Advertisement

by Estva » Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:11 pm

by Memell » Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:30 pm
Ikania wrote:Senators, may I say that forcing innocent people to risk their lives against their will is against the right to self-determination? What kind of free nation would we be if we forcibly conscripted good, innocent men and women to kill people or be killed? I would think that our army would be large enough to handle most internal threats, and if need be we can promote joining the military, but it is against liberty and free will to force others to do our jobs; volunteer armies are just as reliable.

by Estva » Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:33 pm
Memell wrote:Ikania wrote:Senators, may I say that forcing innocent people to risk their lives against their will is against the right to self-determination? What kind of free nation would we be if we forcibly conscripted good, innocent men and women to kill people or be killed? I would think that our army would be large enough to handle most internal threats, and if need be we can promote joining the military, but it is against liberty and free will to force others to do our jobs; volunteer armies are just as reliable.
"Nonsense, that is, mister, nonsense! We as a sovereign entity have every right to mandate our citizens be ready to defend our country and our people. It may be right that conscription infringes upon an individual´s freedom, but for there to be a functioning and healthy society it must be accepted that the collective rights be held in higher consideration than the individual rights, e.g. in case of war, or to ensure that our society is always ready to repel a military aggression."

by Ikania » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:06 pm
Memell wrote:Ikania wrote:Senators, may I say that forcing innocent people to risk their lives against their will is against the right to self-determination? What kind of free nation would we be if we forcibly conscripted good, innocent men and women to kill people or be killed? I would think that our army would be large enough to handle most internal threats, and if need be we can promote joining the military, but it is against liberty and free will to force others to do our jobs; volunteer armies are just as reliable.
"Nonsense, that is, mister, nonsense! We as a sovereign entity have every right to mandate our citizens be ready to defend our country and our people. It may be right that conscription infringes upon an individual´s freedom, but for there to be a functioning and healthy society it must be accepted that the collective rights be held in higher consideration than the individual rights, e.g. in case of war, or to ensure that our society is always ready to repel a military aggression."

by Patria Magna » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:16 pm
Collatis wrote:Memell wrote:"Honorable Members of Parliament, i am convinced that a conscription army would be the best option for our small country, rather than a professional one."
Though it is unlikely that our nation will be involved in a war any time soon, we will not have any shortage of volunteers to join the military. Many fought against the Junta in order to establish a free Calaverde, and many will be willing to fight to protect it. Conscription is not necessary for a nation that just fought so hard to eliminate such governing.

by Great Nepal » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:22 pm
Patria Magna wrote:Collatis wrote:Though it is unlikely that our nation will be involved in a war any time soon, we will not have any shortage of volunteers to join the military. Many fought against the Junta in order to establish a free Calaverde, and many will be willing to fight to protect it. Conscription is not necessary for a nation that just fought so hard to eliminate such governing.
Senator, my sources have indicated that Masalbhumi may be preparing to secede. A war may come very soon to our country, and we must be prepared. Of course, conscription should be the exception rather than the norm.

by Murkwood » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:23 pm
Great Nepal wrote:Patria Magna wrote:
Senator, my sources have indicated that Masalbhumi may be preparing to secede. A war may come very soon to our country, and we must be prepared. Of course, conscription should be the exception rather than the norm.
Masalbhumi? I am certain we do not need conscripts to deal with a city attempting to secede - if it became necessary our police could storm the city in the morning and be back home for supper.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

by Arkolon » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:25 pm
Great Nepal wrote:Patria Magna wrote:
Senator, my sources have indicated that Masalbhumi may be preparing to secede. A war may come very soon to our country, and we must be prepared. Of course, conscription should be the exception rather than the norm.
Masalbhumi? I am certain we do not need conscripts to deal with a city attempting to secede - if it became necessary our police could storm the city in the morning and be back home for supper.

by Collatis » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:29 pm
PRO: social democracy, internationalism, progressivism, democracy,
republicanism, human rights, democratic socialism, Keynesianism,
EU, NATO, two-state solution, Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders
CON: conservatism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, neoliberalism,
death penalty, Marxism-Leninism, laissez faire, reaction, fascism,
antisemitism, isolationism, Republican Party, Donald Trump
Voting Through The Ages | Voter Guide | The Presidents | Voting Without Borders

by Great Nepal » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:34 pm

by The New World Oceania » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:52 pm
Great Nepal wrote:Arkolon wrote:Why the need for violence?
I was not advocating violence be used, merely that senator's fear about war with Masalbhumi and its relevance in conscription were rather unfounded. Any 'war' with Masalbhumi, and I use the term war lightly for we can not engage in war with a part of our nation which has always been part of our nation and continues to be part of nation despite illegitimate group of people with apparent authority saying otherwise, would be over in matter of hours and is an issue that could be handled by police officers.

