NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Veterans Reform Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #32
Proposed by: Zarquon Froods

Description: WA Resolution #32: Veterans Reform Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: SADDENED by the fact that this resolution was submitted before it was effectively refined;

OUTRAGED at the multitude of flaws this resolution holds within its body;

DISMAYED by the fact that member nations will be required to fund care for another nation's "veterans", including, but not limited to, those soldiers who have recently been at war againt them or those they will be at war with in the future;

ALARMED by this resolution’s definition of “veteran” that includes not only those citizens who have willingly joined their nation’s armed services, but also those who have been conscripted which, in certain cases, can include a vast majority of a nation's citizens;

CONCERNED that the WA Veterans Assistance Office (WAVAO) requires all member nations to incur the monetary cost of all services allocated by Section 4 of the "Veterans Reform Act" through use of the W.A. General Fund;

MORTIFIED that the expenditures incurred to the General Fund by the WAVAO are exponential, un-restricted, unregulated and extremely vulnerable to corrupt abuse, leading to a high likelihood of massive depletion of W.A. funds;

HEREBY repeals the Veterans Reform Act.

And so I submit to you honored Ambassadors this repeal in the hopes that we might be able to right this untimely mess.

Done.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=veterans

Naturally the honoured Ambassador for Zarquon Froods has our absolute support in this repeal.



Yours sincerely,

Cross posting:

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.

Puchi is in full support, and shall telegram its regional ambassador urging him to endorse the proposal.

This legislation should have never been passed to begin with.

We too stand in full support of this repeal.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

Finest Kind!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Hm. We do support this repeal.

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

Our support for this repeal has been noted.

As much as I'd like to approve this repeal, I find myself unable to do so because the WA has taken away my approval stamp along with my regional delegateship. But you have my full support.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

As much as I'd like to approve this repeal, I find myself unable to do so because the WA has taken away my approval stamp along with my regional delegateship.Aww, such a kind heart (http://www.nationstates.net/66538/nation=gnomewatchers), Frisee-boy! :tongue:

Aww, such a kind heart (http://www.nationstates.net/66538/nation=gnomewatchers), Frisee-boy! :tongue:

Won't do any good unless I remember to accept the WA invitation ... and why I applied ... and to log in occasionally. I've been pretty bad about puppet deaths for the last couple years.

This repeal has the full support of the Aundotutunagirian People.

Warre, can vouch that this has my support. I don't want to speak for my region, or for those in it, as I'm not the liason or the delegate, but I'm quite sure TEP is highly against this as well.

I cite a previously enacted World Assembly Resolution, the second WA resolution, 'Rights and Duties of WA states', section 1 article 3: Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Likewise; section 3 Article 10: Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Neutrality, in it's definition, is lack of bias and lack of taking a side in any act. The World Assembly, by creating a 'Veterans Affairs Organization' under it's banner. Likewise, if any world assembly nation was to decide that it was going to ignore the veteran's affairs organization act, it would be perfectly suited in doing so, as any nation which demanded that those who ignored it were 'breaking international law' by refusing to make payments into the global pot or refusing to take assistance from an extranational body, would be unable to legally interfere with this situation.

At best, the WAO act is a piece of unnecessary and illegal legislation which goes against what the World Assembly stands for, and which promotes armed strife, break away states, and militant action to solve problems as opposed to diplomatic action.

At worst, it is an extremely illegal piece of legislation which if it was to be enacted, would cause most WA nations to break from the World Assembly.

Warre;14429794']Warre, can vouch that this has my support. I don't want to speak for my region, or for those in it, as I'm not the liason or the delegate, but I'm quite sure TEP is highly against this as well.

I cite a previously enacted World Assembly Resolution, the second WA resolution, 'Rights and Duties of WA states', section 1 article 3: Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Likewise; section 3 Article 10: Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Neutrality, in it's definition, is lack of bias and lack of taking a side in any act. The World Assembly, by creating a 'Veterans Affairs Organization' under it's banner. Likewise, if any world assembly nation was to decide that it was going to ignore the veteran's affairs organization act, it would be perfectly suited in doing so, as any nation which demanded that those who ignored it were 'breaking international law' by refusing to make payments into the global pot or refusing to take assistance from an extranational body, would be unable to legally interfere with this situation.

At best, the WAO act is a piece of unnecessary and illegal legislation which goes against what the World Assembly stands for, and which promotes armed strife, break away states, and militant action to solve problems as opposed to diplomatic action.

