PASSED: Veterans Reform Act [Official Thread] [Archive]

Studly Penguins

10-01-2009, 21:12

DEFINING, a 'veteran' who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,

ALSO DEFINING ‘civilian life’ as the pursuit of an existence external to a nation’s armed services,

RECOGNIZING that most nations and regions have armed services,

ALARMED by the inadequate treatment of returning veterans in some nations, regarding employment, medical care, and psychiatric care,

EMPHASIZING the need for a comprehensive and updated strategy to assist returning veterans,

1. ESTABLISHES the WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO), an organization designed to carry out the actions outlined in this resolution;
a) Endorses the founding of WAVAO in all WA-member nations;
b) Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance WAVAO in its entirety, within WA-member nations;
c) Notes that the cost of WAVAO, financed by the World Assembly, shall include the establishment of offices, services, and other expenses incurred by the program;
d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

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

3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

5. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS that all veterans shall be offered access to state-of-the-art medical and psychiatric treatment, with monetary assistance being provided by the World Assembly through the WAVAO as needed;

6. FURTHER RESOLVES that monetary insurance shall be provided for combat-related injuries and illnesses, and that the WAVAO shall work with the individual nation to determine appropriate compensation levels for different conditions;

7. REMINDS all nations that dishonorably discharged veterans may be excluded from any of the services applied by this resolution, at the individual nation’s discretion.

8. PROCLAIMS that a veteran at any time facing legal action, found guilty, or suspected of War Crimes or any other atrocities as determined by their nation, shall be excluded from the aforementioned benefits provided by this resolution.

Quintessence of Dust

10-01-2009, 21:32

Given our Secretary of State's ardent support of veterans' assistance when he was in Congress, I'm sure my nation will support this in principle. But in practice, there are some wording issues.

Consider, as one example, B(1), and the following circumstance:
- someone is stealing from their employer. The employer does not know.
- war breaks up. They sign up, and go and fight as a war hero. The employer hires someone new in their place, who immediately discovers the thefts and reports them.
- the war is over and the veteran discharged. The employer is now required to reinstate - and promote! - someone they know to have been stealing from them.

The welfare and healthcare provisions also create difficulties for nations with existing systems. For example, we have only a very small healthcare insurance sector. Most people are content to use the comprehensive national health system, paid for through taxation. Equally, our unemployment benefit lasts more than 12 months (and isn't paid on the 20th, a curiously arbitrary requirement).

Finally, I am very glad to see PTSD included.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Glen-Rhodes

11-01-2009, 01:57

The first step to successful legislation is it's format. Currently, this proposal isn't very easy to read (especially if you have eye-sight problems). I would suggest taking a look at passed resolutions and grab formatting techniques from them. Line breaks, headings, etc.

I'm in agreement with Ms. Benson on B(1). Though, I am unsure of the promotions aspect. Are you suggesting that businesses promote veterans on the assumption that if they had not gone to war, they would have gotten such a promotion? If so, it's a rather unsafe assumption.

B(3) also proves problematic. As it is currently written, all medical treatment facilities in a nation would have to be upgraded to 'state of the art'. That, or nations could only provide one such facility for all veterans. It should be made clearer, and if it is the former, then financial aid should be provided.

Furthermore, the last bit of the proposal sticks out to me. It's not needed, as the Compliance Commission already has systems in place to deal with those not in compliance with resolutions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Hittoria

11-01-2009, 15:06

I agree to all those matters, for my grandfather is a vetran from WW2, so all those rights to me are completely fine.

George Hittor, Ambassador and ruler of Hittoria

Bears Armed

11-01-2009, 15:34

Disgusted at the way returning vets are being treated by their governments and fellow citizens.

You need to add "in some nations" to this, otherwise you are being grossly offensive to every nation that does treat its veterans with respect...

Flibbleites

12-01-2009, 05:05

I fail to see how this is an international issue, after all how Leftnutistan treats its returning veterans has any bearing on Rightnutistan or any other nation.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Studly Penguins

12-01-2009, 16:31

I have revised it. plz see above

Urgench

12-01-2009, 18:40

We would be happy for this resolution to apply to conscripted soldiers who have fought in legal wars which we may have condoned, but we would not be happy for veterans who had chosen a life as a soldier to be enjoying what amounts to preferential treatment in several areas of life, most notably in employment.

We are absolutely horrified at the suggestion that Urgench's "donation" to the world assembly could be used to pension the soldiers of states who's wars we may have condemned, or indeed that it be squandered on social welfare payouts to those whom we may consider to be war criminals.

The elevation of the status of veteran which this statute represents is dubious in the extreme when this organisation has made no provision for numerous other far more deserving groups within society, such as the victims of the wars these "veterans" may have been guilty of prosecuting.

In its current form this resolution is completely unacceptable to the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench.

Yours,

Flibbleites

12-01-2009, 18:46

9. RESOLVES that the mandate and activities of WAVAO shall be reviewed by the World Assembly upon 18 months of implementation, unless requested sooner by a majority of WA-member nations.

Well now you're illegal, sunset clauses aren't allowed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Palentine

12-01-2009, 20:24

Interesting idea. While the Palentine, and its ambassador might have sympathy for the proposal, I must agree with my colleague, Bob Flibble. This is not an internatinal issue. This is a matter individual nations and governments can handle more efficiently.

Studly Penguins

12-01-2009, 20:55

Studly Penguins

12-01-2009, 20:59

Urgench

12-01-2009, 21:15

What is you definition of a legal war vs illegal war, since it seems that you condemn all wars?? If thats your opinion thats fine, but if every other minority or special interest groups get their rights and preferrential treatment, then whats is the difference?

We have nowhere said that we condemn all wars, that would be very foolish.

What we are saying is that many, many wars are extremely controversial, almost by definition they are the most controversial situations possible.

Since there is currently no law on the actual conduct of war for all member states, it is safe to assume that many wars being fought currently or until such a law is passed will be peppered with heinous acts of unjustifiable atrocity. We would find it difficult to justify paying for the treatment or well being of persons our government believes is guilty of such atrocities.

Unless and until soldiers are made to abide by international laws which prevent them from committing atrocities we cannot see how it could ever be moral to afford them the special treatment and pecuniary rewards this statute outlines.

We will not pay for the veterans of wars of ethnic cleansing or the thuggish soldiery of states who's armies rape, thieve and murder at will.

Yours,

Studly Penguins

13-01-2009, 15:50

We have nowhere said that we condemn all wars, that would be very foolish.

What we are saying is that many, many wars are extremely controversial, almost by definition they are the most controversial situations possible.

Since there is currently no law on the actual conduct of war for all member states, it is safe to assume that many wars being fought currently or until such a law is passed will be peppered with heinous acts of unjustifiable atrocity. We would find it difficult to justify paying for the treatment or well being of persons our government believes is guilty of such atrocities.

Unless and until soldiers are made to abide by international laws which prevent them from committing atrocities we cannot see how it could ever be moral to afford them the special treatment and pecuniary rewards this statute outlines.

We will not pay for the veterans of wars of ethnic cleansing or the thuggish soldiery of states who's armies rape, thieve and murder at will.

Yours,

Thanks for the clarification. Then maybe if we pass this one, then we can work on one for the issues in which you have stated above. I agree with you on about all of the points you made, but I think that we still should work on these things, my proposal and a future one laying out rules of war, etc. I understand not wanting to fund certain things that could be being abused, but we all fund welfare programs, or any of the other controversial topics of the day like abortions for example, but these laws were still passed even thought most opposed, but were later refined

Urgench

13-01-2009, 16:07

Thanks for the clarification. Then maybe if we pass this one, then we can work on one for the issues in which you have stated above. I agree with you on about all of the points you made, but I think that we still should work on these things, my proposal and a future one laying out rules of war, etc. I understand not wanting to fund certain things that could be being abused, but we all fund welfare programs, or any of the other controversial topics of the day like abortions for example, but these laws were still passed even thought most opposed, but were later refined

This makes little sense. Not all states fund welfare systems as you seem to believe. Though this is beside the point.

The question is are the citizens of your nation happy for their nation's donation to the world assembly to be given to the war criminals of other states ?

Abortion has not been legislated for by this organisation and w.a. resolutions cannot be "refined" they must be repealed entirely and replaced with better laws for any change to have occurred.

If your statute is not significantly changed before it is submitted it will provide war criminals and those guilty of atrocities to make use of w.a. funds to improve their lives. This is completely unacceptable to any moral people.

Yours,

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 16:32

Urgench,

I would like to draw your attention to World Assembly Resolution #9, 'Prevention of Torture' (http://www.nationstates.net/46083/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=5)

Clause 2 offers a wide definition of 'torture' to include the atrocities that you have mentioned, and Clause 7 asserts that 'torture' is still illegal in war situations. As such, there is already a resolution in place that criminalizes (see Clause 5) such "war criminals and those guilty of atrocities" that you mention.

Consequently, those awful soldiers that you reference shall not be financed by the WA. Instead, all WA states are bound by the compliance rule of the WA, to criminalize these soldiers. This shall link in with Clause 2 of Studly Penguin's resolution, which deems that 'a satisfactory review' is required before giving veterans their employment back.

Thanks to WA resolution 9, you need not be concerned with the Veterans resolution proposed here. Passing this resolution would not negate former resolutions, or the actions that all WA nations are bound to comply with.

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 16:36

Urgench,

An additional resolution passed by the WA recently was #23, "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" (http://www.nationstates.net/46083/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=20), which I hope will further allay your concerns.

Studly Penguins

13-01-2009, 17:46

This makes little sense. Not all states fund welfare systems as you seem to believe. Though this is beside the point.

The question is are the citizens of your nation happy for their nation's donation to the world assembly to be given to the war criminals of other states ?

Abortion has not been legislated for by this organisation and w.a. resolutions cannot be "refined" they must be repealed entirely and replaced with better laws for any change to have occurred.

If your statute is not significantly changed before it is submitted it will provide war criminals and those guilty of atrocities to make use of w.a. funds to improve their lives. This is completely unacceptable to any moral people.

Yours,

True. All I will say is everybody is going to have a difference in opinion when it comes to who is a war criminal or not, even if the rule of law was followed to the letter. There are gov'ts and people out there that think anyone who is in the armed services is a war criminal and murderer even though they have never done anything wrong, or been in any combat whatsoever. War is just that, war. It isnt pretty or ever meant to be.

Studly Penguins

13-01-2009, 17:57

Any thoughts on adding a war criminal provision to this to cover it?

Urgench

13-01-2009, 18:25

Urgench,

An additional resolution passed by the WA recently was #23, "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" (http://www.nationstates.net/46083/pa...tions/start=20), which I hope will further allay your concerns

No this does not allay our concerns. We are perfectly aware that torture was comprehensively banned by this organisation as was slavery.

But ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilians, intentional bombing of civilian targets, campaigns of mass rape, use of chemical or biological weaponry on civilian populations, e.t.c. have not been made illegal by the w.a.

The soldiery of the member states of this organisation are still perfectly free to commit atrocities of these kinds, and we are unwilling to countenance rewarding them for it.

Yours,

Urgench

13-01-2009, 18:28

Any thoughts on adding a war criminal provision to this to cover it?

Our thoughts are that laws of war must be written before this statute can even be begun.

If one merely includes a clause in this resolution about war crimes, future war crimes legislation would be compromised and would lead to this statute needing to be repealed and replaced.

Yours,

Studly Penguins

13-01-2009, 20:20

While you are probably right, earlier you were concerned about funding pensions and the like for war criminals. That would allow each nation to police their own, and besides I aint seen anyone proposing a Rules of War proposal yet

The Altan Steppes

13-01-2009, 20:23

The Trilateral Federation is proud to provide extensive and broad support for our veterans and retired soldiers. I see no reason why we should fund other nations' veterans, however, or why we should get involved in how other nations treat their soldiers. If those nations are smart, they'll take care of the people with the guns. If not, they'll probably find themselves under new management anyway. Either way, problem solved.

I also note that there are probably at least some WA nations out there who are pacifist in nature, and might object to WA funds being used for this purpose. I don't get the whole pacifist thing, but to each their own.

In any event, this is not an international issue. Opposed.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Urgench

13-01-2009, 20:37

Studly Penguins

13-01-2009, 21:00

oversight of their veterans programs

Urgench

13-01-2009, 21:35

oversight of their veterans programs

Even if this were true, and the wording of this draft does not make that clear, how would that change the fact that w.a. funds might be being used for the benefit of war criminals honoured Ambassador ?

Yours,

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 21:42

Seems that most of the dissent stems from the following view: "this is not an international issue, and hence I shall oppose it by default".

I respectfully disagree with this stance, since in some nations, veterans are not treated equally to other citizens. They are let down by the medical and psychological care that is currently unequipped (in some nations) to accommodate them. They are not rewarded for their honourable service with appropriate efforts to help them regain employment (and hence facilitate their adjustment back into civilian life).

As such, the overriding principle behind this proposal is HUMAN RIGHTS: a citizen's right to be given equal opportunities for a positive civilian life, with respect to the standard afforded to other citizens of that nation.

Consequently, I support this proposal as an international issue.

However, no changes whatsoever will change these delegates' minds (who still believe that this is not an international issue), and consequently there are two options: drop the resolution completely, or propose it and see where it goes.

I'm for the latter. Put it to a bigger stage, and see if the "not-an-international-issue" concept is held by a majority. The worst thing that could happen is that it's not passed, and that would be no different from dropping the resolution.

Urgench

13-01-2009, 21:46

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 21:46

Even if this were true, and the wording of this draft does not make that clear, how would that change the fact that w.a. funds might be being used for the benefit of war criminals honoured Ambassador ?

War criminals can hardly be employed in their former place of work, if they're locked away in prison.

Urgench

13-01-2009, 21:48

War criminals can hardly be employed in their former place of work, if they're locked away in prison.

Why would they be in prison honoured Ambassador ? As yet no law makes their atrocities illegal, and yet this resolution will offer them large sums of w.a. funding in reward for their monstrosity.

Yours,

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 21:49

We will make a wager with the honoured delegation of Nebulantis that their suggested strategy will not have the outcome they imagine it will.

Even if this resolution could be brought to vote in this form, it will undoubtedly never become law.

Yours,

We would respectfully like to remind the delegation of Urgench that there is nothing lost by putting it to a vote. The options are: forget it and never have it passed, or try and have the opportunity of getting it passed.

Whilst the delegation of Urgench may feel so strongly opposed to this resolution that they have already made seven posts fighting it, Nebulantis notes that no other nation has posted against it with such fervour.

Consequently, we venture to conclude that the level of opposition you have exhibited is by no means representative of the WA as a whole.

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 21:55

Why would they be in prison honoured Ambassador ? As yet no law makes their atrocities illegal, and yet this resolution will offer them large sums of w.a. funding in reward for their monstrosity.

Yours,

Just because it is not internationally banned, does not mean that many nations are not already prosecuting their war criminals by sovereign legislature.

Whilst there are admittedly some nations who may not be doing this, many nations do not condone such atrocities against others.

In Nebulantis, perpetrators atrocities - in war or in peace - are brought to trial. Many nations will be doing this.

It is true that the WA needs a resolution dealing with war crimes. But this cannot be included in the Veterans resolution, since it is about Veteran provision. You seem like a very strong supporter of such a resolution, and its urgency for creation. Nebulantis welcomes you to try your hand at a proposal.

Ultimately, you object to this resolution being made international law, on the argument that it is something for individual nations to decide - and that it would hold weight accordingly. I submit to you that many perpetrators of atrocities are already being imprisoned for their crimes, based on what individual nations decide - and that it holds weight accordingly.

Harmonious Treefolk

13-01-2009, 22:35

We would respectfully like to remind the delegation of Urgench that there is nothing lost by putting it to a vote. The options are: forget it and never have it passed, or try and have the opportunity of getting it passed.

Whilst the delegation of Urgench may feel so strongly opposed to this resolution that they have already made seven posts fighting it, Nebulantis notes that no other nation has posted against it with such fervour.

Consequently, we venture to conclude that the level of opposition you have exhibited is by no means representative of the WA as a whole.

We may not all have spoken up, but we do have concerns with this proposal. The honorable Khan from Urgench is a skilled legislator and talented in debate. If the Khan brings up an issue in a proposition there is a good chance it needs to be dealt with, one way or another.

((OOC: also, sometimes I have to go to work. Hah hah hah...))

Urgench

13-01-2009, 22:40

Just because it is not internationally banned, does not mean that many nations are not already prosecuting their war criminals by sovereign legislature.

Whilst there are admittedly some nations who may not be doing this, many nations do not condone such atrocities against others.

In Nebulantis, perpetrators atrocities - in war or in peace - are brought to trial. Many nations will be doing this.

We applaud you for your morality, but are you therefore happy for your w.a. donation to be used to pay pensions to those who have not been prosecuted in countries which do not care if their soldiers commit outrages ?

It is true that the WA needs a resolution dealing with war crimes. But this cannot be included in the Veterans resolution, since it is about Veteran provision. You seem like a very strong supporter of such a resolution, and its urgency for creation. Nebulantis welcomes you to try your hand at a proposal.

As much as we appreciate the honoured Ambassador telling us what business we should be about, we have plenty of work drafting other statutes with which to occupy our time. We would be glad to assist any state which brought forth a decent and reasoned statute on war crimes though.

Ultimately, you object to this resolution being made international law, on the argument that it is something for individual nations to decide - and that it would hold weight accordingly. I submit to you that many perpetrators of atrocities are already being imprisoned for their crimes, based on what individual nations decide - and that it holds weight accordingly.

No we would absolutely not object to this resolution on the grounds that its subject is not the purview of this organisation, and harping on that particular string because other states have made that objection is futile.

We object to this statute because it offers immoral rewards to mass murderers and ethnic cleansers.

The difference could not be more profound.

Yours,

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 23:25

As much as we appreciate the honoured Ambassador telling us what business we should be about, we have plenty of work drafting other statutes with which to occupy our time. We would be glad to assist any state which brought forth a decent and reasoned statute on war crimes though.

Urgench, whilst the rest of your contributions to debate have been well argued, I feel you have misrepresented my intention. I was welcoming you to create a proposal, and not (as you appear to claim), "telling" you to make it your "business".

Please try not to take our debate so personally. I meant no offense.

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 23:29

The honorable Khan from Urgench is a skilled legislator and talented in debate. If the Khan brings up an issue in a proposition there is a good chance it needs to be dealt with, one way or another.

And it has been duly noted, Harmonious Treefolk. Studly Penguins (the author of the resolution) and I have been working together to try and accommodate the suggestions contained in this resolution - most of which have been proposed by Urgench. However, Nebulantis reserves the right to defend its point of view on the thread, in order to inform debate and perhaps get some constructive suggestions as to how to resolve this issue.