by Collatis » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:14 pm
The New World Oceania wrote:You are very much advocating for violence! You're immediately leaping to military solutions, not so much as considering being anywhere near as peaceful as Masalbhumi has been for years. It shows shamefully on this central government and I can see precisely why they'd want to secede when this is San Cristobal's attitude toward an entire people which have declared their desire to be away from Calaverdean corruption.
Granted, I, Senator Njil, am a bit worried about my pension and would like to be directed to the proper agency to determine the future of my job when Masalbhumi does indeed secede.
PRO: social democracy, internationalism, progressivism, democracy,
republicanism, human rights, democratic socialism, Keynesianism,
EU, NATO, two-state solution, Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders
CON: conservatism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, neoliberalism,
death penalty, Marxism-Leninism, laissez faire, reaction, fascism,
antisemitism, isolationism, Republican Party, Donald Trump
Voting Through The Ages | Voter Guide | The Presidents | Voting Without Borders

by Intermountain States » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:18 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm a third party voter. Trust me when I say this: Not even a lifetime supply of tacos could convince me to vote for either Hillary or Trump. I suspect I'm not the only third party voter who feels that way. I cost Hillary nothing. I cost Trump nothing. If I didn't vote for third party, I would have written in 'Batman'.
If you try to blame me, I will laugh in your face. I'm glad she lost. I got half my wish. :)

by The New World Oceania » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:39 pm

by Nixon-Now » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:57 pm
Argentarino wrote:Nixon-Now wrote:Section 3.1 and 3.2 both restrict the ability of our nation's armed services to adequately deal with internal threats. Restricting to a point that our military becomes just a facade rather than a force capable of maintaining internal security and external defensive abilities. We don't fight traditional wars anymore, we fight ones done almost entirely through covert and subversive means. Our military must be able to cope with this.
"Is the honorable Senator insinuating that we give the military the same authority it had under the junta? I certainly hope not. Section 3.1 grants an exception in the case of national emergency and limited to military installations; this is a norm for most democratic societies. And again, 3.2 has several reasonable exceptions, but it too is meant to defend the people of Calaverde from abuse of authority by those in the military."

by Argentarino » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:04 pm
Nixon-Now wrote:Argentarino wrote:"Is the honorable Senator insinuating that we give the military the same authority it had under the junta? I certainly hope not. Section 3.1 grants an exception in the case of national emergency and limited to military installations; this is a norm for most democratic societies. And again, 3.2 has several reasonable exceptions, but it too is meant to defend the people of Calaverde from abuse of authority by those in the military."
"Stop speaking to me as if I'm some fucking royalty, dishonorable traitor. Restricting the military because of prior negative experiences with its command is only leaving the door open for terrorism, secession, and manipulation by foreign interests. Also, "defense of the people" is used as a term to justify removing the authority of the nation in favor of individualistic pursuits. We are a nation, not thousands of small people. We depend on each other, and a military that is able to operate within its own borders without unnecessary hindrance is what we need. This bill removes the ability of the military to respond to immediate threats within our own borders."

by Nixon-Now » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:10 pm
Argentarino wrote:Nixon-Now wrote:"Stop speaking to me as if I'm some fucking royalty, dishonorable traitor. Restricting the military because of prior negative experiences with its command is only leaving the door open for terrorism, secession, and manipulation by foreign interests. Also, "defense of the people" is used as a term to justify removing the authority of the nation in favor of individualistic pursuits. We are a nation, not thousands of small people. We depend on each other, and a military that is able to operate within its own borders without unnecessary hindrance is what we need. This bill removes the ability of the military to respond to immediate threats within our own borders."
"May I remind the Senator that we are in session and that there are rules of decorum? I do not see how I am a traitor to my country, seeing as I have lived here all my life and have the honor of serving it as a Minister in the Cabinet. If I truly am a traitor, then I believe I would have been executed or tried by now. But, moving on. The military will not have absolute authority to do as it pleases. We are a democracy, Senator, and don't you forget that. Now why don't you goose step out of here, seeing as you are incapable of getting over your fantasy of a continued existence of the junta."