At worst, it is an extremely illegal piece of legislation which if it was to be enacted, would cause most WA nations to break from the World Assembly.

There is absolutly no contradiction between the Veterans Reform Act and Rights and Duties of WA States. Rights and Duties basically says that nations have complete authority except where WA resolutions say otherwise.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Warre;14429794']Warre, can vouch that this has my support. I don't want to speak for my region, or for those in it, as I'm not the liason or the delegate, but I'm quite sure TEP is highly against this as well.

I cite a previously enacted World Assembly Resolution, the second WA resolution, 'Rights and Duties of WA states', section 1 article 3: Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Likewise; section 3 Article 10: Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Neutrality, in it's definition, is lack of bias and lack of taking a side in any act. The World Assembly, by creating a 'Veterans Affairs Organization' under it's banner. Likewise, if any world assembly nation was to decide that it was going to ignore the veteran's affairs organization act, it would be perfectly suited in doing so, as any nation which demanded that those who ignored it were 'breaking international law' by refusing to make payments into the global pot or refusing to take assistance from an extranational body, would be unable to legally interfere with this situation.

At best, the WAO act is a piece of unnecessary and illegal legislation which goes against what the World Assembly stands for, and which promotes armed strife, break away states, and militant action to solve problems as opposed to diplomatic action.

At worst, it is an extremely illegal piece of legislation which if it was to be enacted, would cause most WA nations to break from the World Assembly.



This is an interesting idea, honoured Ambassador, but unfortunately the WAVAO is essentially a civilian organisation functioning as a world assembly social welfare bureau. This means that the w.a. isn't really involving itself directly in military matters despite how the abusablity, so to speak, of the WAVAO would allow member states to invest far greater subsidy in their armed forces.

One might be able to argue that the WAVAO is contradictory to the spirit of the WA Rights and Duties statute but not the word.

Yours sincerely,

I disagree.

Legislation which is passed before other legislation, especially legislation which was barely passed by it, supercedes things.

The Veterans Reform Act fosters violence and militant action, by removing some of the economic dangers that would normally exist within it. Likewise, it supercedes the World Assembly's rights, and it interferes with national sovereignty.

The first quote says that no member state may act in intervention of any sort, political, economic, religious, or social in definition, of other nations. This would mean by proxy, which is what the WAVAO would be, as well.

Likewise, section 3, article 10, clearly states that the WA as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. This is clearly a matter of 'civil strife', and could be one of 'international strife'. The affairs of a nation's veterans could be acknowledged as 'civil strife', which the WA is obliged to remain neutrality in.

The WAVAO is expect to come up with 'base requirements of welfare' for the veterans of member nations, and is funded by member nations, regardless of it a nation has a standing army or not. This, especially with teh fact that the WA would be expected to 'enforce such minimum standards', would be policing.

We have approved this repeal, and look forward to seeing the ungodly abomination that forced this repeal to happen in the first place to be burned, and never spoken of again.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Warre;14430164']Legislation which is passed before other legislation, especially legislation which was barely passed by it, supercedes things.
In most legal systems it is the more recent legislation which takes precedence over older laws. In the World Assembly, proposals which would contradict existing legislation are illegal, and are not brought to vote. It has already been deemed (OOC: by the moderators, before you ask) that the "Veterans Reform Act" does not conflict with "Rights and Duties", and both Mr Flibble and Khan Mongkha have offered legally correct supporting reasoning.

That said, we would dearly love to see this repeal succeed.

I think it is appropriate to mention here just how badly the passing of the Veterans Reform Act is effecting Zarquon Froods' healthcare system. As per today's edition of The Empire Times (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=1028)

Warre;14430164']Likewise, section 3, article 10, clearly states that the WA as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. This is clearly a matter of 'civil strife', and could be one of 'international strife'. The affairs of a nation's veterans could be acknowledged as 'civil strife', which the WA is obliged to remain neutrality in.

It's not clear to me. Not in the slightest.

Supporting veterans, who are, by definition, not active in the military, doesn't sound like anything fomenting civil or international strife or intervening in military affairs. I think I have a reasonable degree of authority on this one too, for a variety of reasons that should be obvious.

Mind you, being forced to pay for an enemy's vets may in fact foment a bit of strife, but that's not something that either Article 10 covers. Article 6 covers it, but limits itself to "Every WA Member State". It doesn't prohibit the WA itself from fomenting strife. (Good damn thing too, or we'd have to cancel all General Assembly votes.)

