NationStates Jolt Archive

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=military%20recruitment%20limit

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild


Description: 1. ALARMED at the aggressiveness and activity of military recruiters to educational institutions.

2. NOTING the techniques, gifts, and promises employed by these recruiters in order to take advantage of non-adults (an adult is stated as someone at or over the age of 18).

3. NOTING the disturbing trend for targeted age groups dropping.

4. ESTABLISHES the right of educational institutions to bar any sort of military recruiter for any period of time, either via a school board order, building principal order or a school-wide vote successfully passing.

5. ESTABLISHING that a principals order may be overridden by the school board which may be overridden by a school-wide vote.

6. EXEMPTS clause 4 under any one condition:
a. The Institution is receiving federal funds (state and local funds do NOT qualify);
b. The country is under a high risk for an invasion or the country is currently under invasion.

7. URGES all nations to consider the physical and mental suffering of war, and the idea of a loved one participating in one.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 124 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Mar 20 2006


I welcome everyone's constructive critisicm on how to improve and/or change this proposal.

This is an interesting idea, but I don't feel it really will attract a great deal of support. The first problem is its rather arbitrary definition of adulthood. Not all nations measure age nor maturity in the same way, so a broader and more comprehensive qualification of what is meant by the term "adult" would be required.

Description: 1. ALARMED at the aggressiveness and activity of military recruiters to educational institutions.

2. NOTING the techniques, gifts, and promises employed by these recruiters in order to take advantage of non-adults (an adult is stated as someone at or over the age of 18).

I'm not quite sure what is meant by clause 3.

3. NOTING the disturbing trend for targeted age groups dropping.

This is a worthy idea, but the notion of how educational systems operate is too narrow. Not all education systems use school boards nor even principals. Equally, could you be a bit more precise as to the meaning of "school-wide vote". Does this mean student democracy?

4. ESTABLISHES the right of educational institutions to bar any sort of military recruiter for any period of time, either via a school board order, building principal order or a school-wide vote successfully passing.

Again, subject to the same difficulties of clause 4 is clause 5.

5. ESTABLISHING that a principals order may be overridden by the school board which may be overridden by a school-wide vote.

6. EXEMPTS clause 4 under any one condition:
a. The Institution is receiving federal funds (state and local funds do NOT qualify);
b. The country is under a high risk for an invasion or the country is currently under invasion.

My concerns about clause 6 are that:
-sub-clause a, effectively means that students are under federal control. Equally, some education systems are state monopolies (are own is 95% state schools to 5% private schools).
-sub-clause b is acceptable, but "high risk for invasion" might be intensified by wide-scale mobilisation, which would be somewhat self-defeating.

7. URGES all nations to consider the physical and mental suffering of war, and the idea of a loved one participating in one.

Nothing wrong with this clause, per se, but it is slightly superfluous.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I don't see this as an international issue. How we recruit troops is of no consequence; it is how they act, in international combat, that is of relevance to the UN.

People really have to stop basing proposals on RL issues in their home nations.

thank you for your opinion compadria.


3. NOTING the disturbing trend for targeted age groups dropping.


I meant that they first target high school students, then junior high school students and sometimes even elementary school students. I note this as distrubing because of difference in their age from 18 (adulthood) when it is legal to enlist.


4. ESTABLISHES the right of educational institutions to bar any sort of military recruiter for any period of time, either via a school board order, building principal order or a school-wide vote successfully passing.

This is a worthy idea, but the notion of how educational systems operate is too narrow. Not all education systems use school boards nor even principals. Equally, could you be a bit more precise as to the meaning of "school-wide vote". Does this mean student democracy?


I meant that the parents of the students vote, not the students themselves. And yes, their is a problem with how different school are run, which will mean the clause will have to be revised.


My concerns about clause 6 are that:
-sub-clause a, effectively means that students are under federal control. Equally, some education systems are state monopolies (are own is 95% state schools to 5% private schools).
-sub-clause b is acceptable, but "high risk for invasion" might be intensified by wide-scale mobilisation, which would be somewhat self-defeating.


usually schools are mainly paid by the taxpayers who are in that district and each year a budget is voted upon which will either increase or decrease the spending. federal funds are recieved by most schools but sometimes pale in comparision with that combined assets of the taxpayers. clause 6b will have to be revised yes.

I meant that they first target high school students, then junior high school students and sometimes even elementary school students. I note this as distrubing because of difference in their age from 18 (adulthood) when it is legal to enlist.

Where?

I meant that the parents of the students vote, not the students themselves. And yes, their is a problem with how different school are run, which will mean the clause will have to be revised.

Where?

usually schools are mainly paid by the taxpayers who are in that district and each year a budget is voted upon which will either increase or decrease the spending. federal funds are recieved by most schools but sometimes pale in comparision with that combined assets of the taxpayers. clause 6b will have to be revised yes.