Currently Urgench has pointed out what it deems to be flaws, whilst not suggesting a way in which they can be effectively resolved (to the point that they would be satisfied)... short of waiting around until someone decides to create a War Crimes resolution. As a result, it seems that Urgench is firmly set to oppose this proposal. In face of that opposition, all we can do is present the argument in favour, and let readers of this thread decide for themselves.

Urgench

13-01-2009, 23:31

Urgench, whilst the rest of your contributions to debate have been well argued, I feel you have misrepresented my intention. I was welcoming you to create a proposal, and not (as you appear to claim), "telling" you to make it your "business".

Please try not to take our debate so personally. I meant no offense.

We took nothing personally. We are here to represent the interests and concerns of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, that is all.

No offense was taken and none intended.

Was there anything else you wished to recommend to us honoured Ambassador ?

Yours,

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 23:31

Incidentally, Treefolk, please do post your concerns here - Studly Penguins checks the thread often and will be keen to address any ideas you have!

Nebulantis

13-01-2009, 23:34

Was there anything else you wished to recommend to us honoured Ambassador?

Not recommend, but request. Please do give a breakdown of what changes would be necessary in order to change your mind about this proposal, so that you would vote in favour. As I understand it (and perhaps incorrectly), you would not have ever voted in favour due to believing this a national issue and not an international issue. If, however, you consider this valid for international debate, please do outline what you would do to change this resolution.

If it's a difference in ideology, then there can be no consensus.
If it's a difference in methodology, we can work with it.

Glen-Rhodes

14-01-2009, 00:00

If the Khan brings up an issue in a proposition there is a good chance it needs to be dealt with, one way or another.That's an awfully dangerous idea to float around, Ambassador. While we agree that Ambassador Mongkha is a skilled orator, nobody should be extended the privilege of not being criticized, or made out to be the speaker of law. That being said, Ambassador Mongkha brings an important point to the table, which coincidentally needs to be dealt with one way or another.

Currently Urgench has pointed out what it deems to be flaws, whilst not suggesting a way in which they can be effectively resolved (to the point that they would be satisfied)... short of waiting around until someone decides to create a War Crimes resolution. As a result, it seems that Urgench is firmly set to oppose this proposal. In face of that opposition, all we can do is present the argument in favour, and let readers of this thread decide for themselves.
Such is the diplomatic process of many delegations in the World Assembly, to the dissatisfaction of many others. This process entails pointing out flaws and assuming that the author is able to see the solution from your point of view. This can be problematic, especially if the author doesn't believe that there's anything wrong -- that anything could ever be wrong -- with the legislation that have written. It's the burden of the author to step back and critically examine their work. This can be hard -- believe me, I struggle with it, myself -- but it can be done.

However, although the solution hasn't been spelled out, it's quite clear what the solution is. Write a clause that prevents money being shoveled out to those that commit war crimes. This may very well call for a completely separate legislation on war crimes. Limiting the benefits to veterans in-keeping with national and international law might work, if there's a promise that a war crimes resolution would come shortly after, but preferably before, this resolution comes to vote.

In some cases, authors have to stray away from the legislation at hand to write new legislation, in an effort to support their original cause. This is likely one of those occasions. A veterans rights resolution cannot exist without defining what a veteran is, which includes what makes a soldier not qualify as a veteran, although they fought in a war.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

14-01-2009, 00:53

Not recommend, but request. Please do give a breakdown of what changes would be necessary in order to change your mind about this proposal, so that you would vote in favour. As I understand it (and perhaps incorrectly), you would not have ever voted in favour due to believing this a national issue and not an international issue. If, however, you consider this valid for international debate, please do outline what you would do to change this resolution.

If it's a difference in ideology, then there can be no consensus.
If it's a difference in methodology, we can work with it.

This will be the second time that we have had to say that we do not believe that the issue this resolution deals with is not an international one.

We are certain that this issue could be dealt with internationally. just as we are certain that any issue of a compelling moral nature which effects large proportions of the citizenry of the membership of this organisation could be dealt with internationally. Indeed we have been involved in legislating for such issues ourselves on several occasions.

We have no idea what the ideology of Studly Penguins is or that of Nebulantis for that matter, and since we are essentially practical by nature we do not bear heavy ideological burdens of our own which we wish to offload on this organisation.

We could not vote for this draft of this resolution because it offers money to all those who have fought in all wars regardless of the morality of these wars or the possible bad conduct of those who fought them.

There is no way this circle can be squared unless the statute makes it clear that the funds made available to veterans is to come from the national budgets of the states in who's armies they fought. The world assembly cannot pay for these veterans itself unless it can be seen to give this reward to those who truly deserve it. Currently there are no laws which make it possible for the w.a. to decide which veterans are deserving and which ones are criminals.

The ability to define the deserving and reward them as opposed to indiscriminately offering prizes to all, including those who are perpetrators of gross outrages of decency is crucial.

Yours sincerely,

Flibbleites

14-01-2009, 01:38

Most of the proposals that come to vote in the WA are matters better handled by individual nations. As one person thinks that the WA needs to force ppl to drive 'Green' cars, allow same-sex marriage, abortion, rights for a particular group all have strong cases to be left to nat'l governments to handle.If you hang around long enough you'll find that I oppose the WA getting involved in pretty much all of those topics you've mentioned.

Just look at it, then judge it on its merits, not because its better left alone

In my opinion, how much of an international issue something is, is a criteria that a proposal should be judged on.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Harmonious Treefolk

14-01-2009, 01:40

That's an awfully dangerous idea to float around, Ambassador. While we agree that Ambassador Mongkha is a skilled orator, nobody should be extended the privilege of not being criticized, or made out to be the speaker of law. That being said, Ambassador Mongkha brings an important point to the table, which coincidentally needs to be dealt with one way or another.

I am not endorsing the Khan's ideas, only that he tends to find points that need to be hammered out. I would say the same of your own delegation.

Incidentally, Treefolk, please do post your concerns here - Studly Penguins checks the thread often and will be keen to address any ideas you have!

I'll be back later to do so!

Harmonious Treefolk

14-01-2009, 06:22

We have reservations about endorsing a committee that will take our currency and use it to support the returning veterans of other nations. It has been pointed out that these could be war criminals, etc., but there is another issue that has not been raised: the people simply do not want to support the returning veterans of other nations. Why should they?

Look at it this way. One nation supports its returning veterans in every way possible, making the returning soldier a hero in that society and visibly rewarding them. The result is that the military looks like a much better occupation for the citizens of that nation and the ranks swell with eager volunteers. Furthermore, the entire nation feels a swelling of patriotic pride at how well they treat their returning soldiers.

Why would one nation want to use money to make another nation's military and national unity stronger? This is now a matter of national security.

As for the text itself, we request clarification on the following article:

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

Who is reviewing? The new committee, the government, or the employer?

Kelssek

14-01-2009, 15:10

We certainly don't disagree that people sent off by the state to risk their lives should be entitled to quite a bit of privilege from the state once they've done that. But it simply seems strange to make it international law.

And it certainly puts nations like ours which already have extensive benefits for military and ex-military personnel in the strange position of voting for a resolution that would strengthen other militaries against ours and hence against our national security; in those countries which don't have such care for their military personnel, this would probably make soldiering a more attractive option. I'm also not sure if increasing military recruitment WA-wide is exactly in the interests of world peace.

Furthermore, and more importantly, I really don't think this qualifies as an international issue.

Colonel Brian Menin
Military Affairs Attaché, Permanent Mission of Kelssek to the World Assembly

Gobbannium

14-01-2009, 23:32

We have to say that we disagree with the concept except where the matter of conscription is concerned. A person who has chosen to enter military service has been recompensed for that service while they were in it, with benefits of training and pension as should be comparable with any other occupation. Why should they then receive additional benefits on choosing to leave their position that are not enjoyed by any other job-leaver?

We invite delegates to mentally substitute the words "sports star" or "member of the national ruling council (whatever that may be)" for "military veteran", and see what they make of the results.

The Eternal Kawaii

15-01-2009, 00:32

We could not vote for this draft of this resolution because it offers money to all those who have fought in all wars regardless of the morality of these wars or the possible bad conduct of those who fought them.

There is no way this circle can be squared unless the statute makes it clear that the funds made available to veterans is to come from the national budgets of the states in who's armies they fought. The world assembly cannot pay for these veterans itself unless it can be seen to give this reward to those who truly deserve it. Currently there are no laws which make it possible for the w.a. to decide which veterans are deserving and which ones are criminals.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in full agreement with the esteemed Khan's objections to this proposal. We wish to remind the representatives here of the unfortunate fact that some WA member nations, at various times, have been at war with each other. Does this Assembly seriously expect the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii to fund the retirement of Kennyite Stripper Commandos?

Xanthal

15-01-2009, 02:30

Most of my objections have already been stated by others, so I won't waste the Assembly's time enumerating them. Suffice it to say that although I am not entirely opposed to the spirit of the proposal, it is so riddled with problems that there is no way I can possibly support it.

Riley Fluffer
Representative, Delegate, blah blah blah

Omigodtheykilledkenny

15-01-2009, 16:45

Does this Assembly seriously expect the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii to fund the retirement of Kennyite Stripper Commandos?Well it's about freakin' time you started paying for something.

Harmonious Treefolk

15-01-2009, 17:42

Yet one more problem:

What is to stop a nation from abusing the system by suddenly expanding their military? What if every citizen of Somewherestan is suddenly required to join the military for 1 year? So what if all the military did most of the time is play Bongeeball--the "veterans" of Somewherestan are suddenly entitled to medical coverage per article 5.

Urgench

15-01-2009, 19:41

So this immoral and utterly foolish waste of world assembly funds has been submitted for approval.

We are dismayed.

The government of the Emperor of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench will implacably oppose this wicked work of folly.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Charlotte Ryberg

15-01-2009, 20:31

This is a turn of events in which we are confused. I believe it has been rushed a bit, and improvements and simplifications needs to be made. The ambassador to the Studly Penguins noted the honoured ambassador to Urgench's planned anti-discrimmination bill, but obviously there may be no need for another organization, as I found out when trying to ban discrimination of the disabled.

If it goes into quorum as is, I'll vote it out. If it becomes a resolution as it is at the moment, I'll repeal it and urge the ambassadors of the Studly Penguins to refine the resolution: this will go on until we have a version that we can agree on.

However we praise the Studly Penguins' principle that veterans do need rehabilitation and respect but at its current form: does it work? Hmm....

Quintessence of Dust

15-01-2009, 21:14

Not an official opinion, but: you need to sort out your telegram campaign. Sending delegates more than one telegram is against the rules, even if you use different nations to do it.

Flibbleites

16-01-2009, 02:46

The Altan Steppes

16-01-2009, 18:35

Heck, there are probably nations that already mandate that all their citizens serve in the military for a period of time.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This is true, as the Altan Steppes is one of them. Admittedly, the requirement is for a year of "national service" which can theoretically be done in any government agency, but since 80% of our citizens choose to fulfill their requirement through part-time military service for a year, it may as well be a military service requirement. We currently provide veterans' benefits only for those who are defined as "career soldiers" (i.e., those who serve for two years or more, with benefits progressively increasing with length of service). We can see, however, where this proposal would cause problems with unscrupulous nations being able to take advantage.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Harmonious Treefolk

16-01-2009, 20:45

Our nation does, in fact, mandate military service for certain age groups, with individual exceptions. That provides enough of a problem in the resolution, but my example goes even further than that. What if absolutely everybody, from the parapalegic to the most elderly matron, are suddenly required to join the "military." They may not do anything military-like, but they can still collect on their article 5-veteran's healthcare rights, all on the WA's bill.

The Palentine

16-01-2009, 21:01

For the Palentine, the question comes down to this one. Why should my nation fund, your nation's veterens benefits? If a nation cannot, or will not take care of their own nation's defenders, then why does it have a military? Common sense would seem to say that since these men/women/beings are sacrificing their lives for your benefit, you should provide for thier needs(should they need help). Asking someone else to do your job takes a lot of chutzpah! The Palentine will vote against the proposal, and should it pass, support a repeal.
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Studly Penguins

16-01-2009, 21:22

Harmonious Treefolk

16-01-2009, 21:31

All I want is this to come to a vote. If it passes great, if not then so be it. I know it has flaws and a faction of ppl dont agree on it and thats fine. At least now its being judged on its merit instead of its title.

I hope someone out there will vote for it, but I just want to see what the rest of the world thinks. If it were to pass, I could count on it being repealed so whats the harm of letting it go to a vote.

If you know it has flaws, why would you want to try and get it passed before fixing those flaws? We do have to abide by any resolution that passes, you know, even if it takes a week for the repeal to hit it. And if you get a Resolution passed and then it is repealed, how likely do you think it is that anyone will vote for it again?

The major function of this forum of discussion is not to say "I will oppose this proposal" or "I will support this proposal," although those are important. The most important funciton of this forum is to allow debate over drafts of proposals to shape and change those proposals until they have virtually no flaws. In the process, you will also likely gain the support of many nations involved in revising the proposal with you.

Urgench

16-01-2009, 23:17

If you know it has flaws, why would you want to try and get it passed before fixing those flaws? We do have to abide by any resolution that passes, you know, even if it takes a week for the repeal to hit it. And if you get a Resolution passed and then it is repealed, how likely do you think it is that anyone will vote for it again?

The major function of this forum of discussion is not to say "I will oppose this proposal" or "I will support this proposal," although those are important. The most important funciton of this forum is to allow debate over drafts of proposals to shape and change those proposals until they have virtually no flaws. In the process, you will also likely gain the support of many nations involved in revising the proposal with you.

Indeed the respected and esteemed Ambassador for Harmonious Treefolk is exactly correct.

We have expressed strong opposition to this particular draft of this statute, but we have no objection in principle to the idea of proper treatment of veterans, our own service persons are highly respected.

Given time and considerable work we could have been strong supporters of this statute, as it is we cannot but see the statute which has been submitted for approval as worthless and moronic.

All the more so since it seems to make proper treatment of one's own veterans optional, but makes it mandatory to fund the veterans of other states.

Yours e.t.c.

Charlotte Ryberg

16-01-2009, 23:36

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 00:24

First , let me say that I agree with the sentiments behind this draft. A nation should, indeed, provide assistance to those heroes who have served in that nation's defense. It is a national responsibility though. The decision to provide assistance, how much, by what means, and to whom rests solely with the nation whose flag the veterans served under. It is certainly not a matter for the WA to involve itself in.

I have some comments on the proposal:

DEFINING, a 'veteran' who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,
I am assuming that this is a misprint and that you intended to say "a 'veteran' as one who has served, or is currently serving". As written it is gibberish and renders the definition meaningless.

RECOGNIZING that most nations and regions have armed services,
Regions?

OOC: This is meta-gaming, surely.

1. ESTABLISHES the WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO), an organization designed to carry out the actions outlined in this resolution;
a) Endorses the founding of WAVAO in all WA-member nations;
b) Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance WAVAO in its entirety, within WA-member nations;
c) Notes that the cost of WAVAO, financed by the World Assembly, shall include the establishment of offices, services, and other expenses incurred by the program;
d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

Why should my nation be required to finance veteran's benefits in another nation?

Why should any WA nation be required to finance veteran's benefits in non-WA nations?

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;

3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

5. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS that all veterans shall be offered access to state-of-the-art medical and psychiatric treatment, with monetary assistance being provided by the World Assembly through the WAVAO as needed;

6. FURTHER RESOLVES that monetary insurance shall be provided for combat-related injuries and illnesses, and that the WAVAO shall work with the individual nation to determine appropriate compensation levels for different conditions;

7. REMINDS all nations that dishonorably discharged veterans may be excluded from any of the services applied by this resolution, at the individual nation’s discretion.

8. PROCLAIMS that a veteran under investigation for war crimes / already found guilty of war crimes, will be excluded.
All of these provisions would be wonderful if they were part of a national law and I would applaud The Dallas Cowboys Republic of Studly Penguins for enacting them in their own nation. But how do you justify involving the World Assembly in this? If the World Assembly had a military of its own I could see mandating benefits for veterans of that military, but it doesn't have one.

The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this.

The Altan Steppes

17-01-2009, 00:45

All I want is this to come to a vote. If it passes great, if not then so be it. I know it has flaws and a faction of ppl dont agree on it and thats fine. At least now its being judged on its merit instead of its title.

I hope someone out there will vote for it, but I just want to see what the rest of the world thinks. If it were to pass, I could count on it being repealed so whats the harm of letting it go to a vote.

No, no, no, no, no! I have heard this argument so many times you would think it would stop amazing me when someone brings it up, and yet it doesn't. I'd pull my hair out at hearing it yet again, if I had any on my head.

You can't count on bad legislation being repealed if it passes. Even if it is, you can't count on it being repealed quickly enough not to do significant damage to WA member states. Repeals can be incredibly time-consuming and hard to accomplish; ask anyone who's led the charge on one.

By bringing legislation that you know, by your own admission, is flawed, you have done a grave disservice to this Assembly and have committed what I would call ambassadorial malpractice. And if your flawed legislation passes, you will have forced us to go through the effort to repeal yet another piece of diplomatic dreck.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 01:39

Regions?

OOC: This is meta-gaming, surely.OOC: Not necessarily. 'Regions' doesn't automatically mean NationStates Regions. It could mean geographical regions. The likelihood is low, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 01:45

OOC: Not necessarily. 'Regions' doesn't automatically mean NationStates Regions. It could mean geographical regions. The likelihood is low, but that doesn't make it illegal.
OOC: True, but I'd bet money it was intended to refer to Nationstates regions, not geographical regions. Intent probably isn't enough to render it illegal, but still...

Urgench

17-01-2009, 01:51

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 02:06

Presumably the possiblity that non-w.a. member states might end up setting up WAVAO offices and presumably services also ( drawing on the general fund ) makes this statute illegal does it not ?

Yours,
I believe this would be the relevant section of 'WA General Fund'.

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

I'm afraid that if this thing passes, WAVAO offices would qualify as a "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". It doesn't say the monies can't be spent in non-member nations. I wish it did.

OOC: It might violate this though:

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

Urgench

17-01-2009, 02:13

I believe this would be the relevant section of 'WA General Fund'.

I'm afraid that if this thing passes, WAVAO offices would qualify as a "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". It doesn't say the monies can't be spent in non-member nations. I wish it did.

OOC: It might violate this though:

But surely the "missions" which the WA General Fund Statute refers to are those effecting only WA states, or surely the WA General Fund would also be illegal no ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 02:24

OOC: It might violate this though:OOC:

I'm still not convinced that the proposal violates the metagaming rules. I'm wondering if the rules were meant to prevent the World Assembly from directly mandating non-member states; e.g. "ESTABLISHING WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO) in non-member states, with these duties...".

Because it only provides the option for non-member states to set up WAVAO missions, which action is coordinated by nations themselves, rather the World Assembly, can it really be said that this resolution would be affecting non-member states?

Urgench

17-01-2009, 02:29

O.O.C. Yes if the WAVAO offices are paid for by the WA General Fund ( which they are according to the resolution ) WA states could liberally set up WAVAO offices where ever they liked outside the WA and expect the fund to pay for their services e.t.c.

New Wor Union

17-01-2009, 02:30

I have a problem pertaining to clause 8.
It seems that “War Crime” is a term thrown about as a roadblock to this proposal. With the term “War Crime” having no solidity, I could hardly support something that allows WA nations to decide what it is or isn’t at their own whim. Without having stipulations of what War Crimes are, how can we tell the difference between giving a veteran his just reward or praising social injustices? Since there is nothing clearly defining “War Crimes,” how are we sure that members of WA nation’s armed forces are being tried fairly, or even tried at all? For this proposal to be accepted, I believe there needs to be a universal understanding of what defines a War Crime.
Furthermore, there has been no stipulation as to if a person who joins the armed forces then leaves without ever fighting for his country, is still a veteran. You need to have a more pronounced definition of a veteran. While I am all for the equal treatment of members of the armed forces, I could not imagine funding something that has such loop holes.

Wor Union

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:10

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:18

Since there is nothing clearly defining “War Crimes,” how are we sure that members of WA nation’s armed forces are being tried fairly, or even tried at all?

Currently there can be no definition of "War Crimes" in this resolution, because as of yet a War Crimes resolution has not been drafted. If this resolution included the definition of "War Crimes", it would conflict with a later War Crimes resolution and render it useless.

If necessary, Studly Penguins and I will draft that War Crimes resolution. We have already been discussing it, especially since no other WA nation has offered to create it.

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:19

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:23

I think on balance all service personnel should be given the right to rehabilitation. I think this draft is involving preferential treatment in favour of veterans. What about those with normal discharge?

The first preambulatory clause reads:

DEFINING, a 'veteran' who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,

Consequently, all those with normal discharge are included in the definition of veterans. In fact, this definition even includes those with dishonorable discharge - but a later clause reminds members that they do not have to help their dishonorably discharged veterans.

So, in effect, all service personnel are given the right to rehabilitation - even the dishonorably discharged ones, should the nation desire to help that small group.

Urgench

17-01-2009, 16:24

Urgench

17-01-2009, 16:28

Currently there can be no definition of "War Crimes" in this resolution, because as of yet a War Crimes resolution has not been drafted. If this resolution included the definition of "War Crimes", it would conflict with a later War Crimes resolution and render it useless.

If necessary, Studly Penguins and I will draft that War Crimes resolution. We have already been discussing it, especially since no other WA nation has offered to create it.

We will assist you in this effort if you wish honoured Ambassador.

Yours.

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:32

Very well honoured Ambassador, but why does the wording of this resolution make funding veterans assistance optional for one's own national services, but mandatory for the services of other nations ?

Yours,

Where does it do so?

You might be talking about the following:
1. You do not have to fund your own dishonorably discharged veterans.
2. WA funding will be financing the WAVAO.

This resolution demands that all veterans who are not dishonorably discharged are given assistance. However, it appreciates that nations who dishonorably discharge their own personnel (discharged as such due to crimes -which vary in magnitude- against their OWN nations' ideology) may not wish to finance their recovery.

The principles of this resolution believes that service personnel (i.e. veterans) should be entitled assistance, and in the interests of human rights, that privilege can be extended to discharged veterans at the individual nation's discretion.

If you don't want your own dishonorably discharged veterans gaining help (e.g. they deserted your army, so you don't want them to have help), then fine. But other nations may wish to help their dishonorably discharged veteran for a possibly smaller crime, have assistance.

It is unlikely that a nation would help their dishonorably discharged veterans, since it would be that nation that dishonorably discharged them. But if that nation has a higher commitment to human rights, then they deserve funding to fulfil that commitment.

Nebulantis

17-01-2009, 16:33

We will assist you in this effort if you wish honoured Ambassador.

Yours.

Thank you, Urgench. We will bear you in mind when we come to drafting this proposal, and we will certainly seek your feedback on it during the draft stages.
Your offer is much appreciated.

Urgench

17-01-2009, 16:41

1. ESTABLISHES the WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO), an organization designed to carry out the actions outlined in this resolution;
a) Endorses the founding of WAVAO in all WA-member nations;
b) Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance WAVAO in its entirety, within WA-member nations;
c) Notes that the cost of WAVAO, financed by the World Assembly, shall include the establishment of offices, services, and other expenses incurred by the program;
d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

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

This section is mostly mandatory, according to the wording, although the conditionality of reinstatement may allow states the ability to obviate this actual provision.

3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

This section is optional because its provisions are merely urged or encouraged

5. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS that all veterans shall be offered access to state-of-the-art medical and psychiatric treatment, with monetary assistance being provided by the World Assembly through the WAVAO as needed;

This section is unclear, an affirmation, solemn or otherwise, may not be mandatory. But if it is mandatory, as presumably it was intended to be, then states are required to fund ( through the w.a. ) the services of other states, while there obligations to their own service persons ( as outlined above ) remain optional. Indeed nowhere is it unequivocally stated that states must properly assist their own veterans in the same manner as the WAVAO will assist the veterans of other states.

6. FURTHER RESOLVES that monetary insurance shall be provided for combat-related injuries and illnesses, and that the WAVAO shall work with the individual nation to determine appropriate compensation levels for different conditions;

This is confusing since there may be nations in which this kind of insurance may not even exist, therefore leading to the creation of insurances which only apply to one kind of person, or alternatively states may simply say we do not allow insurance of any kind therefore we will ignore this.

Presumably the outcome might be that some states will remove all direct national funding of veterans and rely completely on the WAVAO to fund their veterans. The possible drain on the General Fund could be extremely massive, especially sinceunscrupulous nations could use this to create an unoficial welfare state by requiring national service of all citizens and then classifying them as veterans thus making them entitled to WAVAO assistance.

Yours,

Urgench

17-01-2009, 17:58

Honourable delegates, the WA fund will not be financing non-WA nations. This is very clear in clause 1( b ) which I have emboldened.

Furthermore, WA nations are not required to assist non-WA nations. I would like to draw your attention to clause 1( d ), which "invites" WA nations (NOT the WA) to help at their own "discretion". It bewilders me that people interpret this help as mandatory, given the language.

To further explain my second point: Supposing Country Non-WA wants to have WAVAO. They can request help from e.g. Country WA who they may be allied to, and Country WA can decide whether or not they want to help Country Non-WA. This clause is flexibly designed to allow non-WA nations to create a similarly beneficial system, using either their own funds or by getting some aid from a WA nation that wants to offer it.

As such, the WA funds will never be used to finance non-WA nations. Because, of course, that would be illegal.

Glen-Rhodes's argument in Post #69 is therefore entirely correct.

If all this is true, honoured Ambassador, then how can these offices of the WAVAO really be anything of the kind.

If w.a. resolution cannot directly effect non w.a. states and the WAVAO in non w.a. member states is not funded by the general fund, surely these offices would be nothing more than bilaterally agreed and organised entities with nothing to do with the w.a. whatsoever ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 18:48

If w.a. resolution cannot directly effect non w.a. states and the WAVAO in non w.a. member states is not funded by the general fund, surely these offices would be nothing more than bilaterally agreed and organised entities with nothing to do with the w.a. whatsoever ?The Ambassador is attempting an "urging clause"; he is new here, so he probably isn't accustomed to the common style.

If the intent is to encourage non-member states to comply with the resolution, then simply state "URGES non-member states to consider taking the proper actions to..." Trying to allow non-member states to benefit from committees is going to be a hard bit to sell.

That being said, while I still don't believe that any serious violation has occurred, the fact that the line is so thin should cue the authors to write a less controversial clause, that has largely the same effect.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

17-01-2009, 18:52

The Ambassador is attempting an "urging clause"; he is new here, so he probably isn't accustomed to the common style.

If the intent is to encourage non-member states to comply with the resolution, then simply state "URGES non-member states to consider taking the proper actions to..." Trying to allow non-member states to benefit from committees is going to be a hard bit to sell.

That being said, while I still don't believe that any serious violation has occurred, the fact that the line is so thin should cue the authors to write a less controversial clause, that has largely the same effect.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Indeed and since the WAVAO is described as entirely WAGF funded and the words which are used to qualify this statement are not explicit, what on earth would any of this provision actually mean ?

Yours,

The Palentine

17-01-2009, 19:02

I believe this would be the relevant section of 'WA General Fund'.

I believe this would be the relevant section of 'WA General Fund'.

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

I'm afraid that if this thing passes, WAVAO offices would qualify as a "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". It doesn't say the monies can't be spent in non-member nations. I wish it did.

OOC: It might violate this though:

Honourable delegates, the WA fund will not be financing non-WA nations. This is very clear in clause 1( b ) which I have emboldened.

1. ESTABLISHES the WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO), an organization designed to carry out the actions outlined in this resolution;
a) Endorses the founding of WAVAO in all WA-member nations;
b) Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance WAVAO in its entirety, within WA-member nations;
c) Notes that the cost of WAVAO, financed by the World Assembly, shall include the establishment of offices, services, and other expenses incurred by the program;
d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

Furthermore, WA nations are not required to assist non-WA nations. I would like to draw your attention to clause 1( d ), which "invites" WA nations (NOT the WA) to help at their own "discretion". It bewilders me that people interpret this help as mandatory, given the language.

To further explain my second point: Supposing Country Non-WA wants to have WAVAO. They can request help from e.g. Country WA who they may be allied to, and Country WA can decide whether or not they want to help Country Non-WA. This clause is flexibly designed to allow non-WA nations to create a similarly beneficial system, using either their own funds or by getting some aid from a WA nation that wants to offer it.

As such, the WA funds will never be used to finance non-WA nations. Because, of course, that would be illegal.

Glen-Rhodes's argument in Post #69 is therefore entirely correct.

But my esteemed colleage from Aundotutunagir could also be correct as well. The Ambassador from Ausserland was fond of stating "the Law is what the law says". In the Case of the WA General Fund, the monies collected will go to pay for the formation of this new body, and fund the offices no matter where they are located. Whether or not a WA nation help establish an office in a non member state, once said office opens, it is part of a WA committee.
Thus WA money will be spent for the benefit of a Non Member nation.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Urgench

17-01-2009, 20:15

But my esteemed colleage from Aundotutunagir could also be correct as well. The Ambassador from Ausserland was fond of stating "the Law is what the law says". In the Case of the WA General Fund, the monies collected will go to pay for the formation of this new body, and fund the offices no matter where they are located. Whether or not a WA nation help establish an office in a non member state, once said office opens, it is part of a WA committee.
Thus WA money will be spent for the benefit of a Non Member nation.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Indeed the dubious but highly esteemed Senator is most likely correct.

If the clause in question had read- " Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance the WAVAO in its entirety, any affiliated programs set up in non-member states are to be funded by other means " ( or words to this effect )

-then perhaps this clause may have not been so legally questionable, as it is the comma followed by the phrase " within WA-member states " means nothing and does not prevent WA funds from being spent in non-member states.

Yours,

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 20:40

Additionally we have the issue of the mangled definition of "veteran", which doesn't actually define anything.

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 20:48

Additionally we have the issue of the mangled definition of "veteran", which doesn't actually define anything.

To explain Ambassador Arororugul's point, since he hasn't bothered to actually explain it himself:

The current definition
DEFINING, a 'veteran' who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,
doesn't actually define 'veteran'. The clause is actually just that: a clause, a sentence fragment. To remedy this, one would need to make it complete sentence that actually defines 'veteran', rather than defining some unknown word as 'a veteran who has served...'

DEFINING a 'veteran' as a person who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 20:53

To explain Ambassador Arororugul's point, since he hasn't bothered to actually explain it himself:
You are wrong, as usual. I mentioned it earlier in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14407087&postcount=62).

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 21:03

You are wrong, as usual. I mentioned it earlier in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14407087&postcount=62).

Given that you've had to mention it twice, it's clear that the first mentioning either wasn't clear enough, or was ignored. You ought to at least reference the previous reply.

Your attitude is also not appreciated, and we will cease any further discussion to prevent any imminent argument between our two delegations.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 21:38

Given that you've had to mention it twice, it's clear that the first mentioning either wasn't clear enough, or was ignored. You ought to at least reference the previous reply.
Only a complete imbecile would need a detailed explanation. Given that you obviously consider most of us complete imbeciles, it is not surprising that you have given a detailed explanation.

Your attitude is also not appreciated, and we will cease any further discussion to prevent any imminent argument between our two delegations.
It is you who introduced a note of hostility into the conversation by using the term "bothered to actually explain". Watch your step, 'doctor'.

Glen-Rhodes

17-01-2009, 22:09

Only a complete imbecile would need a detailed explanation. Given that you obviously consider most of us complete imbeciles, it is not surprising that you have given a detailed explanation.Or, perhaps, I know what it's like to sit down and write a lengthy resolution, and I realize that mistakes do happen, and are sometimes hard to spot. The Aundotutunagir delegation should extend help where help is needed, instead of blasting others for making errors, with the assumption that if their delegation points out an error, and the author cannot figure out what they're talking about, then the author must be a 'complete imbecile'. Not all delegation can be as perfect and pristine as that of Aundotutunagir. We can only hope that they will act with sliver of humility.

Hostilities aside, this legislation is mildly acceptable in it's current form. To earn the complete confidence of my delegation, the following changes would need to be made:

DEFINING, a 'veteran' who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will, becomes DEFINING a 'veteran' as a person who has served, but is no longer active, in a nation’s armed services during times of war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,We feel that active-duty benefits deserve their own piece of legislation. This legislation deals with those that are no longer active, anyways.

d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former; becomes 2. URGES non-member nations to take the appropriate actions to comply with this legislation, to increase the overall welfare of all veterans.

d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for; This clause would need to be struck out, per our argument located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14385985&postcount=3). Although changes have been made from the original promotion clause, we still believe that veterans should not be guaranteed a promotion that they would have gotten before they left for war. It doesn't take in to consideration the possibility of a more qualified employee coming along while the veteran was at war, among other things.

8. PROCLAIMS that a veteran at any time facing legal action, found guilty, or suspected of War Crimes or any other atrocities as determined by their nation, shall be excluded from the aforementioned benefits provided by this resolution. changed to 8. PROCLAIMS that a veteran at any time found guilty of war-related crimes or any other atrocities as determined by their nation, shall be excluded from the aforementioned benefits provided by this resolution.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

17-01-2009, 22:13

We are pefectly certain that the respected and honoured Ambassador of our neighbour Aundotutunagir has no need whatsoever to be interpreted, by anyone for any purposes.

Yours,

Urgench

17-01-2009, 22:17

What exactly is a "war-related crime" Dr. Castro ? And how would exclusions of those guilty of them make this statute anymore acceptable ?

Oh and it seems that discussion of rewrites to this dog's breakfast are academic now, since it has reached Quorum.

Now the work will need to be done in pointing out the deficiencies of this statute to the rest of the membership.

Yours,

Xanthal

17-01-2009, 22:51

I did engage in a telegram campaign to convince Delegates to withdraw their approval. Though I see five have reversed their position, as I suspected it doesn't seem I've changed the outcome. Anyway, I've done what I can so far. Now all I can do is vote against it and continue to add my voice to the opposition.

Riley Fluffer

Aundotutunagir

17-01-2009, 23:46

Or, perhaps, I know what it's like to sit down and write a lengthy resolution, and I realize that mistakes do happen, and are sometimes hard to spot. The Aundotutunagir delegation should extend help where help is needed, instead of blasting others for making errors, with the assumption that if their delegation points out an error, and the author cannot figure out what they're talking about, then the author must be a 'complete imbecile'. Not all delegation can be as perfect and pristine as that of Aundotutunagir. We can only hope that they will act with sliver of humility
While you were preparing your snide and derogatory comments, perhaps you missed this from my first post on the subject:
First , let me say that I agree with the sentiments behind this draft. A nation should, indeed, provide assistance to those heroes who have served in that nation's defense. It is a national responsibility though. The decision to provide assistance, how much, by what means, and to whom rests solely with the nation whose flag the veterans served under. It is certainly not a matter for the WA to involve itself in.
I have some sympathy for the efforts of the author of this proposal and tend to agree with the notion of providing benefits to veterans. I simply believe that it is a national, rather than an international matter.

As for pointing out errors, that is what is done here. Proposals are posted for review, various delegations point out errors. Delegations that support the legislation will offer advice on correcting the errors. I do not support this legislation, therefore I am under no requirement to offer advice on improving it. I also still believe that this proposal is possibly illegal, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

17-01-2009, 23:54

I did engage in a telegram campaign to convince Delegates to withdraw their approval. Though I see five have reversed their position, as I suspected it doesn't seem I've changed the outcome.Right. And more likely, they simply lost their delegate post at an update rather than change their minds. Delegates really dislike being harassed about the way they vote, unless it's from a region member.

Xanthal

18-01-2009, 01:57

You can't let me have anything, can you, Ambassador? Well, either way, I did what I thought was right. I have no regrets.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-01-2009, 02:36

I'm not trying to insult you; in fact, I've done the same, many times in the past. It's thankless, often fruitless work, and I've since concluded it's just not worth it.

For the record, we agree with the honorable Xanthalian ambassador about the merits (or rather, demerits) of this legislation, and will be voting accordingly when the roll is called.

Cookesland

18-01-2009, 05:09

Regardless of whether this proposal is international enough, I would like some clarification on Clause #6:

6. FURTHER RESOLVES that monetary insurance shall be provided for combat-related injuries and illnesses, and that the WAVAO shall work with the individual nation to determine appropriate compensation levels for different conditions;

What becomes of those who already have insurance for injuries and illnesses?

I would like to add I agree with the sentiments of my colleague for the Confederated Sublime Khanate. The idea that Cookesland's donations to the World Assembly would go to the benefit of war criminals or those in wars of genocide, racism, and ethnic cleansing is abhorrent.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

18-01-2009, 07:01

What exactly is a "war-related crime" Dr. Castro ? And how would exclusions of those guilty of them make this statute anymore acceptable ?A war-related crime is a war-related crime is a crime that's war-related, to be exact.

Our delegations don't agree on what makes this legislation unacceptable, so I doubt that we'll think the same as to what makes is anymore acceptable.

As for pointing out errors, that is what is done here. Proposals are posted for review, various delegations point out errors. Delegations that support the legislation will offer advice on correcting the errors. I do not support this legislation, therefore I am under no requirement to offer advice on improving it. I also still believe that this proposal is possibly illegal, regardless of your opinion on the matter.Given that this proposal has already reached quorum, I feel that I can give lectures now.

If your agenda is to sit there pointing out flaws, yet never suggesting how to fix them, then you ought not participate at all. There's nothing that angers me more than those delegations that feel that they are allowed to nitpick, without offering any advice as to how to appease their concerns and disagreements. You do have an obligation to critique rather than criticize. You do have an obligation to actually contribute when you decide to participate.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Aundotutunagir

18-01-2009, 08:41

.Given that this proposal has already reached quorum, I feel that I can give lectures now.
Since it has gone to vote I have no choice but to oppose it even more vociferously.

If your agenda is to sit there pointing out flaws, yet never suggesting how to fix them, then you ought not participate at all.
Make me.

My "agenda" is to see this legislation defeated.

There's nothing that angers me more than those delegations that feel that they are allowed to nitpick, without offering any advice as to how to appease their concerns and disagreements.
You have a very naive and childish understanding of how the World Assembly functions. My goal is to see this legislation defeated. Why on earth would I offer advice on how to improve it?

You do have an obligation to critique rather than criticize. You do have an obligation to actually contribute when you decide to participate.
I do not have any such obligation. My only obligation is to the People of Aundotutunagir who sent me here. I feel that this legislation is not in their best interests and I will feel free to criticize, nitpick and point out flaws at will.

- Chaos -

18-01-2009, 09:00

This looks like an excellent idea, after it is corrected for errors mentioned above. I feel the need to add something though.

3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

WAVAO is shaping up to be very costly. If we provide all of the money needed for 3) to be possible, then why would we provide additional money to allow a soldier to SWITCH their profession in 4)? It makes no sense. Why shouldn't the veteran be allowed to pay his own way to get a entirely new profession, like any normal working person would.

Also, I think 3) is very flawed. 3A) forces employers to allow veterans back into their old jobs, which is great, but what happens to the people who have occupied that job since? They get fired, and unemployment goes up. In addition, that person is now without advanced welfare, such as WAVAO. That simply can not be allowed. I believe instead, the WAVAO should instead fund veterans to allow them to find jobs themselves as they open, rather than kick already employed people out.

Also, 3c) and 3d) are rediculous. Now these soldiers are getting promoted/ raises in pay while they aren't working at that job. It makes no sense. Why would an employer give a raise to someone who hasn't been working there for the last X number of years?

I refuse to vote for this draft, because there is the major problem of rising unemployment, and several loopholes. I encourage a second draft to be proposed. I will not vote against this at this time however, since it shows promise. I will review it and the arguments of this assembly in two days and reach my decision.

Serbia and Russia

18-01-2009, 12:50

Veterans are very important!
If we dont show respect towards our veterans,how can we expect our young soldiers to fight?
So yea...
Im fucking supporting this shit :)

Charlotte Ryberg

18-01-2009, 12:55

Okay, it has gone into vote but I am going wait and see how the other countries think before diving in. Feel free to persuade me one way or the other.

Vadrafjordia

18-01-2009, 13:02

The People's Republic of Vadrafjordia encourages all to vote against this proposal as we feel that armed nations must be removed from this world if we are to acheive a worldwide utopia.
No man who kills another man should be rewarded.

Urgench

18-01-2009, 14:38

A war-related crime is a war-related crime is a crime that's war-related, to be exact.

Our delegations don't agree on what makes this legislation unacceptable, so I doubt that we'll think the same as to what makes is anymore acceptable.

A "war-related crime " is exactly nothing, the term means nothing, especially with a hyphen. It is nothing because it could be thousands of things but in fact it adequately, or more importantly legally, defines none of them.

This statute is atrocious.

What possible motive the tax payers of w.a. member states could have to pay for each other's veterans with no proper checks and balances in place to prevent gross and flagrant abuse of a system which essentially makes veterans the recipients of a world assembly social welfare dividend on a truly grand scale, we have no idea.

The possibility that billions of former service persons ( who should of course be looked after properly by the government which employed them ) living at the expense of the general fund, on a long term and exponential basis is deeply worrying indeed. The cost to the general fund will be astronomical, and we suspect that many states will end up drawing on funds to support veterans which will substantially outweigh the donation they contribute to the w.a. in the first place. No thought, it seems, was given to the actual cost of this crackpot scheme.

No consideration was made as to whether veterans would wish to become social welfare leaches of the entire world assembly, or if this was in fact an insult to the gravity of the contribution they may have made to the national governments they have served.

The legal ramifications seem to have had no consideration whatsoever, in regard to employment law, which this statute totally rewrites, tipping the balance unfairly in favour of a single group within society, at the expense of the rest. What of civilian contribution to national achievement, is that insignificant ? Are soldiers automatically worthy of a consideration which ordinary hard working tax payers who payed these soldiers wages ( and will pay for their social welfare through the w.a. ), are not ?

And then there is the matter of the truly appalling possibility of the w.a. paying the living expenses and medical bills of war criminals! These monstrous criminals, guilty by any objective standard of the worst crimes a person may commit, mass rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder of innocent women and children, those who have intentionally bombed and burnt whole towns and villages full of civilians , all of these and more, will, if this statute comes into law, be in receipt of massive international monetary bonuses and payouts!

The cursory and meaningless indication of an exclusion of this class of criminal who are neither defined within the statute or in any other, as yet, is an insult to the intelligence of this organisation and will have no effect whatsoever in preventing such butchers and sociopaths from profiting by their evil crimes.

The world assembly post the passage of this awful law will be a despotate of child murderers, eugenicists, and criminals.

We are appalled at the prospect.

We must vote no to this resolution and so must every other moral, decent, and sensible nation.

Yours sincerely,

Flaminflash

18-01-2009, 18:22

:hail:i agree with this wa agreement:hail:

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-01-2009, 18:28

Try the official thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579245).

Glen-Rhodes

18-01-2009, 18:47

My goal is to see this legislation defeated. Why on earth would I offer advice on how to improve it?If you want to see it defeated, say that you disagree with it. It's a simple as that. Put forth your argument, rather than pointing out flaws in the legislation at hand.

To this day, Representative Flibble's reason for not supporting my education proposal has been the only convincing one: "curriculum decisions should not be made at the international level". Did he nitpick? No. If you truly believe that the issue ought not to be addressed by the World Assembly, then say so and kindly leave the debate.

A "war-related crime " is exactly nothing, the term means nothing, especially with a hyphen. It is nothing because it could be thousands of things but in fact it adequately, or more importantly legally, defines none of them.

Until the World Assembly defines it, what constitutes a 'war-related crime' is up to each nation, which was my very intent.

Okay, it has gone into vote but I am going wait and see how the other countries think before diving in. Feel free to persuade me one way or the other.

The delegation of Glen-Rhodes is going to abstain from voting on this resolution, and we encourage your delegation to do so, too. We wish that the authors would have waited for the debate to finish before submitting it for vote. There are still things that we disagree with, but there are many aspects of this legislation that we do agree with, and thus I cannot conscientiously cast my vote for or against the legislation.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

18-01-2009, 19:07

If you want to see it defeated, say that you disagree with it. It's a simple as that. Put forth your argument, rather than pointing out flaws in the legislation at hand.

To this day, Representative Flibble's reason for not supporting my education proposal has been the only convincing one: "curriculum decisions should not be made at the international level". Did he nitpick? No. If you truly believe that the issue ought not to be addressed by the World Assembly, then say so and kindly leave the debate.

What business does Glen Rhodes have telling other states how to conduct themselves in these debates, and with what authority do they presume to lecture others ?

Dr Castro would do well to keep the bitterness he feels over the unpopularity of his delegation's statute to himself.

Until the World Assembly defines it, what constitutes a 'war-related crime' is up to each nation, which was my very intent.

And this is a satisfactory situation is it Dr Castro ? How much more conflict and acrimony is this likely to cause between states ?

The delegation of Glen-Rhodes is going to abstain from voting on this resolution, and we encourage your delegation to do so, too. We wish that the authors would have waited for the debate to finish before submitting it for vote. There are still things that we disagree with, but there are many aspects of this legislation that we do agree with, and thus I cannot conscientiously cast my vote for or against the legislation.

Your delegation abstains from voting, despite the fact that this is a dreadful mess of a law Dr Castro ?

Yours,

- Chaos -

18-01-2009, 19:39

Urgench

18-01-2009, 20:03

On the above argument's note, this draft needs to define war crimes. ;)

I personally believe that Urgench is completely in the right. How can one nation tell thousands how to debate? I personally like the general idea of this draft, but I abhor all of the flaws, and so I'm not voting for it. If Urgench hadn't pointed out all of those flaws, I may have been persuaded to vote towards it. He already persuaded one nation towards voting against this draft, so Glen Rhodes, your nation has no right at all to call his method of debating idiotic. I'm extremely shocked to see that one nation seems to believe themselves above all others.

Sincerely,
Rob
World Assembly Ambassador
The Democratic Republic of - Chaos -

To be scrupulously fair, Dr Castro of the delegation of Glen Rhodes was not correcting our conduct, rather he was correcting the conduct of Aundotutunagir's ( our neighbours ) delegation.

But we are very glad that our arguments against this statute have been usefull to the honoured and respected Ambassador for the Democratic Republic of -Chaos-.

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Ryberg

18-01-2009, 20:41

The honourable ambassadors to Glen-Rhodes are urged to vote against if they wish to see it defeated. Ms. Berlin urges them to have their feelings heard. At the moment its a tie at 301 votes each side.

Glen-Rhodes

18-01-2009, 21:24

What business does Glen Rhodes have telling other states how to conduct themselves in these debates, and with what authority do they presume to lecture others ?I am a member of this organization. That's my authority. We are all of equal status, Ambassador Mongkha.
Dr Castro would do well to stop the bitterness he feels over the unpopularity of his delegation's statute to himself.Assuming that the Primary Education Act is unpopular. But, that's an argument best kept on it's own floor.
And this is a satisfactory situation is it Dr Castro ? How much more conflict and acrimony is this likely to cause between states ? Of course it's satisfactory. How does the way one nation defines a war crime affect another nation? Whether or not torture is a war crime in Glen-Rhodes is absolutely no affect on Urgench, unless Urgench decides that it's now in the business of directly shaping foreign governments.
Your delegation abstains from voting, despite the fact that this is a dreadful mess of a law Dr Castro ?We abstain from voting because it isn't a dreadful mess. There are only a couple flaws that can be easily remedied. It's unfortunate that the authors submitted it so early. Should it be passed, I will be glad to take part in a repeal coalition, but I will not cast my vote for or against it, on the merit that I am neither strongly for or against it at this time.
...so Glen Rhodes, your nation has no right at all to call his method of debating idiotic.Who's calling who idiotic? I merely suggested that the Ambassador take other, more respected delegations and look at how they deal with resolution they do not like. Representative Flibble clearly did not, and still doesn't, like the idea of an education resolution that mandates required courses. Yet, he did not sit there and nitpick at the resolution, offering no suggestions on how to make it better. The World Assembly does not need ambassadors who think that they're job is to just point out flaws.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Snefaldia

18-01-2009, 21:43

After a very careful reading of this legislation, complete with cross-reference to our own statutes in the States-Federation, my government has nearly tripped over itself in telling me to vote AYE.

Why? Because, under Snefaldian law all citizens are required to serve two years in the armed forces, after which they are classified as "Reserve Forces." Since the WAVAO is providing funding for all psychiatric and medical care, as well as "other expenses incurred by the program," every single Snefaldian citizen will be receiving what is, essentially, a pension from the World Assembly.

Considering the state of the World Assembly's finances, this couldn't be a better situation for us- we get to put in a fraction of the total cost, while reaping all the benefits! On top of that, we get to cease our own national payments and veterans funding programs, and redirect their funding toward things like environmental relief and education. It's like the WA is handing us a blank cheque, one we can fill out to whatever amount we desire.

Why, Parliament might even extend the armed forces requirement to non-citizen nationals, or extend citizenship rights to immigrants who join up willingly! We'd be saving untold trillions of me-waks in tax money and public funds and putting them to better use elsewhere.

We happily vote AYE.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs

Urgench

18-01-2009, 21:56

I am a member of this organization. That's my authority. We are all of equal status, Ambassador Mongkha.

And Aundotutunagir is also a member of this organisation, and as such is not subject to the rebuke of the delegation of Dr Castro for how they conduct themselves, unless they behave in a manner contrary to sense and decency.

The respected and esteemed Ambassador of Aundotutunagir did not behave in this manner and should remain un-rebuked therefore.

Assuming that the Primary Education Act is unpopular. But, that's an argument best kept on it's own floor.

So why bring the grievances you bear from that debate here Dr Castro ? It is you who have side tracked this debate into a disquisition on the ways which Dr Castro believes diplomats should behave. A disquisition of great tedium we might add.

Of course it's satisfactory. How does the way one nation defines a war crime affect another nation? Whether or not torture is a war crime in Glen-Rhodes is absolutely no affect on Urgench, unless Urgench decides that it's now in the business of directly shaping foreign governments.

So armies form nation A invade nation B, commit war crimes, and are accused of such in nation B, but in nation A are hailed as war heroes. Nation A refuses to extradite those charged with war crimes in nation B because it claims the actions of the accused are perfectly legal in Nation A.

Impasse, resentment, injustice and further animosity are produced, no Dr Castro ?

War crimes must absolutely be defined internationally and by agreed criteria.

he did not sit there and nitpick at the resolution, offering no suggestions on how to make it better. The World Assembly does not need ambassadors who think that they're job is to just point out flaws.

So you expect other, busy Ambassador's to congratulate, indulge, and pander to the egos of delegations who have written sub standard legislation do you Dr Castro ?

A proper critique, whether it is good or bad, is essential in formulating good legislation. This statute was not properly exposed to this process and shows the want of it.

The failings in this statute are freely admitted by its authors, it should be a matter of shame to them that they have caused this organisation to waste its time in even considering it.

Worse by far however is the prospect of the actual effects of this statute, which are heinous and disgusting in the extreme. To repeal it will take time, time in which the worst criminals a society may produce will freely avail themselves of as much w.a. funding as they wish.

Yours,

Aundotutunagir

18-01-2009, 22:25

If you want to see it defeated, say that you disagree with it. It's a simple as that. Put forth your argument, rather than pointing out flaws in the legislation at hand.
*points and laughs at Bradford Castro*

That is truly one of the most idiotic statements ever uttered in these halls. The flaws in the text are part of the argument against it.

To this day, Representative Flibble's reason for not supporting my education proposal has been the only convincing one: "curriculum decisions should not be made at the international level". Did he nitpick? No.
That is the business of Bob Flibble. It has been my experience that the Flibbleite delegation does not often engage in extended discussions of proposals whether they support them or not.

And what relevance does the actions of Bob Flibble in another discussion have to my actions in this discussion?

If you truly believe that the issue ought not to be addressed by the World Assembly, then say so and kindly leave the debate.
I have a better idea, you leave the debate. I'm not sure what power or influence you think you wield in this assembly, but I can assure you it is close to zero. You have an amazing propensity for getting in arguments in nearly every discussion you enter into and you never fail to come away looking and sounding like a petulant child.

Flibbleites

18-01-2009, 23:16

*Bob's cell phone rings*
"Yes. He's where? And he wants me to do what? All right, tell him that he owes me."
*Bob hangs up the phone and stands up*
Ladies and Gentlemen, and the Kennyites, The Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, Mr. Brandon Flibble.

*Brandon Flibble walks into the hall and approaches a mic.*

I am here to announce that should this proposal pass, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will declare all non-Flibbleite military personnel to be war criminals thereby making them ineligible for the benefits provided by this proposal.

Glen-Rhodes

18-01-2009, 23:52

So armies form nation A invade nation B, commit war crimes, and are accused of such in nation B, but in nation A are hailed as war heroes. Nation A refuses to extradite those charged with war crimes in nation B because it claims the actions of the accused are perfectly legal in Nation A.Until international legislation actually legislates on war crimes, then all of that is legally sound, if not morally questionable. The fact that you think it's so abhorrent should serve as an impetus for writing international war crime legislation. You wish to prevent those guilty of war crimes from receiving benefits, so the obvious option is to prevent those guilty of war crimes from receiving benefits.

As I had suggested early on (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14395569&postcount=40) in this debate, a war crimes resolution should have been written and submitted before this one was worked on any further. If it had been, then the question of what war crimes were in this legislation would be moot.

So you expect other, busy Ambassador's to congratulate, indulge, and pander to the egos of delegations who have written sub standard legislation do you Dr Castro ? Well, certainly not. I expect 'other, busy Ambassadors' to actually contribute and suggest ways to make it better. If all they do is point out flaws, then what good are they doing, if the author doesn't know how they should fix those flaws?

A proper critique, whether it is good or bad, is essential in formulating good legislation. This statute was not properly exposed to this process and shows the want of it.

The failings in this statute are freely admitted by its authors, it should be a matter of shame to them that they have caused this organisation to waste its time in even considering it.I couldn't agree more. Though, with the proper diplomatic communication, this legislation could be a shining example of social welfare.

I have a better idea, you leave the debate. I'm not sure what power or influence you think you wield in this assembly, but I can assure you it is close to zero. You have an amazing propensity for getting in arguments in nearly every discussion you enter into and you never fail to come away looking and sounding like a petulant child.

Says the delegation whose admitted purpose is to wholly oppose the World Assembly's existence. I'm not going to get in to an argument with your delegation about who's more powerful or influential, or who hates who, or whose feet we should be kissing. The truth is barely any of the World Assembly members hold any considerable amount of power and influence.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

18-01-2009, 23:58

Is there a point to all this vitriol Dr Castro ?

Yours,

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 00:03

Silly me for forgetting that the Aundotutunagir delegation doesn't actually seek to better the world through international law.

Zarquon was just about to finish placing the nuesse around his neck and ending all the missery this dreary debate has cause him, when these words left Dr. Castro's lips.

Forgive me Dr. Castro, but considering the previous proposals that your delegation has tried to pass, I can hardly beleive you seriously consider your actions as a move to better the world through international law.

I hope this proposal does indeed fail, as it is simply not a matter the WA should be occupied with. I suggest to the author and their supporters to quit trying to make the world perfect, you are only causing more harm than good.

That being said, I want to know why you, Dr. Castro feel like this proposal can do more good for "veterans" than the nations in which those individuals serve?