An argument is only as solid as its assumptions, and your assumptions are pretty insolvent. Gonna have to disagree with this argument, even though I tend to agree with your overall goal of getting rid of this thing.

Approved. I was dismayed to see the original succeed.

HM King Michael and the citizens of the kingdom give their full support to repeal a resolution that would run our nation's relatively young times of economic prosperity into a hellhole of debt.

Don Paul Pedro Suarez
Deputy Representative to the WA, The United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo

This proposal is making me wet

General Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock,
Military Attache

Anur-Sanur is in full support of this repeal.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would support this repeal.

We have reached quorum, but we've got a lengthy wait ahead of us. Thanks to all the Delegates that have supported thus far, and a special thanks to OMGTKK and Urgench for helping with editing.

Man you guys do take this game a little bit too seriously. Its just that a game don't ya'll have anything better to do with your time. If in my actual feeling on the subjects of WA or the RL U.N. neither one should exist, and all matters left to their respective nations. Since a group of nations decided to form this group so they could run the world in the thought that noone else out there was capable of doing.

Of course naturally I am opposed to this repeal, I even support the repeal on coordinating relief aid. I dont care what happens in Timbuktu, and besides the real UN has a "Peacekeeping" force so shouldnt they be covered too? Peacekeeping force is such an oxymoron, there is no peacekeeping force without using force to keep the peace.

Man you guys do take this game a little bit too seriously. Its just that a game don't ya'll have anything better to do with your time. If in my actual feeling on the subjects of WA or the RL U.N. neither one should exist, and all matters left to their respective nations. Since a group of nations decided to form this group so they could run the world in the thought that noone else out there was capable of doing.

Of course naturally I am opposed to this repeal, I even support the repeal on coordinating relief aid. I dont care what happens in Timbuktu, and besides the real UN has a "Peacekeeping" force so shouldnt they be covered too? Peacekeeping force is such an oxymoron, there is no peacekeeping force without using force to keep the peace.



O.O.C. Tee hee, your funny :D

At least we have found something to agree on finally :)

At least we have found something to agree on finally :)

I'm not sure we agree in quite the way you think we do, but lets leave at that. I hate O.O.C. around here anyway.

I'm not sure we agree in quite the way you think we do, but lets leave at that. I hate O.O.C. around here anyway.

I figured if nothing at all we could on the humor

Man you guys do take this game a little bit too seriously. Its just that a game don't ya'll have anything better to do with your time. If in my actual feeling on the subjects of WA or the RL U.N. neither one should exist, and all matters left to their respective nations. Since a group of nations decided to form this group so they could run the world in the thought that noone else out there was capable of doing.

Of course naturally I am opposed to this repeal, I even support the repeal on coordinating relief aid. I dont care what happens in Timbuktu, and besides the real UN has a "Peacekeeping" force so shouldnt they be covered too? Peacekeeping force is such an oxymoron, there is no peacekeeping force without using force to keep the peace.

OOC: You would do good to listen to what your fellow Texans have been telling Nebulantis, this is a game, a the better majority of us, myself included, play this game under the premise that the real world does not exist. Frankly, I don't care about the real UN. And because the WA is not forced upon any nation why does it matter if it exists or not? Besides that is not the subject of debate here. You and Nebulanits are taking this far too personally, the reason the ambassadors have lashed out at you is because their characters feel that strongly about the resolution that just passed. Which is why this repeal came to quorum so quickly.

This proposal is making me wet

General Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock,
Military AttacheTMI, Pointy, TMI.

Man you guys do take this game a little bit too seriously. Its just that a game don't ya'll have anything better to do with your time. If in my actual feeling on the subjects of WA or the RL U.N. neither one should exist, and all matters left to their respective nations. Since a group of nations decided to form this group so they could run the world in the thought that noone else out there was capable of doing.If you don't think the WA should exist then why the hell are you a member, just resign and you can pretend that they don't.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yay, we have a quorum! I request the ambassadors to keep cool and wait, and save the Coordinating Relief Aid resolution whilst we're at it. Upon eventual passage of the Veteran Reforms repeal, I will make good space for Zarquon Froods' grand entry into my little WA club (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/group.php?groupid=25).

The party is still going if any wish to join, hehe. C'mon if were one second I though you guys were not my friends, I just wouldn't know what to do **Rolls eyes gleefully**

Zarquon -- Do you see that Joebot™? He wants to be friends. How about being a good lad and give him a hug.