Where?

in the US, however it will be different for many other countries ,which is exactly why this is a first draft ;)

in the US, however it will be different for many other countries ,which is exactly why this shouldn't be the subject of a NS UN proposal. ;)

Fixed. ;)

it just needs revising. give it time.

it just needs revising. give it time.


*shrug* It's your time that'll be wasted, I suppose.

No interest. This is not something that need concern the international community in my opinion.

Yup! the UN has no business sticking its nose into how I recruit soldiers. When the UN ponies up money to train, and pay my soldiers, then maybe I'd consent to let them have a say...GAHHHH! What the hell! I almost became a fluffy! Correction...The UN can have a say, when they have a larger military than I, and can successfully invade my country, and place its jackbooted heel on my dead neck!
Excelsior,
Emperor Captain Spaulding I
Emperor
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine.

the card please...http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/catgirl4.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/catgirl4.jpg

the card please...http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/catgirl4.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/catgirl4.jpg

Isn't that one of the Wilde Academy's students?

Another problem: This seems to be based on dealing with voluntary recruitment, but there are certainly nations within the NSUN that require compulsory 'national service' by their younger citizens and in which explaining what that entails in advance would probably be the normal policy...

However, this has given me the idea for a proposal about another aspect of recruitment, one that does have international connotations, for which I'll create a first draft version this evening or tomorrow & try to get posted -- in a thread of its own -- on Monday.

Hello,
We use nonmilitary conscription extensively, our army would be too impractically huge otherwise, we require service in either the police, anti-piracy, construction, medical, emergency, foreign service, or military corps. This would limit us severely. As part of our general conscription we require one year of military service and two years of continued military service, or joining the other corps for two years. This is in addition to two weeks of either military or general service to the populace for the rest of your life up to retirement.
We reserve the right to recruit as we see fit. Part of our service forces people to learn up to equivalency in high school with no choice. It also includes extensive training. We wish to have educated fighting citizens.
This act would limit our ability to do so.

Regards,

Myles Ming Brown, Commonarch

This resolution would cause nothing but problems. I sincerely hope that it is killed.

Hello,
We use nonmilitary conscription extensively, our army would be too impractically huge otherwise, we require service in either the police, anti-piracy, construction, medical, emergency, foreign service, or military corps. This would limit us severely. As part of our general conscription we require one year of military service and two years of continued military service, or joining the other corps for two years. This is in addition to two weeks of either military or general service to the populace for the rest of your life up to retirement.
We reserve the right to recruit as we see fit. Part of our service forces people to learn up to equivalency in high school with no choice. It also includes extensive training. We wish to have educated fighting citizens.
This act would limit our ability to do so.

Regards,

Myles Ming Brown, Commonarch

Now before I reply, let me make my nation's stance clear: We are not particularly supportive of this act, not out of opposition to its principles, but simply because it would require so much legalese to become applicable to all member states and relevant circumstances, that a consensual draft would be impossible in our opinion.

Yet, we do wish to express some concerns about the positions of the honourable delegate of Commonalitarianism. The idea of compelling citizenry to join, at the discretion of the state, without clear exceptions, is somewhat questionable in our opinion, because it violates the rights of those who may oppose the notion of service to the armed services or to a government they may not support. Equally, the maintenance of such a large-scale force at all times might de-stabilise local regions subject to existing tensions, if it provokes brinksmanship and conflict.

Therefore, we state that our opposition is somewhat different than that of the honourable delegate.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with my esteemed colegues and get on this nice soap box for a moment. If you can't base your ideas on the REAL WORLD then what else can you base it on? You can't use the RW as a crutch, but a whole lot of things wouldn't stand the light of day around here if they were completely divorced from events in the RW that inspired them, either directly or indirectly.

Therefore: I believe this is not an international issue. It would certanly make a good regional issue but not a national one. The problem is that it is based on a number of assumptions that are not common among all nationstates. Change the parameters, for example a voluntary or a drafted military, definitions on the right of free speach, and all the arguments for the resolution warp and twist way out of proportion.

BTW, there is an issue out there that targets kids far younger than high school for the military, although offhand I forget which one does that.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with my esteemed colegues and get on this nice soap box for a moment. If you can't base your ideas on the REAL WORLD then what else can you base it on?Drawing from real world experiences or issues for inspiration is one thing. Making a Proposal as a thinly veiled attempt to make a political statement is something else entirely.

Also, just because something is an issue in the real world doesn't mean it's an issue in the NS world.

Well, I certainly wouldn't like military recruiers marching around my school, convincing all the idiots to join the army. On the flip side though, it is recruitment, not conscription, which means it really isn't a huge deal. Secondly, keeping recruiters out of schools won't make a huge difference, anybody who stumbles across a recruiter and is dumb enough to join the army on a whim has it coming. All that aside, this issue just seems below the UN, it just isn't important enough to clutter up the proposals.

