new recruit will make one side of the war think we are there to fight them, and that will draw us into the combat. If you want to stay Neutral, arming them is not the way to go. If you want to arm them, declare it as an act of Allied Aid. You can't expect to have both. Claiming to not be taking a side in the fight does not work too well when we open fire. |
| Date | 19:01:14, June 19, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | 6) I feel that putting our soldiers over enemy lines should be treated the same, whether or not they attacked us first. An invasion of foriegn soil should not be the automatic answer, it should be the option we must vote on to continue. If they are retreating back to their border, then they have been defeated. If they have been defeated, they may be willing to settle on a peaceful agreement. a peaceful agreement should not be jepordized because we couldn't vote fast enough to recall the troops. |
| Date | 02:19:05, June 20, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | As the other one has just passed, it seems that this is a moot point. |
| Date | 05:43:01, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | True. |
| Date | 11:57:07, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | 6) But it still requires over 5 positions of cabinet to start which would be quick not having up to wait 8 months (OOC:thats the time it takes for a bill isn't it?) while they rebuild their army so they can attack us again. 3) You're working under the false presumtion that everyone in the world is as noble as you. You think noone would attack unarmed people well that's wrong if they use terror tactics then they would be looking for large groups of people who can't fight back then boom 20, 50 maybe even 100 dead luthorians then will you agree? Do people have to die because they can't fight back before you will agree? (OOC: NFP you're killing imaginary people here! :D) You said "to help save the lives of civilians without taking a part in the combat. tell me how charging in there with guns drawn is going to accomplish that." how would it be any help to send more helpless people in there. Would they not be better on there own, why do they need unarmed soldiers who don't even know the place!? We are merely leaving all the options open. If it's neutral aid it will be with agreement of both sides, well if they allow our troops to have guns then we shouldn't be restricted by our laws to allow them to protect themselves. I don't think this is a moot point, but I'll wait till I read more opinions before I send it to vote. |
| Date | 12:41:50, June 20, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | 'All the options' may include drawing us into a war that we don't want. It's all too easy for any side that wants to pick a fight to point at our armed soldiers landing on a nearby beach as an invasion, and declare war on us. (even if they were just on their way to feed some refugees) if we stay unarmed in that situation, there is no way to mistake our Nuteral status, and the enemy would much rather spend their time and energy killing the enemy, instead of just some charity workers here to help the civilians. |
| Date | 22:37:27, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | But if all we wanted was to give charity, why not send in the charity workers. Our army is not a relief group: It's a fighting killing machin. Thats what CAID(Stands for Commonwealth Agency for International Development) is for. At most, our military should supply security, or let the aid workers use our ships. Our men are meant to defend and attack, not pass out candy(because no matter how hard they want to be, they just don't have suffecient training or knowledge). Let the soldiers do their job, and the aid workers do theirs. |
| Date | 00:44:48, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | We agree with the AMTM (world implodes). |
| Date | 22:15:33, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | ok to vote! |
| Date | 23:05:01, June 21, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | look, if you have something wrong with using our troops to do good deeds, then don't use the Neutral Aid part of the proposal. But the option should always be open to use the resources we have to help others, even at our own risk. you don't have to do that. you can use our men exclusively to charce into fragile situations with guns blazing, I just think the option to respond to situations more delacitely should exist. |
| Date | 13:02:01, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | ok added "only if all involved parties in the situation agree to armed troops may they be sent" to neutral aid is that better? |
| Date | 19:39:50, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | ok, that will be fine. |
| Date | 20:21:04, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | THATS WHAT I SAID! Of course, the NFP agrees with the Seosavists. Also, the military can be used for peaceful missions, but that is not what it is geared towards. The military is a FIGHTING machine. Our government has many other groups that are better equipped for reconstruction and aid. |
| Date | 21:36:57, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | yay to vote then |
| Date | 22:26:48, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | i simply don't care, yes is a bigger word than no, thus its easier to click, so i shall :D |
| Date | 03:42:10, June 24, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | no, that is not what you said |
| Date | 03:43:09, June 24, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Change Military Rules |
| Message | and i'm still not entirely convinced that neutral aid should have the option to include guns. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 405 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 187 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 107 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together, and if we are to live together we have to talk." - Eleanor Roosevelt |