Atlantis Explorers

19-01-2009, 00:09

I agree with this issue, the veterans of our nations should be treated with respect, they should also get better heath care, so i agree a 110 percent on this issue.

Urgench

19-01-2009, 00:13

I agree with this issue, the veterans of our nations should be treated with respect, they should also get better heath care, so i agree a 110 percent on this issue.

And you wish to pay for the veterans of other states too do you honoured Ambassador ? Even if there are bilions of them ? Even if they are war criminals ? PLease do not be decieved, this statute makes it perfectly legal to pay large rewards to butchers and madmen, and will cost the world assembly very dearly.

Surely it would be better to allow states to organise this kind of thing for themselves no ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 00:14

Is there a point to all this vitriol Dr Castro ?

The point is that if you have no suggestions on how to fix them, you're best off not basing your entire opposition to legislation by pointing out flaws. A scathing essay on why a piece of legislation is not an international issue, or why you disagree with it on an ideological basis, is leagues more powerful than a petty back-and-forth of pointing fingers.

That being said, I want to know why you, Dr. Castro feel like this proposal can do more good for "veterans" than the nations in which those individuals serve?

Because my mind tends to go directly to the nations that can't afford social welfare programs, rather than to how a statue correlates to my own government.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 00:32

Because my mind tends to go directly to the nations that can't afford social welfare programs, rather than to how a statue correlates to my own government.

You genuinely believe this organisation could afford to foot the bill for billions of veterans social welfare do you Dr Castro ? Or do you think the w.a. should also fund other perhaps more worthy causes too ?

Yours,

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 00:46

Because my mind tends to go directly to the nations that can't afford social welfare programs, rather than to how a statue correlates to my own government.

And because you feel sorry for the nations that can't organize themselves well enough to take care of their own soldiers, or create an education system that lives up to the standards that you yourself wish to force upon every nation in the WA, this is why you want to see something like this passed?

You would rather see that progress is halted so that the smaller and less organized nations might have a chance? Do you have any idea how backwards that mode of thinking is? If this passes with its wording as is, every nation will be paying every other nation's defense budget essentially. Aside from that obvious problem, since this would essentially make raising an army free, what is to keep nations from expanding the size of their standing army? Going to war with neighbors? Draining more money out of all the nations within this organization.

In effect this punishes the majority to help the minority. I'm sorry, foreign aid is one thing, but what this proposal suggests is nothing short of pickpocketing every nation in this room.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 00:49

You genuinely believe this organisation could afford to foot the bill for billions of veterans social welfare do you Dr Castro ? Or do you think the w.a. should also fund other perhaps more worthy causes too ?

I think that this organization can afford to pay for anything; where there's a will, there is a way. Whether or not they should 'foot the bill' is another question altogether. In this case, we absolutely should, if nations cannot afford to do it themselves. You'll be hard-pressed to find me not supporting the idea of social welfare provisions.

And because you feel sorry for the nations that can't organize themselves well enough to take care of their own soldiers, or create an education system that lives up to the standards that you yourself wish to force upon every nation in the WA, this is why you want to see something like this passed?

... If this passes with its wording as is, every nation will be paying every other nation's defense budget essentially ...In it's current form? No, I do not want it to pass. I haven't said that I wanted it to, yet. I'm in agreement that it should have never left to debate floor so early.

However, 'feeling sorry' isn't the phrase I would choose to describe my reasons behind supporting the idea of veteran's benefits. 'Moral obligation' would be closer.

In effect this punishes the majority to help the minority...That's the idea, yes. Punishes is an interesting choice of words, and shows slightly how your delegation views welfare policy...

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 00:58

I think that this organization can afford to pay for anything; where there's a will, there is a way. Whether or not they should 'foot the bill' is another question altogether. In this case, we absolutely should, if nations cannot afford to do it themselves. You'll be hard-pressed to find me not supporting the idea of social welfare provisions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

This is lunacy, you have unmasked yourself as deeply lacking in reason Dr Castro. There is simply no way the general fund could afford to pension its entire membership's armed services as it will if this bill passes, we assure you that the general fund will swiftly be a thing of the past should this come to pass.

Post the passage of this statute, all states will effectively be forced to put the social welfare of their veterans in the hands of the WAVAO, how could they justify doing anything else ? However the "donations" all states give are not assessed as equal to the social welfare bill of their veterans, they are assessed on ability to pay. The bill of veteran's assistance could never be as much as the donative for even most states, therefore there will be no money left for any other w.a. missions, projects or even its runnings.

Effectively this statute will make it as though the general fund had never been created.

The alternative you posit, the richer nations paying the entire social welfare bill for veterans of poorer states is equally silly. The outcome would be the general fund being squandered on making poor nations millitarily powerfull, and having little or nothing left to pay for more deserving causes and missions.

Is this what you want Dr Castro ?

Yours,

[NS:]Warre

19-01-2009, 01:02

This is silly. The WA isn't a 'union', it's an assembly of nations for discussion and universal decisions amongst itself. Not only would this act infringe on a nation's rights, and further still, would it make war mongering nations warmonger all the more, for lack of consequences, but it would also be impossible to enforce. Records can and would be withheld in such situations, for purposes of nation's national security and sovereignty. Otherwise, enemy nations could get members of their nation on the 'inspection teams' for the WA, and get important information on their enemies.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 01:05

This is lunacy, you have unmasked yourself as deeply lacking in reason Dr Castro. There is simply no way the general fund could afford to pension its entire membership's armed services as it will if this bill passes, we assure you that the general fund will swiftly be a thing of the past should this come to pass.Perhaps it can't. Though, I might say that the General Fund resolution states that the purpose is to provide funds for the "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". The entire resolutions suggests something quite contrary to your beliefs on the fiscal stability of the World Assembly. Even so, the resolution doesn't bar authors from providing their own form of funding.

Either way, I've stated numerous times already that I don't wholly agree with the legislation in it's current form.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 01:12

Perhaps it can't. Though, I might say that the General Fund resolution states that the purpose is to provide funds for the "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly". The entire resolutions suggests something quite contrary to your beliefs on the fiscal stability of the World Assembly. Even so, the resolution doesn't bar authors from providing their own form of funding.

Either way, I've stated numerous times already that I don't wholly agree with the legislation in it's current form.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The general fund statute was not a fairytale document meant to encourage every bizarre funding requirement of the most extravagant kind.

It has obvious practical limitations.

If you do not agree with the proposal, and concede the catastrophic consequences of it then you are morally obliged to vote against it, not obfuscate like a stubborn adolescent and abstain.

Your abstention will draw scorn and contempt on the moral character of the nation of Glen Rhodes, you will squander any diplomatic capital Glen Rhodes still has here, we urge you to re-consider your position very carefully Dr Castro.

Yours,

Snefaldia

19-01-2009, 01:15

I am quite certain that the general fund will be able to provide all of my nation's healthcare and employment compensation requirements once this resolution passes. We are looking forward to the WAVAO shoveling money into our veteran's fund, since, as the resolution defines every single Snefaldian citizen as a veteran by right of their military service, the WA will be required to pay for everything!

It's sheer brilliance like this that gives my government hope for international social programming.

N.T.
etc.

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 01:34

That's the idea, yes. Punishes is an interesting choice of words, and shows slightly how your delegation views welfare policy...

The Empire of Zarquon Froods does much for the welfare of its citizens, not only that but it's soldiers as well as outlined here. (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=zarquon+froods)

We are all for promoting welfare throughout the world, but as each nation sees fit. When it is made mandatory it is indeed a form of punishment. Would the jesture not have more merit if each nation gave of its own free will rather than being forced to give aid?

Again, this whole situation is best left at the national level. It doesn't matter that you don't support this proposal in this form, you still want something that does something similar, and my argument will still be the same. The WA has no place meddling in national affairs at this level...period.

Subistratica

19-01-2009, 02:50

Subistratica will, for the present time, abstain from voting on this legislation.

Marx-Rawls

19-01-2009, 03:02

The Republic of Marx-Rawls entire concurs with the criticisms of the resolution made by the Honourable Ambassador from the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, and has voted against it.

Governments rarely leave veterans is dire poverty. They are usually better off than many people. Perhaps it would be preferable if the WA concentrated on giving assistance to those marginalised people who don't get enough support from national government - people who are in desperate need.

Daynor

19-01-2009, 03:21

Jadsy

19-01-2009, 03:40

I think this is a great proposal. It would only be ideal if this occurred in the real world. Veterans should be compensentated and recognized for their great sacrifice.

[NS:]Warre

19-01-2009, 03:44

Yipee! Aid for War Criminals! Yay! ... O wait thats a bad thing...

I would like this law if this law if maybe there was a review board to make sure no International laws were broken by the veterans in question.

Not to mention it allows for militant countries which are apart of the WA to maintain huge armies and attack people without worry for the veterans that it would otherwise create, and the costs to take care of them or the great dissatisfaction it would create.

It dampens national liberty, and thereby personal liberty, as well as steps beyond WA's boundaries both in regards to it's power, and it's place. The WA is not an overnation over all of our nations, it's a place to talk out differences. Likewise, it would be impossible to get the information and actually enforce this.

Harmonious Treefolk

19-01-2009, 04:13

Someone should start a list of problems with this resolution. Keep it organized, starting with major logical/ideological problems and work down to problems in the details. Keep this list handy, as we may need it to repeal this flawed piece of legislation.

Crosby-Huffman-Barret

19-01-2009, 04:23

As Vice President of Texas I support Studly and am FOR the resolution.

Daynor

19-01-2009, 04:34

I like the list of things that are wrong with resolution idea. I'm lazy so i'm not going to do it but I hope someone else does.

Aundotutunagir

19-01-2009, 04:37

As Vice President of Texas I support Studly and am FOR the resolution.
And have you by any chance actually read the resolution?

MIKEYMIKEYLAND

19-01-2009, 06:06

With compulsory military service, this proposal would run our country into economic shambles

Wencee

19-01-2009, 06:28

My region has voted unanimously to oppose this resolution, and I have cast our delegate vote, in said fashion. - We don't dislike the ideal.. but suffice to say that is about all we support when it came to this resolution.

Thank you for your time.

Philly_Bluntz

19-01-2009, 07:25

While the Duchy greatly respects the idea of supporting former servicepeople after their term of service, we cannot support this legislation.

The 'War Criminals' debate has been soundly and hotly contested, and presumably will continue to be of contention for some time, and the Duchy does not wish to add yet another voice sounding off what other Members have already done.

The Duchy currently does not have any laws or policies regarding a higher regard of treatment to former servicemen and -women. All citizens in the Duchy, regardless of race, gender, creed, or former history, are given medical treatment free-of-cost through its Universal Healthcare Program. The Duchy has seen no instances of former servicepeople being disadvantaged by their status or additional medical needs. Therefore, the Duchy sees no reason to add an additional level of bureaucracy to the system, which would take away funds from other programs.

On the issue of employment. The Duchy does not support government mandate that a former employee be automatically reinstated. The Duchy does not have any 'reserve' or 'auxiliary' forces, all members of the Armed Services are volunteer, full-time professional servicemembers under multi-year terms of service. The Duchy does not believe that employers should be forced to re-hire these individuals, who willingly resigned his/her employment and have been in that status for a number of years. Servicemembers returning to civilian life can find assistance through regular government programs.

The Duchy proposes that all nations be held to a standard, agreed to by a majority of WA Members and Delegates. Nations falling under the standard can be given the option of WA assistance, both monetarily and advisory, and, upon further review, be sanctioned economically should the Member be proved to be unwillingly unable to bring their level of service to the standard.

Nebulantis

19-01-2009, 10:18

A "war-related crime " is exactly nothing, the term means nothing, especially with a hyphen. It is nothing because it could be thousands of things but in fact it adequately, or more importantly legally, defines none of them.

Urgench, you know full well that a "war-related crime" cannot be defined in this resolution, because if it did, it would undermine future war crimes legislation.
In fact, that undermining power was something that was suggested earlier in the thread... by you yourself, if I recall.
Let's see...

If your statute is not significantly changed before it is submitted it will provide war criminals and those guilty of atrocities to make use of w.a. funds to improve their lives. This is completely unacceptable to any moral people.

Post 15: you desired that war criminals would not be funded. As such, we moved to compromise and add a war crimes clause.
You then mentioned:

If one merely includes a clause in this resolution about war crimes, future war crimes legislation would be compromised and would lead to this statute needing to be repealed and replaced.

Post 21 outlines your concerns here, which I countered in Post 73:

My point was:

Currently there can be no definition of "War Crimes" in this resolution, because as of yet a War Crimes resolution has not been drafted. If this resolution included the definition of "War Crimes", it would conflict with a later War Crimes resolution and render it useless.

If necessary, Studly Penguins and I will draft that War Crimes resolution. We have already been discussing it, especially since no other WA nation has offered to create it.

I notice that subsequently, you did not move to disagree with this point. You need only consider your words in Post 76 to notice your consensus to my points here, and instead point the finger somewhere else.

Very well honoured Ambassador, but why does the wording of this resolution make funding veterans assistance optional for one's own national services, but mandatory for the services of other nations ?

Now, isn't that interesting?

To be frank, Nebulantis is dismayed that you seem to be taking advantage of people who have not read the entire thread, and have dragged up criticism AGAIN of the war-crimes resolution we have created, DESPITE your consensus to my argument earlier that this provision shall:
(a) not counteract any future legislation, and
(b) Studly Penguins and I are going to draft the War Crimes legislation ourself.

We therefore find it intriguing that in face of your own manipulative action, you move to align yourself with:
every other moral, decent, and sensible nation.

We are also shocked that you condemn the character of ANY OTHER NATION that happens to express an opinion different to your own, as being immoral, indecent, and foolish.

Do you not trust your own argument enough to make it without insulting the other honourable delegates of the WA? :rolleyes:

Urgench

19-01-2009, 11:32

Urgench, you know full well that a "war-related crime" cannot be defined in this resolution, because if it did, it would undermine future war crimes legislation.
In fact, that undermining power was something that was suggested earlier in the thread... by you yourself, if I recall.
Let's see...

Post 15: you desired that war criminals would not be funded. As such, we moved to compromise and add a war crimes clause.
You then mentioned:

Of course we know that this statute could not define a war crime without compromising future war crimes legislation. We pointed that out.

You made no move to prevent monies from being voted to the monsters guilty of such crimes, indeed the fact that the w.a. has been made to vote on your statute proves that you do not care about such an outcome. Surely it is not just we who wish for no money to line the pockets of war criminals ? Indeed numerous other delegations have expressed the exact same concern, and yet the respected delegations of Studly Penguins and Nebulantis have done nothing to prevent this from happening, indeed have made it possible for to happen.

Bringing this statute to vote before a war crimes statute, was putting the cart before the horse, we repeatedly pointed this out, and yet you have ignored this glaringly obvious problem and have pushed ahead with your immoral schemes.

To be frank, Nebulantis is dismayed that you seem to be taking advantage of people who have not read the entire thread, and have dragged up criticism AGAIN of the war-crimes resolution we have created, DESPITE your consensus to my argument earlier that this provision shall:
(a) not counteract any future legislation, and
(b) Studly Penguins and I are going to draft the War Crimes legislation ourself.

We are also shocked that you condemn the character of ANY OTHER NATION that happens to express an opinion different to your own, as being immoral, indecent, and foolish.

There was no consensus of agreement on this statute, except perhaps between its authors. And we have repeatedly asked that you rewrite this statute radically or alternatively wait till a war crimes statute is written.

Your delegation claims it will write such a statute, frankly the quality of this one does not fill us with optimism that you can effectively achieve such a task, and indeed we implore you to leave such a task to those who are better qualified in this field.

We have every reason to point out, as many times as is necessary, that this statute affords large cash rewards to war criminals and mass murderers. If we did not we would be seriously remiss, exactly because some Ambassadors will not have the time to read through this entire debate.

The cost of this scheme to the general fund will be astronomical, and your delegation has done nothing to prevent this. The immorality of giving these funds to genocidal maniacs is shocking and yet nothing has been done to prevent this from happening.

The fact that whole nations are threatening to have their entire populations live at the expense of the general fund, under the provisions of this statute, has nowhere been addressed, and the authors of this statute have publicly admitted that it is deeply flawed and have made little effort to remedy these flaws.

We have condemned no one and insulted no one either, it is deeply dishonest and disingenuous of the honoured Ambassador for Nebulantis to make such accusations.

Especially since the delegation of Nebulantis is advocating the creation of a w.a. welfare state which will completely bankrupt the w.a. general fund, and which will give huge cash prizes to the worst criminals in the world.

We need no lectures on morality from Nebulantis we assure you.

Yours,

Harmonious Treefolk

19-01-2009, 13:29

Honored ambassadors from Nebulantis and Studly Penguins,

Many, many of us have expressed serious concerns about the current resolution. Please attempt to address them; the honored Khan from Urgench is not the only one opposing this legislation, so please do not confine your arguments to him alone.

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 14:13

The promise of a War Crimes proposal is hardly justification for this to be broght to the floor. If there were a serious intent to draft such a document it should have been done before this one was sent to reach quorum. Because as it stands right now, as Bob Flibble stated, any nation can proclaim all non-native soldiers war criminals for no reason at all. That alone would make this proposal absolutely useless.

All that aside, I am still of the opinion that this proposal will de-value welfare in that it is not a true act of a nation wanting to reach out to others, but the forcing of all nations to contribute. If this were to pass I plan to repeal, and I am sure I am not alone.

I will also say that the Ambassadors from Nebulantis and Studly Penguins need to carefully consider when submitting a proposal. This is the third time that I can recall when legislation reached quorum without being finished.

Urgench

19-01-2009, 14:31

If this were to pass I plan to repeal, and I am sure I am not alone.

I will also say that the Ambassadors from Nebulantis and Studly Penguins need to carefully consider when submitting a proposal. This is the third time that I can recall when legislation reached quorum without being finished.

We echo the remarks of the respected and esteemed Ambassador for Zarquon Froods as regards the conduct of the delegations of Studly Penguins and Nebulantis and we cannot but put ourselves at the delegation of Zarquon Froods disposal should they need us to help them draft an repeal of this immoral statute.

Yours sincerely,

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 16:41

The general fund statute was not a fairytale document meant to encourage every bizarre funding requirement of the most extravagant kind.

It has obvious practical limitations.Yes, it does have limitations. However, we are not even close to reaching those limitations, Ambassador Mongkha. There are only 25 active resolutions (31 total - 3 repeals - 3 repealed). There are even less that require funding, and even less that use funding from the General Fund. Our budget is not in any way stretched, and we can afford to provide veteran's benefits.

Whether or not we should is a valid argument. I believe that we should. I do not believe that this resolution does the greatest job of providing these benefits, and that it should have left the debate floor so early. I do not buy in to the scare tactic that abstaining "will draw scorn and contempt on the moral character" of me, my delegation, or my nation. Perhaps it's just the way that my government works, but it's customary to abstain from voting on legislation that you are neither strongly for nor strongly against.

That being said, my assumption that only a handful of World Assembly members pay attention to the goings-on in the debate halls is quickly being proven. I had imagined that this legislation would be quickly voted down, given the obvious flaws. Currently, the tally reads 821 for, 666 against. Superstitiously, I would recommend that the repeal effort be started now. Since the trend goes towards the resolution passing, and I do not feel that a repeal effort would be quite easy for any social welfare resolution, I'll concede and cast my vote against, and suggest that my delegate do so, too.

.... Would the jesture not have more merit if each nation gave of its own free will rather than being forced to give aid? ... Again, this whole situation is best left at the national level. ... The WA has no place meddling in national affairs at this level...period.You, again, think only of those nations that can afford social welfare provisions. I won't try and change your mind, however.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Snefaldia

19-01-2009, 16:53

Urgench

19-01-2009, 16:55

Buy into it or not Dr Castro, your delegation's stance on this issue has already damaged your nation's already tarnished reputation.

Your vote against this statute now suggests that your delegation may have some modicum of sense. Not enough however to deserve praise, but none the less.

Your contention that this organisation should foot the bill for extensive social welfare schemes is dubious. This is not a world government, despite the misconceptions some have of it.

Emergency assistance of those in serious need who's nation's simply cannot afford to provide such assistance is perfectly reasonable as a facility of the w.a. however veterans are rarely so despised by the states which have had the use of their service, and numerous other groups would certainly qualify long before veterans would.

Offering the anything near the breadth of social welfare provision to veterans under these circumstances would be morally questionable at best.

Yours,

Urgench

19-01-2009, 17:08

Please, Khan Mongkha! Surely an empire as large as Urgench has sizeable military expenditures and veterans care? If this legislation were passed, the World Assembly would be required to pay all compensation, healthcare, pensions, and benefits incurred by any veteran, straight out of the general fund!

Imagine what the Divan could spend that money on instead!

N.T.
etc.

Indeed we do have an extremely extensive military budget Minister Taranton. And naturally our current government spending on veterans pensions and medical care is probably close to the GDP of certain small states, and this budget would more than outstrip our w.a. donations.

These monies would provide the Divan with funds to achieve any number of schemes and plans.

And indeed if states such as Snefaldia do move to fund their entire welfare programs from the general fund in line with the provisions of this resolution, we could not justify not taking the same action to our people, what other option is there ?

His Divine Majesty the Emperor would certainly appreciate the gift of a new palace or two at the expense of the w.a.

In fact we might be in receipt of a near 10 trillion darang dividend should this statute pass, and that is without us copying Snefaldia's example in extending veterans assistance to our entire population. These predictions only compass spending within the crownlands of the empire, if we factored in the spending in this area in the autonomous states and regions the true figure could be absolutely prodigal.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 17:20

Your contention that this organisation should foot the bill for extensive social welfare schemes is dubious ...

I disagree, but we'll let future resolutions prove one of us wrong.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 17:24

You, again, think only of those nations that can afford social welfare provisions. I won't try and change your mind, however.

Your stance is admirable and annoying at the same time. However, that is not up for debate. If you want to argue that my points are limited to those nations that can afford to send aid then you are right to certain point. Your argument for this proposal, even though not in this current form, is that we should do somthing along these lines because it is morally right. To my nation this is wrong. This is deliberately trying to impart on member nations what your nation and what other nations like yours view to be "morally right." If Glen-Rhodes or any other nation wants to send social aid to a small undeveloped country then so be it. My point will still be that forcing all nations to contribute defeats any ideal of morality this could ever achieve to create, thus nulifying in essence the objective that we should do this because of morals. Not all nations have the same morals as yours.

Like the Snefaldians, Zarquon Froods has much to gain from this legislation passing. However, we object on matters of principle, this simply isn't a matter the World Assembly should be involved in.

And as to the current vote, there are still three full days left and many delegates have not voted one way or another. I suspect this is because of a serious lack of interest in this. As we get closer, I may look at drafting something if it's needed.

Mikeswill

19-01-2009, 17:30

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Veterans Reform Act".

Although altruistic in scope, the Veterans Reform Act legislates beyond the intention of the World Assembly and into the realm of National Sovereignty. At what point do these Resolutions terminate the boundries between our Nations and the World Assembly?

It is our belief that the World Assembly ought to adhere to questions between Nations and leave internal policies to the respective member Nations.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

The Altan Steppes

19-01-2009, 17:37

The Trilateral Federation reiterates its opposition to this flawed and foolish legislation, and will be firecely lobbying our region to vote against. We are not interested in helping to fund the needs of veterans of other countries, who should damn well be addressing the needs of their soldiers themselves, as we do for our fighting men and women. We are also appalled that this blatant infringement on national sovereignty, and fiscal sanity, has even come to vote.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 18:02

This is deliberately trying to impart on member nations what your nation and what other nations like yours view to be "morally right."So, it is safe to assume that you oppose most, if not all, World Assembly resolutions? Resolution like Restrictions on Child Labor, Workplace Safety Standards Act, Freedom of Marriage Act, Sexual Privacy Act, Living Wage Act, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, Freedom of Assembly, Patient's Rights Act, and Freedom of Expression? After all, all of those resolutions try "to impart on member nations what [their author] view[s] to be 'morally right'".

I hope you can see why we don't entertain this argument against World Assembly social welfare provisions. If you disagree with social welfare on ideological grounds, or simply disagree with international provisions, that is acceptable. However, it's not an argument that's likely to stop these provisions, in general, from being written and passed.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 18:19

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 18:40

So, it is safe to assume that you oppose most, if not all, World Assembly resolutions? Resolution like Restrictions on Child Labor, Workplace Safety Standards Act, Freedom of Marriage Act, Sexual Privacy Act, Living Wage Act, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, Freedom of Assembly, Patient's Rights Act, and Freedom of Expression? After all, all of those resolutions try "to impart on member nations what [their author] view[s] to be 'morally right'".

The Empire has supported all of the above reolutions with the exception of the Living Wage Act. And if you notice, the above reolutions serve to end specific institutions, or limit them to an extent. While I am an advocate for national sovereignty, I can see where at least a few of these are actually necessary such as slavery, expression, child labor, workplace safety. These are things that go beyond the national level. A nation's soldiers are a nation's responsibility. I know you are going to make the argument that all of the items I just outlined could be left to the individual nations as well. But, the difference between those reolutions and this proposal is that this legislation, as written, will require all nations to pay for all other nation's armies. Which is unjust and unfair. Pehaps, my statement on the impartment of what others believe to be morally right does not suit this situation, so I will retract it.

The point is, if this were a proposal that perhaps specified the rights of veterans to receive foreign aid, and also made a clearer definition of what a veteran is. I may consider voting for it, but I will not apporve of such a measure that seeks to make all nations contribute to this end, even though my nation may give a considerable amount of its own free will.

So let me recap.

Require nations to pay towards supporting veterans= BAD
Outline who veterans are and define their rights to receive foreign aid of nations who willingly contribute= GOOD

Now do you still see me as a tyrant hell bent on squashing he deprived? My citizens probably have more freedoms and benefits that most of the nations in this building.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 18:41

Rarely were any of the resolutions you have mentioned, Dr castro, purely the work of a single delegation. Indeed most underwent extensive drafting periods which helped them to incorporate the various moral viewpoints of the membership of this organisation.

In most cases the statutes you mention represent the general conscience of this organisation. They were not the moral view of a single nation. That is one of the reasons they were popular enough to be passed.

The resolutions are still morally guided, no matter how many people contribute to them. This resolution would have received plenty of 'moral viewpoints', had the authors communicated in a multilateral fashion.

The argument that the World Assembly has no right creating social welfare provisions is ridiculous. Perhaps it's my bias, as my entire political existence has been in furthering social welfare. Either way, precedence exists that the World Assembly does have the right, if not the obligation. The idea of the Living Wage Act is not so different from the idea of veterans' benefits that I believe a resolution can, and should, provide. The only difference is that I think that the World Assembly should provide monetary aid to nations that can't afford such a provision. How is that such a bad thing, Ambassador Mongkha?

Outline who veterans are and define their rights to receive foreign aid of nations who willingly contribute= GOODWhich would be a useless resolution, as it doesn't actually do anything but the define 'veteran'.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Vadrafjordia

19-01-2009, 18:42

Urgench

19-01-2009, 19:19

The resolutions are still morally guided, no matter how many people contribute to them. This resolution would have received plenty of 'moral viewpoints', had the authors communicated in a multilateral fashion.

But crucially and in contradistinction to the unilateral morality you espoused before, these resolutions were guided by many different moral viewpoints. This is crucial because this is a multilateral organisation comprised of many states.

Had this resolution been exposed to the proper process of drafting it should have undergone it would have had the benefit of widespread endorsement and multi-national support based on its including provisions guided by as many states as possible.

The argument that the World Assembly has no right creating social welfare provisions is ridiculous. Perhaps it's my bias, as my entire political existence has been in furthering social welfare. Either way, precedence exists that the World Assembly does have the right, if not the obligation.

We would suggest that it is not Dr Castro's experience in the sphere of social welfare which causes him problems in properly understanding the nature of this organisation and its laws. Rather it is his experience as a civil or public servant in Glen Rhodes, by which we mean he is habituated to seeing systems and organisations as essentially national and unitary in nature.

The World Assembly is as yet not a single nation, and its nature is not unitary, it is not as yet capable of being used in the way the organs of a national government are.

The idea of the Living Wage Act is not so different from the idea of veterans' benefits that I believe a resolution can, and should, provide. The only difference is that I think that the World Assembly should provide monetary aid to nations that can't afford such a provision. How is that such a bad thing, Ambassador Mongkha?

The living wage act is fundamentally different from the possibility of the w.a. paying veterans pensions and benefits, since the living wage act does not require the tax payers of Glen Rhodes to pay the wages of Urgenchis.

The difference is profound. We have no objection to this organisation suggesting or even mandating that its member states treat their own citizens better, but the idea that the populations of sovereign states would suddenly become responsible in the long term and on a large and systematic scale for the welfare of citizens of states which they are not themselves citizens of is deeply worrying.

The Urgenchi health care system for instance provides free access to Dew drugs for every citizen of the empire, these drugs extend our lives and youth, and have helped eradicate scores of common human diseases and conditions. However Dew drugs are prodigiously expensive to produce. Could we ever expect the world assembly to provide even a small proportion of our citizens with the funding necessary to allow them continued free access to these drugs ? No Dr Castro we could not. Because it is our national responsibility to provide for our own citizens.

If for some reason we could not discharge this responsibility, we would welcome emergency short term assistance, and long term would welcome measures which stimulated our economy to help us return levels of provision to former or requisite standards. But to become permanently or on a long term basis the recipients of large sums of w.a. funding would be completely dishonourable, unjustifiable, and immoral.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 19:36

The living wage act is fundamentally different from the possibility of the w.a. paying veterans pensions and benefits, since the living wage act does not require the tax payers of Glen Rhodes to pay the wages of Urgenchis.That is the one difference I had mentioned. Is the stance that one nation should not be paying for the efforts of another applicable to all future resolutions that use the General Fund? For instance, if the Workplace Safety Standards Act used the General Fund to provide monetary assistance to nations that couldn't afford the training, machinery outfitting, or proper tools to make their workplaces safe, would your delegation be against that? After all, Urgench is undoubtedly paying for this through their contributions to the General Fund.

I'm simply trying to understand why certain principles regarding social welfare -- or, more broadly, the use of General Fund -- are applied to some resolutions, but not others.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Crosby-Huffman-Barret

19-01-2009, 19:42

And have you by any chance actually read the resolution?

Yes I have. And I agree with it 100%

Urgench

19-01-2009, 19:47

That is the one difference I had mentioned. Is the stance that one nation should not be paying for the efforts of another applicable to all future resolutions that use the General Fund? For instance, if the Workplace Safety Standards Act used the General Fund to provide monetary assistance to nations that couldn't afford the training, machinery outfitting, or proper tools to make their workplaces safe, would your delegation be against that? After all, Urgench is undoubtedly paying for this through their contributions to the General Fund.

I'm simply trying to understand why certain principles regarding social welfare -- or, more broadly, the use of General Fund -- are applied to some resolutions, but not others.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The clearest distinction exists between funds which are used to help states improve themselves to the point at which they no longer need assistance, and the kind of measure which takes national responsibility for self improvement out of the hands of national government altogether.

Social welfare is a long term commitment on the part of wealthy states who have had good governance sufficient to allow their people to prosper. To give poorer states a w.a. welfare system would be to say " do not bother to improve your nation for yourselves, let the richer states make up the difference and carry one misruling yourselves ".

The w.a. should encourage national self improvement where ever it can and offer guidance in good government to those states which are not doing well. It should not step in and effectively usurp national responsibility for good selfgovernance.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 19:56

The clearest distinction exists between funds which are used to help states improve themselves to the point at which they no longer need assistance, and the kind of measure which takes national responsibility for self improvement out of the hands of national government altogether.

Can any resolution actually state "you can have the funds until you no longer need them"? To bring back my previous example, if the Workplace Safety Standards Act used the General Fund to provide assistance to nations that can't afford to comply, the same abuse that can occur when a resolution guaranteeing veterans' benefits can fall upon the Workplace Safety Standards Act itself. If my nation wanted, it would be able to use the General Fund to outfit every existing workplace, and to pay the extra costs associated with complying to the resolution when building new workplaces.

In essence, unless a resolution can limit funding in such a way (which I am unsure that it can; I have not seen a clear precedence), then any resolution using the General Fund to aid nations that cannot afford to comply is able to be abused under the same principles that your delegation mentions in regards to this resolution.

I do agree that any resolution aiming to provide social welfare ought to include some form of oversight. It ought to make sure that nations are attempting to comply with the resolution independently, without the General Fund's help. However, there are some cases where a nation will never be able to comply without some kind of foreign aid. Simply urging nations to help their unfortunate neighbors is nothing but sweeping a problem under the rug.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Charlotte Ryberg

19-01-2009, 20:02

On balance, having analysed all the evidence from the honoured delegations, Ms. Lulu Hilde Berlin has confirmed her intention to oppose this resolution very deeply. Noting that the resolution was rushed, basically I agree with what the honoured ambassadors to Urgench. So Charlotte Ryberg is saying "nee".

(Our) Sarah Bernhardt phoned Ms. Berlin not too long ago saying that it would put pressure on our economy, and our plans for a tax-free state. So we acted.

Flibbleites

19-01-2009, 20:05

Because as it stands right now, as Bob Flibble stated, any nation can proclaim all non-native soldiers war criminals for no reason at all. That alone would make this proposal absolutely useless.Whoa, hold up there. I didn't say that, my brother Brandon Flibble did.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The People's Republic of Vadrafjordia would like to thank the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites for directing our great nation in the path it shall take should this resolution pass.Well then, obviously nobody will be getting any benefit from this proposal since now every nation's military has been declared war criminals.

Yes I have. And I agree with it 100%Well then you must be as much of a pinhead as the author who even after realizing that this idea wasn't ready for prime time failed to ask to have it removed from the list.

Brandon Flibble
The Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 20:07

Which would be a useless resolution, as it doesn't actually do anything but the define 'veteran'.

If you were to take that line of thinking then the Freedom of Expression Act is pretty much useless as well. I mean it doesn't actually do anything does it? All it does is reaffirm a right that we already take for granted exists. Yet, I'm pretty sure Glen-Rhodes would vote for it in a heartbeat since it is afterall "extending" solcial welfare.

Justice4U

19-01-2009, 20:09

OK, sounds good except for one part. If a returning veteran HAS to be reinstated in their old post, then the implication is that their previous job has to be kept open for them. Fair enough if a temporary contract employee filled the post, but if not then this could either mean that someone may have been having to cover for them while doing their own job, or the work shared out (both unfair if not paid for), or that the person who is in their previous job would have to be moved. That is unclear in the wording. No other employees should have to suffer in any way.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 20:14

If you were to take that line of thinking then the Freedom of Expression Act is pretty much useless as well. I mean it doesn't actually do anything does it? All it does is reaffirm a right that we already take for granted exists. Yet, I'm pretty sure Glen-Rhodes would vote for it in a heartbeat since it is afterall "extending" solcial welfare.Incorrect, as it mandates that nations have to respect such a right. What you propose is simply urging nations to support other nations. Urging means nothing in this business.

On a side-note, my delegation didn't immediately throw in it's support for Freedom of Expression, as there was no substantial debate about it (at least none that we participated in).

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 20:18

Can any resolution actually state "you can have the funds until you no longer need them"? To bring back my previous example, if the Workplace Safety Standards Act used the General Fund to provide assistance to nations that can't afford to comply, the same abuse that can occur when a resolution guaranteeing veterans' benefits can fall upon the Workplace Safety Standards Act itself. If my nation wanted, it would be able to use the General Fund to outfit every existing workplace, and to pay the extra costs associated with complying to the resolution when building new workplaces.

No resolution, properly written, would ever have to say "you can have funds until you no longer need them ". A resolution would define what is considered adequate improvement, provide funds to states and advice on how to help them achieve these improvements in ways which best suited their culture and society. Once the improvements were achieved the funding would no longer be required, and would end naturally.

any resolution using the General Fund to aid nations that cannot afford to comply is able to be abused under the same principles that your delegation mentions in regards to this resolution.

We are yet to find a law which the limitless nature of human ingenuity applied to dishonourable ends was not able to pervert. A good law is a law which keeps such abuses to the barest possible minimum by the use of judicious checks and balances.

I do agree that any resolution aiming to provide social welfare ought to include some form of oversight. It ought to make sure that nations are attempting to comply with the resolution independently, without the General Fund's help. However, there are some cases where a nation will never be able to comply without some kind of foreign aid. Simply urging nations to help their unfortunate neighbors is nothing but sweeping a problem under the rug.

Advice and guidance would be equally important to oversight Dr Castro. Any state, just like any person, may be caused to succeed with proper advice and guidance. No state would forever have to be considered a failure with no prospect of remedy if the right guidance and advice existed to help it better itself. Willful failure, intended underachievement and accompanying corruption would naturally need to be ended or punished, but this is far easier than it may at first sound, especially if the rewards for success outweigh those of failure.

Yours,

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 20:27

Incorrect, as it mandates that nations have to respect such a right.