Joebot -- Yes master.

Joebot made his way towards the Ambassador from Studly Penguins, who was a that point slightly confused by the motion. As Joebot was within arms length he grabbed the Ambassador and squeezed him against his mechanical body and slowly made his way towards the window. Once he had calculated an adequate range, he held the Ambassador by his clothes and began to swing him back and forth a few times before finally releasing him at the apex of his last swing hurling him out the window and into the Vestivian Reflacting Pool below.

Zarquon -- Good lad, the air is much fresher now.

This post was paid for by the Campaign Against Stupid Peoples Everywhere.
*No Ambassadors were harmed during the making of this post, although that would have been nice.*

Can I ask the ambassadors to the Studly Penguins to explain why they are now partying upon the quorum of a repeal that is going to repeal the resolution that they had desperately wanted, at the peril of many?

Can I ask the ambassadors to the Studly Penguins to explain why they are now partying upon the quorum of a repeal that is going to repeal the resolution that they had desperately wanted, at the peril of many?


*Gets out of pool, wipes off the pond scum and dries off**

I just thought that in case that you missed my invite back on the thread after my awesome resolution passed since you and your friends were running for repeal.

I didnt want to leave anyone out of the festivities!!!!!

At what point does 'being obnoxious' become 'gloating and trolling'?

The New Cleethorpes Enquirer
Dwight announces first veto

President James Dwight today confirmed that he will veto the International Payment Authorisation Act of 2009, which passed the House last night after frantic last minute whipping by Social Democratic Prime Minister Erica Ornan. This will mark the first time the President has used his veto since taking office last year. Senior Quite Nice House officials say they do not believe the Social Democrats in Congress have the votes to override.

Interrupting a series of questions on the forthcoming participation of the national team at the Winter Olympics in Kelssek, Press Secretary Bjorn Oberuberweiss announced that the legislation had passed, 108-90, with 17 amendments, and that Dwight would veto the Act when presented to him.

The announcement triggered uproar among Congressional Social Democrats. While Prime Minister refrained from public criticism, merely stating that she hoped the President would "reconsider", Senate Majority Leader Amstel Ammelsdottir called the move "a symbol of Dwight's overreaching ambition and lust for power, his refusal to respect the democratic wish".

The veto is also seen as a snub to Dwight's oldest friend and ally, Secretary of State George Madison, whose office tonight had "no comment" after having previously announced their confidence that the bill would not be vetoed. Privately, it is thought that Madison may be reconsidering his political future after having clashed - and lost - three times in as many days with the President, formerly his staunchest supporter.

Two days ago, it was revealed that Quintessence of Dust would be participating in the Fourth Winter Olympics, over the express objections of Secretary Madison, who has in the past labelled Kelssek "a communist dictatorship" and "lynchpin of the loony left" in the General Assembly. The State Department had argued it made no sense to afford "international legitimacy" to a nation that embargoed almost all Quodite exports and that had repealed international patent protections for Quodite pharmaceuticals. The President and Prime Minister overruled him in a rare joint statement, Ornan saying that "only through international dialogue can we teach our values - and, perhaps, learn anew".

Yesterday, more controversy emerged when Dwight sacked WA Ambassador Ethel "Kneecracker" Typhoid, revealing that his appointment had been a mistaken political gambit urged by Madison. Believing that the Social Democrats would rush to appoint Typhoid, Madison had thought his radical social agenda would prove politically embarrassing and make executive control of WA affairs easier. However, Ambassador Typhoid left the day-to-day running of the Office of WA Affairs to Congressional Liaison Samantha Benson, and enjoyed positive polling numbers. Dwight is expected to name as replacement current Director of the Central SIGINT Service Lois Merrywether, who served as National Security Advisor to President Baker for 7 years.

The third blow will be particularly galling to Madison, who will be forced to either work with Congressional Social Democrats or change his public position, either of which options will cost political capital.

The IPAA overrode Dwight's decision to impound all funds earmarked for the World Assembly General Fund until the Veterans Reform Act is repealed. Passed a few days ago, the Act was fiercely opposed by several of Quintessence of Dust's key allies in the World Assembly, and members of the Antarctic Oasis region have already secured a vote on a motion to repeal the legislation. Expecting that Quintessence of Dust's burden to the General Fund would be greatly increased, Dwight decided to unilaterally stop payments.