by Argentarino » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:15 pm
Nixon-Now wrote:"Stop speaking to me as a child, and stop whoring our country out to foreign interests. That's all this government has done. We're going to prevent our military from being effective, we are going to allow foreign domination of our economy. We are bending over and selling out our country and you're an active participant. The junta was bad, but they fought for Calaverde, not foreign interests!"

by Lykens » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:25 pm
Argentarino wrote:Nixon-Now wrote:"Stop speaking to me as a child, and stop whoring our country out to foreign interests. That's all this government has done. We're going to prevent our military from being effective, we are going to allow foreign domination of our economy. We are bending over and selling out our country and you're an active participant. The junta was bad, but they fought for Calaverde, not foreign interests!"
"Stop drawing up insults out of thin air when there are none, Senator, and perhaps I will treat you like an adult!" Cristobal continued. "This government needs to be involved with the international community. Membership in organizations allows us to advocate and fight and negotiate for our interests. Now pull your head out of your ass and realize that we are in a globalized world! If we isolate ourselves like the North Koreans, then we will end up like them: poor as dirt and unable to take care of our own people! The military has the ability to respond to threats in the bill presented by the Minister of Defense, and if you are so insistent on giving the military pre-republican powers, then I suggest you do the honorable thing and resign!"

by Ikania » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:36 pm
Lykens wrote:Argentarino wrote:"Stop drawing up insults out of thin air when there are none, Senator, and perhaps I will treat you like an adult!" Cristobal continued. "This government needs to be involved with the international community. Membership in organizations allows us to advocate and fight and negotiate for our interests. Now pull your head out of your ass and realize that we are in a globalized world! If we isolate ourselves like the North Koreans, then we will end up like them: poor as dirt and unable to take care of our own people! The military has the ability to respond to threats in the bill presented by the Minister of Defense, and if you are so insistent on giving the military pre-republican powers, then I suggest you do the honorable thing and resign!"
"Hear hear."

by The New World Oceania » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:59 pm

by The Nihilistic view » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:45 am
Nixon-Now wrote:Argentarino wrote:"Is the honorable Senator insinuating that we give the military the same authority it had under the junta? I certainly hope not. Section 3.1 grants an exception in the case of national emergency and limited to military installations; this is a norm for most democratic societies. And again, 3.2 has several reasonable exceptions, but it too is meant to defend the people of Calaverde from abuse of authority by those in the military."
"Stop speaking to me as if I'm some fucking royalty, dishonorable traitor. Restricting the military because of prior negative experiences with its command is only leaving the door open for terrorism, secession, and manipulation by foreign interests. Also, "defense of the people" is used as a term to justify removing the authority of the nation in favor of individualistic pursuits. We are a nation, not thousands of small people. We depend on each other, and a military that is able to operate within its own borders without unnecessary hindrance is what we need. This bill removes the ability of the military to respond to immediate threats within our own borders."

by Of the Quendi » Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:26 am

by Illuminination » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:37 am
Elon stood up to speak, for one of the first times ever, he took a second for himself to become noticed--a task that isn't difficult when in khaki shorts and a pink t shirt.Of the Quendi wrote:"Pertaining to the issue of conscription I must first say that I as a matter of principle oppose the right of a democratic state to force an individual to go to war, why my position is not without its bias." Said the newly made deputy foreign minister, for the first time in his political career weighing his words carefully so as to not embarrass the government he was now part of. "That being said of the other six Central American country only one, Guatemala, uses conscription while two of our other neighbors, Panama and Costa Rica, do not even use militaries at all. Honduras, a country without conscription has a military ratio considerably higher then Guatemala with conscription, why I doubt we will have need of conscription at all." De Montijo said.
"But perhaps we are going about this issue the wrong way? What will ultimately determine if we will need conscription or not is how large a military we want. When we have established that it will be much easier to determine if such a number will require conscription to be achieved."

by Nixon-Now » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:59 am
The Nihilistic view wrote:Nixon-Now wrote:"Stop speaking to me as if I'm some fucking royalty, dishonorable traitor. Restricting the military because of prior negative experiences with its command is only leaving the door open for terrorism, secession, and manipulation by foreign interests. Also, "defense of the people" is used as a term to justify removing the authority of the nation in favor of individualistic pursuits. We are a nation, not thousands of small people. We depend on each other, and a military that is able to operate within its own borders without unnecessary hindrance is what we need. This bill removes the ability of the military to respond to immediate threats within our own borders."
"ORDER ORDER
The member will withdraw the word "Fucking" and the phrase "dishonourable Traitor" or he will be withdrawn from the chamber."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement