NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:43 am**

Hashed this out using some of the wording from the original resolution.
The main issues that we attempted to address, was the funding offices through one big international fund, as that might cause conflicts of interests for countries who would unwillingly be supporting their enemy's veterans. Each individual nation is responsible for funding their own WAVAO, however other nations may offer to assist them.

Second issue was what type of veterans does this resolution apply towards. Should it force countries to provide special treatment to it's veterans if it has compulsory military service? If military service is compulsory, then being a veteran in those countries really would not be all that uncommon, and therefore does not necessitate a unique system for them, as being a veteran will be as common as driving a car.
We decided to make this only applicable to countries and soldiers who voluntarily served, not those who served out of legal obligation.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:19 am**

Click the spoiler above to see the draft.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:09 am**

(OOC: Having dealt with this myself...)What of the veterans who serve voluntarily, but are never called upon to deploy to hostile territory? Soldiers, sailors, and airmen that give of themselves, but through a lack of need for their job in the field, remain in garrison should be considered eligble to recieve benefits from the Veterans Affairs Office, just like their combat oriented brothers and sisters.

I say we reword the first part of the proposal so it is more inclusive:

Defines "veteran" as any individual who voluntarily serves in the armed forces of WA Member Nations that have:
1. Been deployed to hostile territory or;
2. Served in-garrison in friendly territory for a period of no less than 4 consecutive years.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:01 am**

VanV712 wrote:(OOC: Having dealt with this myself...)What of the veterans who serve voluntarily, but are never called upon to deploy to hostile territory? Soldiers, sailors, and airmen that give of themselves, but through a lack of need for their job in the field, remain in garrison should be considered eligble to recieve benefits from the Veterans Affairs Office, just like their combat oriented brothers and sisters.

I say we reword the first part of the proposal so it is more inclusive:

Defines "veteran" as any individual who voluntarily serves in the armed forces of WA Member Nations that have:
1. Been deployed to hostile territory or;
2. Served in-garrison in friendly territory for a period of no less than 4 consecutive years.

I will do as you have recommended. While our main focus is injured veterans, I do realize that veterans need to be re acclimated to society and need to be reimbursed for time that they have missed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:28 am**

Droomeristan wrote:Hashed this out using some of the wording from the original resolution.

OOC: Unless you can prove that you have consent for this from the original resolution's own author it's likely to be seen as falling within NS's definition of Plagiarism, in which case not only would the proposal be 'illegal' but submitting it could get your nation kicked out of the WA.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:45 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Droomeristan wrote:Hashed this out using some of the wording from the original resolution.

OOC: Unless you can prove that you have consent for this from the original resolution's own author it's likely to be seen as falling within NS's definition of Plagiarism, in which case not only would the proposal be 'illegal' but submitting it could get your nation kicked out of the WA.

I was wondering about that. I telegrammed that author and am awaiting a response. Possible options include listing them as a co-author, or informing the GA of their consent.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:46 am**

The World Assembly,

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a "veteran" as any individual who voluntarily serves in the armed forces of WA Member Nations who has:
1. Been deployed to hostile territory or;
2. Served in-garrison in friendly territory for a period of no less than 4 consecutive years.

“Why is the World Assembly defining what a veteran is? Why can’t national governments set their own measurements? Not every nation has a term of service numbering four years.”

Remembering World Assembly Resolution #32 and its repealment (ooc: is that a word?) by WAR#36,

“Is this a House of Cards violation? I don’t think so, but you don’t really need it. Also, repealment is not a word.”

Recognizing that most WA nations have active armed forces and may fight or have fought in wars,

Also recognizing the obstacles commonly faced by returning veterans, including but not limited to unemployment, inadequate medical service, and mental trauma,

“Maybe in your nation, ambassador. Not mine.”

Concerned that international efforts may still be necessary to combat these obstacles,

“Why? How is it a concern for the international community? Why do veterans deserve international attention, and not the average down-and-out hobo?”

Realizing, however, that an internationally funded organization is not optimal for several reasons,

“Right, so C.D.S.P. funding can go to helping out Bigtopian veterans who earned their medals killing C.D.S.P. soldiers? Not fucking likely.”

2. DECLARES that all returning veterans shall be guaranteed full re-instatement, conditional upon a satisfactory review to their place of employment, upon their return to civilian life;

“Why should companies have to accept a veteran’s return? If they chose to, great, but not every nation regulates their business as such.”

“I’m not going to bother breaking down the rest of this, since I only had something to say on the bits I’ve pointed out. The rest is easily covered by the term “micromanagement”, and is dependent on the idea that all nations have a standing, centralized military, universal employment codes, and a whole lot of control over domestic business. To be honest, it isn’t an international issue, and that’s coming from a veteran of the C.D.S.P. Navy. Whether a state offers veteran assistance or not has no bearing on other states, nor does it constitute a violation of human rights to not provide this assistance. I stand opposed.”

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:23 pm**

We are curious exactly why you operate under the assumption tbat all nations ignore their veterans? (OOC: NS is not the US VA).

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:36 pm**

Droomeristan wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Unless you can prove that you have consent for this from the original resolution's own author it's likely to be seen as falling within NS's definition of Plagiarism, in which case not only would the proposal be 'illegal' but submitting it could get your nation kicked out of the WA.

I was wondering about that. I telegrammed that author and am awaiting a response. Possible options include listing them as a co-author, or informing the GA of their consent.

OOC: Unless they post their consent, or a moderator can independently verify it, it is plagiarism. Listing them as a co-author doesn't cut it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:28 am**

I contacted the author and received their consent. They will post it here soon.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:08 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:We are curious exactly why you operate under the assumption tbat all nations ignore their veterans? (OOC: NS is not the US VA).

We do not. But just like not all countries abuse civil rights, yet there are still resolutions that are applicable to all countries, regardless of their record on the issue.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:47 pm**

Droomeristan wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:We are curious exactly why you operate under the assumption tbat all nations ignore their veterans? (OOC: NS is not the US VA).

We do not. But just like not all countries abuse civil rights, yet there are still resolutions that are applicable to all countries, regardless of their record on the issue.

Having civil rights for everybody hardly equates with mandatory micromanagement for one very specific and small portion of a population.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:17 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:
Droomeristan wrote:We do not. But just like not all countries abuse civil rights, yet there are still resolutions that are applicable to all countries, regardless of their record on the issue.

Having civil rights for everybody hardly equates with mandatory micromanagement for one very specific and small portion of a population.

What if we simplified the legislation and just required each nation to maintain a WAVAO office and make steps towards ensuring their veterans re assimilate into civilian life, however that nation sees fit?

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:19 pm**

Droomeristan wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Having civil rights for everybody hardly equates with mandatory micromanagement for one very specific and small portion of a population.

What if we simplified the legislation and just required each nation to maintain a WAVAO office and make steps towards ensuring their veterans re assimilate into civilian life, however that nation sees fit?

"How is that any more an international concern requiring WA oversight?"

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:23 pm**

I like the draft, it is quite good.

If I may make a suggestion, many veterans deployed into hostile territory eventually suffer from PTSD. Maybe you could put something like that into there?

Otherwise, I support you wholeheartedly and will vote for this if it makes it to quorum.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:01 pm**

Kaboomlandia wrote:I like the draft, it is quite good.

If I may make a suggestion, many veterans deployed into hostile territory eventually suffer from PTSD. Maybe you could put something like that into there?

Otherwise, I support you wholeheartedly and will vote for this if it makes it to quorum.

That would fall under the compensation for injuries on the battlefield. I can reword it to specify physical and mental injuries.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:58 pm**

First of all

strike any reference to previous legislation, secondly how is this an international issue?

The Star Empire of Ainocra has a robust program for its veterans already, but it is of no concern to us or our people how other nations treat theirs nor do we feel it should be forced onto the nations of this assembly.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:59 pm**

"This is purely a domestic issue. There is also many assumptions you make based on a single form of military. For one, military service is a job in itself, and, conscription aside, those who choose to leave their employment to serve should either negotiate a return beforehand or face the consequences. The logistics are problematic as well, as some serve for many decades.

The definition of a veteran is also open to interpretation. I served in, saw combat in, and spent time in captivity during the Princesses rebellion. Despite the fact that my current service in my kingdoms 'official' military does not count toward the definition, does my prior sacrifice?

This is not an issue for the WA, nor is it international at all. Your nation is not affected in any way by how mine treats its veterans. I would suggest dropping it."

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:15 pm**

Droomeristan wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:I like the draft, it is quite good.

If I may make a suggestion, many veterans deployed into hostile territory eventually suffer from PTSD. Maybe you could put something like that into there?

Otherwise, I support you wholeheartedly and will vote for this if it makes it to quorum.

That would fall under the compensation for injuries on the battlefield. I can reword it to specify physical and mental injuries.

Under the preambulatories, I see.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:54 am**

We believe that if one looks up the definition of a domestic issue one would find this.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador the WA

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:20 pm**

Nigel!

Good to see you again

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:28 pm**

Nigel raises his perpetually full glass of Lagavulin in the direction of the Ainorcran delegate. "Good to be back my friend, news of my demise was grossly, blown out of, something or other."

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:28 pm**

Alcon raises his own glass in return. "Good to know old friend, I'll buy you a drink in the bar."

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:48 am**

OOC: This is a domestic issue, and even if it were to be passed, I'd like to see some changes made first. While I understand the goal is to help combat veterans, combat is not the only stressful field of work that a military can have, though it is understandable the one with the most immediate stress. For instance, I've been under enough stress and sleep deprivation to have noticeable reduction in memory functionality from when I first joined - and I'm only 24, and I've know individuals who've had PTSD from my line of work, but I've never seen combat as of yet. I've never service in a "garrison" position; I was in training for 2 years in country and since then I've been Forward Deployed to a different allied country for the last 4. I don't think I'd technically be declared a veteran under this bill.
At the very least remove the term "in garrison." It's oddly specific.

I don't see this being a big enough issue for it to be a WA topic.

Other issues: Not all militaries may use a monthly pay system, as outlined in (4).
(5) Does not clearly state what "state-of-the-art" means.
(7) Allows for nations to just say "well, we'll dishonorably discharge everyone the day before they get out."

NationStates

[DRAFT] NEW VETERAN REFORM ACT

[DRAFT] NEW VETERAN REFORM ACT