[Submitted] Repeal: Objectors in Combative Military Service

[Galicia-Podolia]

I did not make this proposal, it was made by Duck03
here's the proposal

General Assembly Resolution #660 “Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The argument presented suggests that the resolution "Conscientious Objection" should be repealed because it undermines member nations' ability to maintain their national security and military readiness effectively.

The resolution enables individuals to refuse to participate in combat roles in an armed conflict based on their conscientious, moral, or religious objections, creating a loophole in mandatory conscription policies. As a result, member nations' military forces can be weakened, and the lives of other soldiers can be put at risk.

In addition, the resolution acknowledges that conscripted conscientious objectors are likely to be demoralized, which can negatively impact a nation's military readiness and effectiveness.

While the resolution permits member nations to enforce forced military service, it limits their flexibility to determine their own policies on conscription and military service, which can vary based on unique national security needs. Therefore, member nations should be free to determine their own policies on military service and conscription without undue interference from the World Assembly.

In summary, the resolution "Conscientious Objection" should be repealed to allow member nations to maintain the most effective and efficient military forces possible based on their unique national security needs.

[Juansonia]

GPTZero says the following:

Your text is likely to be written entirely by AI. 
The nature of AI-generated content is changing constantly. 
As such, these results should not be used to punish students.
While we build more robust models for GPTZero, we recommend that educators take these results as one of many pieces in a holistic assessment of student work. 
See our FAQ for more information.

Average Perplexity Score: 32.857
Burstiness Score: 8.989
Your sentence with the highest perplexity, 
"The argument presented suggests that the resolution "Conscientious Objection" should be repealed because it undermines member nations' ability to maintain their national security and military readiness effectively.", 
has a perplexity of: 52

[Schluchtland]

As a nation who has mandatory military conscription, I fully agree with this statement as I use this policy as a means of neutrality through deterrence.
If anyone objects this vote, I can fully understand why, seeing as it can empower nations to invade other nations. I can totally agree with that, but I please recommend rereading this and think of us nations who properly use military as a means of defense.

[Juansonia]

As a nation who has mandatory military conscription, I fully agree with this statement as I use this policy as a means of neutrality through deterrence.
If anyone objects this vote, I can fully understand why, seeing as it can empower nations to invade other nations. I can totally agree with that, but I please recommend rereading this and think of us nations who properly use military as a means of defense.

OOC: I reccomend that you read before you post. The resolution which this proposal is trying to repeal is about conscientious objection, it is not a wholesale ban on conscription.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: Not every proposal submitted needs to have a thread created, there is a good chance this proposal won’t ever hit vote. These types of threads should only be created when it looks like a proposal will hit quorum.

[Shazbotdom]

"This is a very poorly written draft and, thus, the Empire will not support it. In fact, we will give $100 USD to any member of this August Body that votes against this proposal."