Exactly. You define who a veteran is, and then you mandate that they cannot be denied foreign aid. Which is what I said in my statement before you assumed I meant "urges." It should not be the goal of this assembly to require member nations to provide aid. If that became the goal, what is the point of sovereignty? Resolutions of that kind will only lead to more resolutions requiring nations to spend more to help others ending in the collapse of the economic system.

Whether we like it or not, it is a game of survival of the fitest. My nation built itself up from nothing, without aid from anyone. And now we flourish. Injecting funds so smaller nations gets a jump start is wrong, and it sends the wrong message.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 20:27

We are yet to find a law which the limitless nature of human ingenuity applied to dishonourable ends was not able to pervert. A good law is a law which keeps such abuses to the barest possible minimum by the use of judicious checks and balances.Can you give an example of this "barest possible minimum by the use of judicious checks and balances"? Is it enough to include something along the lines of what Freedom of Expression uses? Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens. Or, do you require extensive budgetary oversight?

What you view as acceptable use of World Assembly funds could be valuable information to future legislation, given your astounding ability of arguing the pitfalls of resolutions.

Exactly. You define who a veteran is, and then you mandate that they cannot be denied foreign aid. Which is what I said in my statement before you assumed I meant "urges."Yet you say that nations should not be forced to pay for these things.

If you say that nations cannot be denied foreign aid, then a nation could walk right up to Zarquon Froods and ask for them to aid them in complying a veterans' benefits resolution. Zarquon Froods would not be allowed to deny their request. Is that not leagues more dangerous than simply getting the funding from the General Fund?

Whether we like it or not, it is a game of survival of the fitest. My nation built itself up from nothing, without aid from anyone. And now we flourish. Injecting funds so smaller nations gets a jump start is wrong, and it sends the wrong message.If that was the prescribed philosophy, then the World Assembly would not exist.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 20:48

If you say that nations cannot be denied foreign aid, then a nation could walk right up to Zarquon Froods and ask for them to aid them in complying a veterans' benefits resolution. Zarquon Froods would not be allowed to deny their request. Is that not leagues more dangerous than simply getting the funding from the General Fund?

That is not the context in which I made my example, my fault for not clarifying. What I mean is if Zarquon Froods were to send aid to Glen-Rhodes for veterans for whatever reason. Glen-Rhodes cannot deny that aid to those it was intended for. It does not mean that you come to me for aid and I am bound by law to give it to you. This would have to be worded in such a way if such a proposal were ever created.

If that was the prescribed philosophy, then the World Assembly would not exist.

Explain.

- Chaos -

19-01-2009, 20:49

I just realized how weak this law really is.

3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

Although it urges and encourages us to do these things, we don't HAVE to do them. This just removed my opposition of this law, because 3) and 4) are the areas I have problems with. The citizens of -Chaos- will follow the word of this law, if it is passed, but we will set up the WAVAO organization how we feel is best, not how this assembly urges and encourages us to.

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 21:02

Explain.Applying Darwinian politics to an organization meant to improve the world in general makes no logical sense. You may not think that a portion of the World Assembly is meant for humanitarian purposes, but many of the passed resolutions say otherwise.

There are ways to use funds responsibly, and you should not base your entire opinion on the use of the General Fund for social welfare provisions on this resolution alone. There are very few delegations that are here saying that this resolution is adequate, or that the use of funds is responsible. I am not one of them, to be absolutely clear.

Whilst I heavily disagree with it, I respect your opinion that the World Assembly has no right to mandate social welfare provisions. I do not, however, respect your assertion that doing so is acting like a modern-day Robin Hood. I also commend any nation that adopts social welfare provisions on their own.

When all is said and done, this back-and-forth between us ultimately means nothing. The World Assembly, as a whole, will speak for itself, with the regards to whether or not it believes social welfare should be one of its purposes. I hypothesize, however, that the trend lies in my favor. Only time will tell.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 21:17

Can you give an example of this "barest possible minimum by the use of judicious checks and balances"? Is it enough to include something along the lines of what Freedom of Expression uses? Or, do you require extensive budgetary oversight?

What you view as acceptable use of World Assembly funds could be valuable information to future legislation, given your astounding ability of arguing the pitfalls of resolutions.

The checks and balances would relate specifically to the provisions of the actual statute in question. The one you quote from the freedom of expression statute is a fair example of a specific check. Where funds are involved oversight would be carried out by whichever committee of loyal w.a. minions the statute creates to disperse the funds.

The rather neat thing about the w.a. is that if the law in effect says " compliance is contingent on improvement, funds will be provided for improvement, once improvement is achieved no more funds will be provided " the requirement of complete compliance will necessitate proper use of funds.

Yours,

Zarquon Froods

19-01-2009, 21:27

The Altan Steppes

19-01-2009, 22:52

This resolution has managed to earn a unanimous NAY vote so far in our region, and in record time, I might add. A dubious distinction to earn. Based on our projections showing extreme unlikeliness of this decision being overturned before the end of voting, I have been most pleased to cast our region's vote AGAINST this nonsense.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

19-01-2009, 22:59

I am not letting this proposal be the basis of my opinion on social welfare. I am merely stating that this type of welfare is better left to sovereign nations. The General Fund should be used in cases of an emergency need lest we squander it away on items that aren't necessarily of that magnitude of importance. Not saying such things are without merit, but simply don't feel they require a mandate.Under the rug. There are few delegations the prescribe this method of philosophy to the World Assembly, but their affect on legislation is profound. I've lectured before on the intention of nations to excuse legislation that proves to be inconveniencing to those in which the spirit of the legislation was never directed, so I'll spare the lecture on that. What remains is that these nations simply do not care enough about nations less profitable than themselves, to sacrifice a meager amount of capital to extend aid; this is not an accusation towards the people, or towards the government per se, but towards how the World Assembly delegation has approached the idea of international social welfare.

It's clear that you do not understand the World Assembly General Fund, otherwise you would not be under the assumption that it is an emergency fund, only for legislation which is in dire need of capital. Indeed, the General Fund is tasked with providing monies to all World Assembly missions, no matter their level of greatness or triviality. The General Fund is not a static bank account. It is a dynamic system of annual donations that is unlikely to deplete in it's lifetime. The fears that, one day, we will no longer be able to afford to run this organization are not substantiated, and are rather unhealthy to very existence of the World Assembly. We cannot assess the use of the General Fund with the thinking that some other, more worthy piece of legislation might be written in the future. To do so is to halt the operations of the World Assembly indefinitely, in fear that we aren't spending money where it ought to be spent.

This is our farewell response for this string of argument. We can only hope that we've imparted some kind of knowledge to the delegations that questioned the issues addressed.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

19-01-2009, 23:15

Was it necessary to have the last word with the honoured Ambassador for Zarquon Froods in quite such a preposterous fashion Dr Castro ?

Yours,

Aundotutunagir

19-01-2009, 23:20

Yes I have. And I agree with it 100%
Really? So you're not troubled by the fact that the definition of veteran doesn't actually define veteran? A veteran can be anything my government says it is, up to and including every citizen of Aundotutunagir. And you have no qualms about the possibility that benefits will be provided to war criminals? (Not that there would be any war criminals in Aundotutunagir.) Or that WA nations that have recently been at war with one another will now be forced to pay for each other's veterans benefits? Or that nations (such as Aundotutunagir) that have universal conscription will now no longer be required to fund their veterans benefit programs themselves, but can sit back and allow the WA to fund them instead?

Avarahn

19-01-2009, 23:42

Really? So you're not troubled by the fact that the definition of veteran doesn't actually define veteran? A veteran can be anything my government says it is, up to and including every citizen of Aundotutunagir. And you have no qualms about the possibility that benefits will be provided to war criminals? (Not that there would be any war criminals in Aundotutunagir.) Or that WA nations that have recently been at war with one another will now be forced to pay for each other's veterans benefits? Or that nations (such as Aundotutunagir) that have universal conscription will now no longer be required to fund their veterans benefit programs themselves, but can sit back and allow the WA to fund them instead?

1. I agree entirely with the words by the honoured ambassador above. One might say that it would be impossible. But if I may, veterans can include everyone in the nation, if the individual nation chooses to declare that from now on all citizens are conscripted and will serve in the military throughout their lives, not active service but passive service, which can include donating poart of their income to the military, or attending classes once a month. In that way, all citizens would have served in the military and then all citizens would be entitled to this new veterans benefits. I have close to a billion citizens and though I initially voted against this, I now think i shall vote for it, so that my citizens will be entirely covered under the new reforms I will undertake in my military subcriptions.

2. Our nation is of the opinion that the administration of military matters, regarding internal matters, oh which veterans affairs certainly is, should be left to the individual nation to decide. if a nation chooses not to treat their veterans well, than that is just too bad. Also, my antion already have a more than exemplary veterans welfare package, in the words of the above nation, shall i now just sit back and let the WA pay for my veteran welfare costs ?? I would really love to.

Thank you,

Minerva Yoko Ahmed Ibrahim,
Imperial Secretary for Veterans Affairs.

Glen-Rhodes

20-01-2009, 02:03

Was it necessary to have the last word with the honoured Ambassador for Zarquon Froods in quite such a preposterous fashion Dr Castro ?

I wouldn't call it preposterous. But, I would call the second half, at least, necessary. There's a lot of needless confusion, border misrepresentation, about the General Fund floating around that should be corrected.

The first have is, admittedly, a tad unnecessary, but is a summation of the argument put forth for international social welfare provisions. Well, perhaps it's more of an argument against those against international social welfare provisions. Either way...

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Darkpigeon

20-01-2009, 02:13

I'm just worried that people will use this resolution to escape from crimes ("I'm a veteran, you can't put me in jail!!) or join the army just for veteran benefits. Perhaps something in the resolution about restricting that sort of activity?

Urgench

20-01-2009, 02:38

I wouldn't call it preposterous. But, I would call the second half, at least, necessary. There's a lot of needless confusion, border misrepresentation, about the General Fund floating around that should be corrected.

The first have is, admittedly, a tad unnecessary, but is a summation of the argument put forth for international social welfare provisions. Well, perhaps it's more of an argument against those against international social welfare provisions. Either way...

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Your conception of the General Fund is completely erroneous, it presumes that unimaginable amounts of money are donated to it when you have no actual way of knowing this.

In any event the provisions of this statute could easily create a situation where many if not most states were drawing more in veterans assistance than their total donation. This would lead to rapid and dramatic depletion of the fund, in the long term even complete depletion of it.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

20-01-2009, 03:04

Your conception of the General Fund is completely erroneous, it presumes that unimaginable amounts of money are donated to it when you have no actual way of knowing this.Your assumption that it doesn't is more correct, is that right? My perception of the General Fund comes straight from the fact that it was written to fund all World Assembly missions, not just those deemed more worthy of funding, which you assert is the better way of going about the whole issue.

For once, can we just assume that resolutions actually do what they say they do?

In any event the provisions of this statute could easily create a situation where many if not most states were drawing more in veterans assistance than their total donation. This would lead to rapid and dramatic depletion of the fund, in the long term even complete depletion of it.In any event, I question why you're still trying to convince me that this resolution is irresponsible. I'm already convinced! You assume, however, that donation levels are static. Indeed, they are far from static.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

20-01-2009, 03:21

Your assumption that it doesn't is more correct, is that right? My perception of the General Fund comes straight from the fact that it was written to fund all World Assembly missions, not just those deemed more worthy of funding, which you assert is the better way of going about the whole issue.

We just think that starving children and refugees fleeing dreadful conflict might be more deserving of this organisation's assistance then well fed, well paid ex soldiers. Is that so terrible Dr Castro ?

For once, can we just assume that resolutions actually do what they say they do?

We wouldn't demure from this assumption.

In any event, I question why you're still trying to convince me that this resolution is irresponsible. I'm already convinced! You assume, however, that donation levels are static. Indeed, they are far from static.

As an example of just how the General Fund might be depleted ( and to keep our debate on topic ). And it is worth pointing out that welfare budgets aren't static either.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

20-01-2009, 03:24

We just think that starving children and refugees fleeing dreadful conflict might be more deserving of this organisation's assistance then well fed, well paid ex soldiers. Is that so terrible Dr Castro ?No, it's not, and I would support such an effort. But -- looking over your incredibly insensitive misrepresentation of veterans' rights -- we can do both.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

20-01-2009, 03:37

No, it's not, and I would support such an effort. But -- looking over your incredibly insensitive misrepresentation of veterans' rights -- we can do both.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Be realistic Dr Castro, do you think that it is better for the w.a. to fund veterans rather than the states which employed them ? Wouldn't the w.a. be better placed to make sure states did this if they refuse to do so ? And then get down to the business of helping those who have completely fallen through the cracks of a society and are in the direst of need ?

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

20-01-2009, 03:54

Be realistic Dr Castro, do you think that it is better for the w.a. to fund veterans rather than the states which employed them ? Wouldn't the w.a. be better placed to make sure states did this if they refuse to do so ? And then get down to the business of helping those who have completely fallen through the cracks of a society and are in the direst of need ?I am being realistic. We can afford to provide veterans' benefits. You believe, for some reason, that I support how this resolution dishes out money to any Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks for it. I am not, and I thought that I made it clear that I believe that this resolution is disastrously irresponsible in that regard.

If I were proposing veterans' benefits, I would stipulate that nations would have to take every (reasonable) possible measure to pay for the resolution themselves. If they fall short of compliance, then infuse some capital to be used only to comply with the resolution. It's the approach I have taken for the Primary Education Act, and I believe it's the approach that ought to be taken for ever international social welfare provision (with how many times I've used the term, I ought to make it an acronym).

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

20-01-2009, 03:59

I am being realistic. We can afford to provide veterans' benefits. You believe, for some reason, that I support how this resolution dishes out money to any Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks for it. I am not, and I thought that I made it clear that I believe that this resolution is disastrously irresponsible in that regard.

If I were proposing veterans' benefits, I would stipulate that nations would have to take every (reasonable) possible measure to pay for the resolution themselves. If they fall short of compliance, then infuse some capital to be used only to comply with the resolution. It's the approach I have taken for the Primary Education Act, and I believe it's the approach that ought to be taken for ever international social welfare provision (with how many times I've used the term, I ought to make it an acronym).

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Fine, fine Dr Castro. We wish you luck with that, sincerely we do. It sounds most sensible.

Yours,

- Chaos -

20-01-2009, 21:06

The bottom line seems to be this, at least from my perspective.

This piece of legislation has so many huge holes that it can be abused. In my opinion, a law that has even a miniscule chance of being abused MUST BE REJECTED. That is my personal opinion, of course.

My personal philosophy is that this legislature should never have been brought before the World Assembly because of its holes. Nations need to revise their legislature to remove any possible holes, and take get their legislature read and co-written by however many nations it takes in order to remove every noticeable hole.

Going along with this philosophy of mine, it is the duty of the member nations and their ambassadors to reject all legislation that can be abused. If it can be abused, even if you support the idea, it should be rejected, improved, and then resubmitted. This happens around the world in national governments. Why shouldn't it happen here?

Following this philosophy, I must vote to reject this piece of legislation.

Signed,
Rob
The Democratic Republic of - Chaos -
Ambassador to the World Assembly

Subistratica

20-01-2009, 23:13

In my opinion, a law that has even a miniscule chance of being abused MUST BE REJECTED. That is my personal opinion, of course.

[OOC: What good is a law if it doesn't have a couple of loopholes? :P]

After reading over some of the debate over this resolution, I have decided to vote against and urge other nations to do the same.

Schyllic

21-01-2009, 00:38

Voted against.

Access to medical care and education/job training ought to be provided to all. First, to pass a law singling out veterans seems to imply that all others are not guaranteed such basic rights. Second, if some nations don't want take care of their veterans, isn't that their problem and can the WA really force them to do it? To my thinking, either it's a dictatorship or they simply don't have the capability. I think this and other such economic choices must remain within the province of national governments.

Zibraltia

21-01-2009, 01:01

Urgench

21-01-2009, 01:06

The needs of veterans are unique compared to the needs of civilians. I agree with much of what this Act proposes; however, I do take issue with one statement:

d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

Why, exactly, should non-member nations be granted assistance by the WA, when they've made it clear they don't want to participate in the benefits of WA membership? Why should they receive veteran support from the WA when they operate outside it? This article seems completely arbitrary, and it completely dissolves the purpose of membership in the first place.

But respected Ambassador you seem completely unphased by the possibility that your nation's taxpayers will be made to pay for the veterans of other w.a. states, why would you care that this bizarre principle was extended to non-w.a. states ?

The principal of paying for another state's veterans is what is absurd not which states pay which.

Yours,

Zibraltia

21-01-2009, 01:42

Zibraltia is committed to providing exceptional care for its own veterans, and its dominion cabinet implores other nations to do the same. However, the absurdity of expanding this right to a global level is only one example of the flaws this act contains. Including non-WA states to receive the full benefit of a WA-sponsored initiative pollutes the mission of the WA, which is to encourage nations of the world to actively contribute policies and reforms that benefit us all. Why should those nations, particularly those in the top 10 who have no WA membership, be given support for their veterans, from the pockets of the WA? Forcing opposing WA nations to support each other's militaries is bad enough, but forcing opposing nations outside the system? That is a total perversion of everything the WA was designed for. I fear, if this motion is carried, what other benefits independent nations may reap from future WA proposals, when those nations refuse to support the WA or make any contributions to it.

Zibraltia votes against the Veterans Reform Act, on the grounds that such an act perverts the WA's mission and forces warring nations to support each other's militaries.

Flibbleites

21-01-2009, 02:19

[OOC: What good is a law if it doesn't have a couple of loopholes? :P]

OOC: What good is a law with loopholes big enough to fly the Death Star through?

Cunningen

21-01-2009, 04:56

The free Land of Cunningen votes against this proposal.
If this resolution will pass, Cunningen will leave the WA until the repeal of this resolution.

A Resolution, that forces us to support armament and taking care of and compensate the ones who willingly took part in war or warlike activities, while children and innocent civilians suffering (often in much higher numbers then the responsible armed forces) from their attacks are not taken care of, can not be accepted.

We assume that the author of this resolution proposed it with best intentions for the veterans, which are surely to be treated in a honorable way, but he failed to bring to accomodate it with the Peace Intent that drives the WA.

Feet Hands

21-01-2009, 09:50

This is a national issue not a world issue. For example the United States of America has its own provisions for their veterans. Same with Great Britain and Australia. They do not all follow the same provisions regarding their veterans because they do not serve in the same military. Now if the World Assembly had its own military, not peace keeping force, this would be a valid argument. Also like previous posters mentioned why should one nation support another when they do not want to participate as members in the WA. Finally if I read this correctly warring member nations of WA are supporting each others veterans? That does not make sense. After the war there are reperations so does this mean this is suspended if two WA memebers or a WA member and non WA member are at war?