Drawing from real world experiences or issues for inspiration is one thing. Making a Proposal as a thinly veiled attempt to make a political statement is something else entirely.

Also, just because something is an issue in the real world doesn't mean it's an issue in the NS world.

What Hack said. In addition, though, this is a national issue in the US (or, more accurately, an issue brought up by some whiny Harvard law professors, and they lost the case anyway), not an international one. It's got no place here.

I don't see this as an international issue. How we recruit troops is of no consequence; it is how they act, in international combat, that is of relevance to the UN.

Would agree with the delagte from Gruenberg that the UN has no part in how a nation builds it's military just how they might use it.

Well, I certainly wouldn't like military recruiers marching around my school, convincing all the idiots to join the army.

Then this means they need to ban any group coming to a school to present anything from coming into the schools. Any business that wants to recruit employees even colleges coming to lower level schools. As any of these may be seen as having their own agenda pushing some ideal.. Thus don't just ban military recruiters ban them all.. Even in the sports areas... as it only way to keep the wrong people from using the schools to promote their evil agendas.

OOC: And I could not agree more on them convincing idiots to join the army as served 20 years and had a few idiots had to deal with that; wished had not been there.... many didn't last long in Viet Nam.... and don't think many idiots last long in Iraq today.

IC: Only way to solve the issue of a military is a mandatory draft and time for all to serve as part of the requirement of them being a citizen of any nation. As if they can't defend their own rights then why should anyone else care what rights they have.

[OOC: I hate it hate it hate it!!! when U.S. leftists use this game to correct perceived problems in the United States. I mean, the D.C.-voting proposal from a while back was bad enough, but the law schools in question here are in direct contravention of U.S. law here; they have no excuse for their actions. If they get federal funding, they can't discriminate against the U.S. Armed Services. Period. Now, if they wanted to give back all those tax dollars they've been illegally sucking out of us for years, they'd be perfectly free to discriminate against the military, just as they accuse the military of doing to gays. So there's absolutely no need to use the NSUN as your punching-bag, Mr. Klashonite. ... Yeah, I know, this political rant has nothing to do with the NSUN, but neither does this proposal. Grrrrrr!!!! :mad:]

Compadria, am I to understand that your government opposes the draft? How do you expect your nation to respond to a national emergency in the absence of a substantial volunteer corps?

Kenny, I understand your rant (and agree fully), but let's stay on topic here. As much fun as it'd be to rip into, say, Yale, this really isn't the forum for it.

I only wish the thread-starter had stayed "on topic" when he posted here in the first place. This "proposal" has nothing to do with the NSUN; only the player's RL political frustrations.

Drawing from real world experiences or issues for inspiration is one thing. Making a Proposal as a thinly veiled attempt to make a political statement is something else entirely.

Also, just because something is an issue in the real world doesn't mean it's an issue in the NS world.

OK here I agree completely. The issue has to inspire, but neither dictate nor drive. Personally I think that if you strip out the specific references to the RW, adjust it for general national categories this would make a great issue. Unfortunately it can't make a great UN resolution.

(Perhaps I should work on this as an issue. I can easily see one option being the adoption of subliminal pro-military messages in the classroom ... FROM KINDERGRADEN! Oh I love the potential ability for NS to be EVIL. :D )

(Perhaps I should work on this as an issue. I can easily see one option being the adoption of subliminal pro-military messages in the classroom ... FROM KINDERGRADEN! Oh I love the potential ability for NS to be EVIL. :D )Sort of have that already, except it's using genetic manipulation to breed "super-soldiers".

As for this Proposal, well, someone could make a workable submission out of this. I wouldn't vote for it, but it'd get the fluffy vote, I'm sure.

Sort of have that already, except it's using genetic manipulation to breed "super-soldiers".
And the "Karate Kids cause controversy" issue.

Compadria, am I to understand that your government opposes the draft? How do you expect your nation to respond to a national emergency in the absence of a substantial volunteer corps?

We capitulate:p

No, on a serious note we simply retain a large reserve militia. We aren't opposed to drafts, just to peace-time drafts and compulsory inclusion into the armed services regardless of personal beliefs (even for conscientious objectors).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Yet, we do wish to express some concerns about the positions of the honourable delegate of Commonalitarianism. The idea of compelling citizenry to join, at the discretion of the state, without clear exceptions, is somewhat questionable in our opinion, because it violates the rights of those who may oppose the notion of service to the armed services or to a government they may not support. Equally, the maintenance of such a large-scale force at all times might de-stabilise local regions subject to existing tensions, if it provokes brinksmanship and conflict.

St Edmund has a similar policy to Commonalitarianism in this respect, but we don't actually force people to serve: It's just that those who won't serve the nation for a while can't claim the right to be counted as full citizens, with the rights to vote & stand in elections.