[RE-OPENED] Rights About Military Service

[Maxaxle]

My nation is willing to accept this proposal, as a baseline. We eventually hope to free the soldier from being government property, as these are human beings and not mindless drones.

[Flibbleites]

the ottoman empire agrees with this porposel except for some disabeld should not be exempt such as parapalegecs and the pepole with vissen problems if you can modify a chair you can modify a tank also we beleve the millatary instills desaplen

Perhaps your nation should spend less on the military and more on schools, then you might be able to spell things correctly.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Bears Armed]

As another proposal on this general topic is under discussion in the Assembly once again, I'll revive this draft again too...

[The Western Reaches]

I support this fully.

OOC: IRL, my friend's dad who isn't Korean but teaches English in a University in Seoul had to serve in the South Korean military, I can't remember the details but I found it shocking and this resolution hits the nail on the head in my eyes.

[Bears Armed]

I support this fully.

OOC: IRL, my friend's dad who isn't Korean but teaches English in a University in Seoul had to serve in the South Korean military, I can't remember the details but I found it shocking and this resolution hits the nail on the head in my eyes.

OOC: If you're talking about the clause that I think you are, when originally writing this I remembered an epsiode of 'MASH' in which the American forces' casualties included a Dutch national who'd come of age while temporarily resident in the USA...

[Fascist Fae Elves]

C. Anybody who proves that they genuinely believe the violence inherent in War to make military service morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of ‘national service’ instead, and likewise anybody whose belief about this extends to forbidding even non-military service that would directly aid war efforts;
D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;

Because we do not want to hurt people's feelings now would we? Screw their feelings, we are talking about matter of life and death.

E. Member nations may not conscript any foreigners unless such conscription is legal in those persons’ own homelands and they have treaties with those countries that specifically allow this;

Meaning that a nation at war cannot conscript foreign combatants? Your enemy sends someone charging at you with the intent to kill, and you are not permitted to turn them around and send them back with the same orders?... most likely you would not send them back at that particular enemy due to loyalty issues, but should their be another front that you can send them to we believe that should be permitted.

(RL fun fact: WWII. A Korean soldier was captured and conscripted into the Japanese military to fight the Soviets. Got captured and conscripted by the Soviets and sent to fight Germany. Got captured and conscripted again by Germany and sent to defend against the Allies on D-Day. Got captured by the Allies... its almost a shame that the Allies didn't allow him to fight in the Pacific against Japan to really make it come full circle)

[Embolalia]

Can I make a request? No offense to the ambassador from Bears Armed, but in the future can we not revive our CO proposals every time someone brings one up? I waited for the last one to fail before bringing mine back up - not just out of courtesy to the author, but because it spreads the debate out across multiple threads and makes it more difficult to carry on a conversation. Absolutely, if there's some benefit to yours that you see, suggest it. Or, hold it back for the one that's up to fail, and then bring it up. It seems like this happens with all the big controversies. (To prove my point, should I draft a death penalty proposal?)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Can I make a request? No offense to the ambassador from Bears Armed, but in the future can we not revive our CO proposals every time someone brings one up? I waited for the last one to fail before bringing mine back up - not just out of courtesy to the author, but because it spreads the debate out across multiple threads and makes it more difficult to carry on a conversation. Absolutely, if there's some benefit to yours that you see, suggest it. Or, hold it back for the one that's up to fail, and then bring it up. It seems like this happens with all the big controversies. (To prove my point, should I draft a death penalty proposal?)

Perhaps the Ambassador does not like your proposal and does not want to take the chance of it maybe passing...

[Embolalia]

Perhaps the Ambassador does not like your proposal and does not want to take the chance of it maybe passing...

As I see it, there are two reasons an ambassador wouldn't want a different proposal on the same topic to pass: First, there is a hole or problem in the other proposal. Second, the ambassador wants their nation's name on it. If it's the first, why not just make those suggestions? If it's the second, then it would be impolite (though egotists aren't known for politesse) and obnoxious to bring it up at the same time. Presumably, you don't bump up a past proposal because you don't want anything on the topic to pass.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If it's the first, why not just make those suggestions?

Perhaps they feel that they could do better, or that trying to extract concessions is a pointless middle-man to the whole process.

[Mousebumples]

If it's the first, why not just make those suggestions?

Perhaps they feel that they could do better, or that trying to extract concessions is a pointless middle-man to the whole process.

And/Or they feel that their suggestions would "make" the proposal and would like their name on it since they are their own ideas.

If they feel that the proposal needs a thorough overhaul, why should they prod a different author through the necessary paces to make it submission worthy when they can just draft their own version?

I understand feeling proprietary about the concept since you have this draft; however, there is no law (or precedent) in place in the GA to not work on a proposal of a similar (if not nearly identical in overall aim) nature while another is undergoing drafting.

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps the Ambassador does not like your proposal and does not want to take the chance of it maybe passing...

As I see it, there are two reasons an ambassador wouldn't want a different proposal on the same topic to pass: First, there is a hole or problem in the other proposal. Second, the ambassador wants their nation's name on it. If it's the first, why not just make those suggestions?

OOC: Because I'd thought that our proposals had been on display in the forums simultaneously during an earlier period, too, and that you hadn't expressed any interest in the points on which mine differs from yours (and is broader in scope) back then? If I'm wrong about that then all I can do is say is "honest mistake, due to having a lot of other things on my mind lately as well"...
Certainly if you do find any of the additional points that my proposal raises worth considering, feel free to add them to your own draft.

[Embolalia]

I would never do it to another ambassador. I suppose I wrongly expect the same. I'm not going to fight this. I made my point. Carry on.