Vadrafjordia

21-01-2009, 17:33

Once again, Vadrafjordia re-affirms that it shall place all veterans of every WA nation under iinvestigation for War Crimes if this resolution is passed in order to ensure that this piece of legislation does not work.

Puchi

21-01-2009, 19:51

The nation of Puchi can not support this resolution.

To begin with, we are a pacifist nation. We do not want to encourage growth of national armies.

More importantly, our nation condones a high level of economic freedom. Telling companies who to promote or not is out of question. In a normal situation, the employee would be promoted, because they have gained expirience. The expirience acquired in armed forces may not be relevant to the veteran's job. This resolution would greatly increase government control over the market, which could harm Puchi's economy.

Furthermore, financing this from a WA fund is simply horrid! If a nation wants to lead wars, the land of Puchi does not approve, but it is beyond our means to stop it. We will not, however, allow it to lead a war at Puchi's expense.

Sick Twisted Freeks

21-01-2009, 20:47

Indeed, Sick Twisted Freeks, while a strong military state that supports it's military personel, cannot support this resolution, and requests that you do not either.

It is not the place of the WA to fund the military of any nation in any way, unless that nation is directly responsible for the security of the WA, or a WA function(i.e. paying for police/military presence during said function). Even so, those must be funded on a case-by-case basis.

Similarly, if a nation chooses not to support it's veterans, in the field or at home, that is the nation's right, and similarly the resulting desertions, civil unrest, and lack of military strength are that nation's responsibility. Said nation must adress the problems this creates, the WA has no place in telling these nations or the businesses within what they must and must not do.

Letting corporations decide who they will promote, without WA interference will encourage the businesses to do this on their own, so as to gain public approval and sell products/services. These nations and businesses will do this on their own, or they will fail and restructure, without the WA imposing regulations that would hinder this process and cost WA member nations valuable funds.

Gobbannium

21-01-2009, 21:23

The needs of veterans are unique compared to the needs of civilians.
The needs of any profession are unique compared with all others. While we are generally in favour of welfare programs and wealth redistribution, we are yet to see a convincing argument as to why veterans should uniquely receive these benefits, never mind in such a badly flawed manner.

Glen-Rhodes

21-01-2009, 22:01

The needs of any profession are unique compared with all others. While we are generally in favour of welfare programs and wealth redistribution, we are yet to see a convincing argument as to why veterans should uniquely receive these benefits, never mind in such a badly flawed manner.

I don't think that anybody is saying that veterans are more deserving than others in regards of social welfare. Rather, it's probably the provision most cherished by the author. I have education, you might have poverty, and Jack probably likes health care. All in due time, I suppose.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Urgench

21-01-2009, 22:13

I don't think that anybody is saying that veterans are more deserving than others in regards of social welfare. Rather, it's probably the provision most cherished by the author. I have education, you might have poverty, and Jack probably likes health care. All in due time, I suppose.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

We imagine the honoured and respected Ambassador for Gobbanium is asking why veterans should be entitled to w.a. assistance at all, and is saying that as yet no one has made a convincing case for why they should be.

Yours,

- Chaos -

22-01-2009, 02:35

Aundotutunagir

22-01-2009, 03:13

We also must bring up, why should we reward killers? We shouldn't reward those who kill for a living, even if to protect their own country. Especially since those killers from other countries could turn on your country at a moment's notice. Once again I beg that everyone rejects this legislature!

Especially if you like the idea of the legislature, but don't like a hole. You can always reject this and then introduce it at a national level, just for your own country, without the holes. This legislature will raise unemployment, make existing welfare programs more costly, and cost far too much by itself. This law will destroy your economy! Please, reject this legislature, for the good of all of us.
As much as I am opposed to this proposal, I must object strongly to your detestable use of the term "killers" in referral to veterans. Yes, some veterans have killed, but it is sometimes necessary to spill blood in defense of one's homeland.

And I believe the word you are looking for is legislation. A legislature is a law-making body. Legislation is the laws that they write.

The Aundotutunagirian People remain opposed to this resolution, but are also opposed to hippie scum who seek to denigrate honorable men who rise in the defense of their homeland.

Twafflonia

22-01-2009, 04:48

I'm afraid I must vote against this proposal, as it encourages a business climate in which employers are even less likely to hire volunteer service members, and justifiably so, knowing that they must re-hire said personnel if they are ever called to duty for a period of time, no matter changing business conditions.

A better proposal would encourage businesses to take the economic risk of hiring a volunteer service member--and it is a risk, in that the employee may be called away from their duties at the business in order to serve the country--for example, by offering tax incentives or compensatory subsidies. However, the specifics of such a resolution would be best left to the individual states, due to differences of government.

Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonian Ambassador to the World Assembly

Zarquon Froods

22-01-2009, 04:48

The latest talley has the vote splt by 33 Against.

Anyone care to make a wager?

- Chaos -

22-01-2009, 04:59

Twafflonia

22-01-2009, 05:15

I screwed up with the legislature - legislation thing. Sorry, it's rather late where I am, and I've already taken my sleeping pills. Rather tired.

I only used the term killers because honestly, I don't see why people who choose willing to serve their country should get extra benefits over those who do not. It makes little sense to give extra benefits to those who have killed for their country over those who do not. They chose their occupation, and they shouldn't get benefits from the WA for choosing that profession. Hey, I'm a lawyer, can I have WA money too? I serve my country's judicial system.

There are no part-time volunteer government lawyers who are called away from their civilian day jobs by the government. Well, not in Twafflonia, anyway. Here, lawyering tends to be a full-time job, whereas military service is often rotational.

But that's just another reason why this legislation is absurd. Different nations handle their military affairs differently.

Gobbannium

22-01-2009, 05:21

We must say that it is quite exciting to have such a close vote for once.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

22-01-2009, 05:53

The latest talley has the vote splt by 33 Against.

Anyone care to make a wager?It's over 100 votes down now, thanks to 10000 Islands and Canada. I should have known; large regions often vote against when the vote total is close. I don't know what does it. At any rate, Texas and Wysteria are on track to go against this one too, and the Feeders are lazy about voting nowadays, so I'll go out on a limb and say this fails.

...Unless I jinxed it just now. Aw, crap. :p

Mavenu

22-01-2009, 07:11

San Guillermo

22-01-2009, 08:33

It's quite interesting to see such a resolution be so close to being shot down.

HM The King, like many other WA leaders, have such qualms with this resolution; namely the fact that our taxpayers money not only funds our nation's WAVAO, but other WA members and that of willing non-WA members, whom under the WA rules, we are not responsible to.

Because of that, I am, by our nations unanimous consent, vote AGAINST the passing of this resolution.

Doña Grace Consuelo de Aramade-Cortez
Representative to the World Assembly, The United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo

Anur-Sanur

22-01-2009, 11:00

Amongst reasons already mentioned as to why this is a poor resolution, Anur-Sanur fails to understand why we would help pay for the veterans of our potential enemies.

AnagromAtaf

22-01-2009, 12:07

HM the sultain is going to vote AGAINST this proposal!

Our nation is tryng to reduce the part of bugget spent for army and wepons! HM truly cares about cultur, education and freedom... Our resurces and Dijins (local value) are needed for those causes!

Anur-Sanur

22-01-2009, 14:25

As of this moment AGAINST has a slim lead of 16 votes

Santo and Banks

22-01-2009, 15:53

The Nation of Santo and Banks proudly casts its first vote ever in the World Assembly. Santo and Banks entered a vote of No.

It is an honor to be a new member of the World Assembly and NationStates!

Freierelund

22-01-2009, 17:09

Some changes I propose.
3a) Instead of their level at time od deployment, make a clause to ensure they are at least at the level they were in the military. In other words, match their civilian duties with their military duties in terms of responsibility. Also, I believe employers should, by law of the WA, factor in previous employment level AND military experience.
3b) Essentially the same as my argument for 3a, only the pay should be considered.
3c-d) These were pretty much covered in my arguments for 3a.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 17:15

I think you should post this in the official thread, honoured Ambassador, and you should know tht if this resolution passes it cannot be amended but must be repealed entirely before any other legislation dealing with this subject could be passed.

Yours,

Zarquon Froods

22-01-2009, 17:44

...Unless I jinxed it just now. Aw, crap. :p

You must have. Now the split is 197 in FAVOR.:eek2:

If this goes on the midday update, it has about 3 hours left.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

22-01-2009, 18:05

Who feels like a complete idiot? This guy! *points thumbs at self*

Harmonious Treefolk

22-01-2009, 19:01

It's over 100 votes down now, thanks to 10000 Islands and Canada. I should have known; large regions often vote against when the vote total is close. I don't know what does it. At any rate, Texas and Wysteria are on track to go against this one too, and the Feeders are lazy about voting nowadays, so I'll go out on a limb and say this fails.

...Unless I jinxed it just now. Aw, crap. :p

((OOC: I can tell you that the 10000 Islands delegate waits until all the votes are cast on the regional message board on the last day of WA voting. He or she then casts the delegate vote based on the results of the regional voting. That's why we love 'em!))

Start writing those repeals...

Zarquon Froods

22-01-2009, 19:10

The resolution Veterans Reform Act was passed 2,423 votes to 2,165, and implemented in all WA member nations.

Zarquon had been fondling the repeal button all day. As the second hand of the clock slowly made its way to the joined minute and hour hands, Zarquon could feel the sweat upon his brow, he licked his lips relentlessly his muscles tensed as he watched the hand move slowly towards its apex and it kept slowing...unil...until....*ding* His hand slammed down upon the button with the fury of an agry god. He stood woozily, unsure of what had just happened, raised his hand as if to say something brilliant and collapsed head first towards the floor.

Vadrafjordia

22-01-2009, 19:19

As previously mentioned by the People's Republic of Vadrafjordia, I ambassador Peter Walsh, hereby declare that Vadrafjordia is currently placing every soldier of WA nations including our own under investigation of War Crimes.

*Peter Walsh is quickly escorted away amidst heckles and jeers.

Charlotte Ryberg

22-01-2009, 19:39

This is a disgrace. We hereby declare that all our soldiers will be marked down for war crimes as well. Anyway, all soldiers have been indicted for war crimes.* Effectively there will be myriad types of war crimes: war crimes for intention to gain fame, another one for intending to profit from the press, and war crimes on intentionally joining the army. It will be in force until repeal.

Seriously the ambassador of Charlotte Ryberg are seeking to impose sanctions against the supporters of this lame duck resolution, and impose indefinite, irrevocable blanket embargoes against the Studly Penguins.

*Lulu Hilde Berlin is tentatively applauded by angered ambassadors.

Bonleata

22-01-2009, 19:46

This is a outrage !

Harmonious Treefolk

22-01-2009, 20:05

As much fun as Studly Penguins and Nebulantis might find it to impoverish the WA to provide free health care to untold billions of people, support the military might of various nations, and aid in the comfortable retirement of war criminals, the Harmonious Treefolk must strongly support the repeal already proposed by the Zarquon delegation.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 20:05

We are utterly disgusted by the authors of this tissue of imbecility, the Veterans Reform Act.

They are guilty of giving huge cash bonuses and pensions to child murderers, mass rapists, genocidal sociopaths, and other assorted miscreants of the very worst degree.
Presumably the authors of this dreadful statute welcome this outcome, perhaps even intended it, there behaviour in the drafting of this statute certainly indicates such, and therefore we hold the authors of this statute to be alike in nature to the monsters and murderers they have rewarded.

We hold the nations of Studly Penguins and there familiars the nation of Nebulantis to be collaborators with war criminals. Both nations shall be treated by the Government of the Emperor of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench as rogue, pariah, and outlaw, all citizens of these states found within the borders of the empire will be immediately escorted to the border, should they offer resistance they will be imprisoned and extradited.

All trade, such as it may be, between these criminal states and ourselves will be ended, and diplomatic recognition of these governments by the CSKU will be ceased also.

We are appalled at the immoral and depraved perversion of w.a. funds which will now occur under the auspices of this statute.

Yours,

Charlotte Ryberg

22-01-2009, 20:14

I wish to inform the WA citizens angered by the recent passage of this lame duck that I am going to and will let them into my non-WA alternate nations with immediate effect as full refugees on grounds of opposition to this lame duck. The participants are at the moment:

- Charlotte Antje, which is a holiday resort near Charlotte Ryberg in an independent region.
- Aveni, Funen
- The Tibetians, Funen.

I'll be telegramming my friends in Funen on whether they wish to join in. Stay tuned.

Studly Penguins

22-01-2009, 20:29

Who feels like a complete idiot? This guy! *points thumbs at self*

Texas cast their vote FOR the resolution!!! Marking your soldiers down as war criminals guys, that is just pathetic!!!!!

Urgench

22-01-2009, 20:33

Texas cast their vote FOR the resolution!!! Marking your soldiers down as war criminals guys, that is just pathetic!!!!!

And now these criminals flaunt their wickedness and taunt those who actually have consciences. Is there no limit to their shameful behaviour ?

Yours,

Studly Penguins

22-01-2009, 20:44

And now these criminals flaunt their wickedness and taunt those who actually have consciences. Is there no limit to their shameful behaviour ?

Yours,

Does that mean that you guys aren't comin over to celebrate with us ;)

Nebulantis

22-01-2009, 20:52

And now these criminals flaunt their wickedness and taunt those who actually have consciences. Is there no limit to their shameful behaviour ?

Yours,

Don't give yourself a heart attack, Urgench. Your energies are needed over in the repeal thread :p

Harmonious Treefolk

22-01-2009, 20:53

Does that mean that you guys aren't comin over to celebrate with us ;)

Sir, no one wants to celebrate with you. Please leave us in peace.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 20:57

Don't give yourself a heart attack, Urgench. Your energies are needed over in the repeal thread :p

So you imagine yourself a wit too ? How disgusting, perhaps you would do better to get you hence with your criminal friends and celebrate your obscene success.

Sincerely,

Nebulantis

22-01-2009, 21:01

So you imagine yourself a wit too ? How disgusting, perhaps you would do better to get you hence with your criminal friends and celebrate your obscene success.

Sincerely,

Urgench, if you're going to role-play a WA ambassador, try to be a little more diplomatic in your language and refrain from calling our characters "disgusting". You sound more like a child than an ambassador. I'm sure this is not the pinnacle of your behaviour, and that you can act more appropriately online.

If, however, you wish to throw a tantrum, then it appears you are superceding your mandate as role-player. As such, I respectfully remind you that the "G" in NSG stands for "game".

Sincerely, of course...

Nebulantis

22-01-2009, 21:01

Sir, no one wants to celebrate with you. Please leave us in peace.

I'll be celebrating with Studly Penguins, as will many others of the majority who voted in the resolution. :rolleyes:

Urgench

22-01-2009, 21:14

Urgench, if you're going to role-play a WA ambassador, try to be a little more diplomatic in your language and refrain from calling our characters "disgusting". You sound more like a child than an ambassador. I'm sure this is not the pinnacle of your behaviour, and that you can act more appropriately online.

If, however, you wish to throw a tantrum, then it appears you are superceding your mandate as role-player. As such, I respectfully remind you that the "G" in NSG stands for "game".

Sincerely, of course...

O.O.C. OK don't lecture me on how to r.p. anything, Mongkha isn't looking to sign peace treaties with your nations and is here to represent his nation's opinion and interests, if he decides your nations are totally beyond the pale then he'll have no reason to hide that fact.

Personally I'm annoyed that we'll have to waste our time repealing the dog's breakfast you've somehow got passed. And somewhat annoyed by your silly reasons for doing so but that's it.

If you think it's been appropriate to shovel this resolution through here without actually ever having engaged in the game then fine.

Mongkha has every legitimate reason to treat your Ambassadors as collaborators with war criminals, do you want him to play nice ?

Nebulantis

22-01-2009, 21:25

O.O.C. OK don't lecture me on how to r.p. anything, Mongkha isn't looking to sign peace treaties with your nations and is here to represent his nation's opinion and interests, if he decides your nations are totally beyond the pale then he'll have no reason to hide that fact.

Personally I'm annoyed that we'll have to waste our time repealing the dog's breakfast you've somehow got passed. And somewhat annoyed by your silly reasons for doing so but that's it.

If you think it's been appropriate to shovel this resolution through here without actually ever having engaged in the game then fine.

Mongkha has every legitimate reason to treat your Ambassadors as collaborators with war criminals, do you want him to play nice ?

I'm not questioning how you RP the game - I'm just questioning the level of maturity you exhibit in doing so. You're allowed to feel strongly about the subject at hand, but resorting to petty insults is undiplomatic and debases your effect as an ambassador.

Surely you can't have missed debate or Model UN at school, where diplomacy (i.e. arguing your case without insulting people who hold the opposite view as morally unsound) is practised?

And who the heck is Mongkha? Is that you? :rolleyes:
Don't worry, I'm in no need of peace treaties with this person. All I expect is mature behaviour from someone who takes role-playing an ambassador so seriously that they've been intensely complaining about this resolution on the forums for over ten days now.

Urgench

22-01-2009, 21:33

I'm not questioning how you RP the game - I'm just questioning the level of maturity you exhibit in doing so. You're allowed to feel strongly about the subject at hand, but resorting to petty insults is undiplomatic and debases your effect as an ambassador.

Surely you can't have missed debate or Model UN at school, where diplomacy (i.e. arguing your case without insulting people who hold the opposite view as morally unsound) is practised?

And who the heck is Mongkha? Is that you? :rolleyes:
Don't worry, I'm in no need of peace treaties with this person. All I expect is mature behaviour from someone who takes role-playing an ambassador so seriously that they've been intensely complaining about this resolution on the forums for over ten days now.

This is really part of your problem, you haven't taken any time to even look around to see who the other players of this game are, there's a whole thread about who people's rp characters are -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554159

Mongkha is Urgench's Ambassador to the w.a. look it up. Seriously your lecturing me about diplomacy when your nations just pushed through big cash prizes for rapists and murderers ? If you think any real Ambassador to an organisation like this wouldn't make there feelings about that kind of thing absolutely clear then you have a poor understanding of actual international politics.

My rp characters are under no obligation to pander to other players who like giving big cash payouts to the worst kind of criminals you can imagine.

It's not that Urgench's Ambassador dissagrees with your nation's opinion, its that he is actually disgusted by their actions.

Oh and by the way, if you think 10 days is enough time to put a good resolution together then no wonder this one is so poor.

It's taken months of actually canvassing opinion and actual debate to put Urgench's Charter of Civil Rights together

NationStates Jolt Archive

PASSED: Veterans Reform Act [Official Thread]