Samantha Benson argued such a move violated international law and risked accusations of non-compliance from the world community, and returned home to Quintessence of Dust to work with Congressional leadership on legislation to force payment. But significant numbers of Social Democrats sitting on the fence. Prime Minister Ornan included numerous amendments for pet spending projects to convince them to vote for or abstain.

Secretary Madison, a long time campaigner for veterans' rights, argued non-payment from a prominent WA member risked other nations following suit on other issues. He was concerned that if Quintessence of Dust broke its public commitments, other nations might break theirs on issues such as torture and slavery, which Quintessence of Dust has fought for the legal abolition of within the WA community. He said it also risked jeopardising commitment to trade partnerships.

President Dwight has pledged to release the funds if the repeal vote fails, at which point alternate arrangements will be made. Many believe Congressional Social Democrats orchestrated the move largely as a political act. Senator Stanford Stanford (NL-WS) said that "most of them are opposed as we are to the VRA - this is just posturing to gain clout, and I think it will backfire".

At what point does 'being obnoxious' become 'gloating and trolling'?

OOC: We are approaching that point quickly IMHO.

*bump*

OOC: Can we get stickies for all the proposals in queue please so these discussions don't get lost?

We don't do that anymore. Consensus was that excessive sticky clutter was no good. You're all right though; this doesn't come to vote for two more weeks.

Don't remind me. :P

While we agree with the original's sentiments, we agree with this repeal based on the body of the original. The original clearly doesn't take into account the unfair burden distribution, both for those who have small forces and those who are not militarist inclined and/or taking a neutral position in matters of war. We would probably support a re-write that attributes the burden to the nations rather than a collective fund, but as it stands we cant support it (and due to absence was unable to vote on it initially) so we support this repeal and will vote FOR when the time comes

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

A well needed repeal, that we fully support, and are pleased to see reached the que very quickly. (long before I posted this obviously) As was my approval of it long before my post, but a simple, congratulations for a well formulated repeal.

While we agree with the original's sentiments, we agree with this repeal based on the body of the original. The original clearly doesn't take into account the unfair burden distribution, both for those who have small forces and those who are not militarist inclined and/or taking a neutral position in matters of war. We would probably support a re-write that attributes the burden to the nations rather than a collective fund, but as it stands we cant support it (and due to absence was unable to vote on it initially) so we support this repeal and will vote FOR when the time comes

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Actually, my friend, a re-write of the bill will not be nesasary once this repeal passes. The lamentable Vets Reform Act touches on a subject that rightfully should remain in the jurisdiction of individual nations, and not one to be legislated by this august body.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Actually, my friend, a re-write of the bill will not be nesasary once this repeal passes. The lamentable Vets Reform Act touches on a subject that rightfully should remain in the jurisdiction of individual nations, and not one to be legislated by this august body.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Well obviously others feel otherwise, given the fact that it passed in the first place. It kinda falls in a grey area for us though so if there is no replacement we will have no problems, though we would be concerned for those nations who would return to killing their war veterans for failure if they are on the losing side. Yes, some nations do that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Actually, my friend, a re-write of the bill will not be nesasary once this repeal passes. The lamentable Vets Reform Act touches on a subject that rightfully should remain in the jurisdiction of individual nations, and not one to be legislated by this august body.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I agree with Tai Lao. We can make an argument about any resolution passed by the WA as ones not to be legislated by the WA. I support Urgench's civil rights charter, the repeal of Relief Aid, and the Transportation Act at vote.

All these plus things like genocide, freedom of expression/assembly, Neutrality of Nations, are all things that we believe can easily fall into the category of better left to individual nations.

Those calling me and my delegation child murderers, etc isnt that going a little too far no matter where one stands on the Vets Act

I agree with Tai Lao. We can make an argument about any resolution passed by the WA as ones not to be legislated by the WA. I support Urgench's civil rights charter, the repeal of Relief Aid, and the Transportation Act at vote.

All these plus things like genocide, freedom of expression/assembly, Neutrality of Nations, are all things that we believe can easily fall into the category of better left to individual nations.

Those calling me and my delegation child murderers, etc isnt that going a little too far no matter where one stands on the Vets Act



No one has called you a child murderer, but you have been condemned for orchestrating the current system of massive cash payouts to mass murderers and those guilty of crimes against humanity. Rightly so.


Yours,

No one has called you a child murderer, but you have been condemned for orchestrating the current system of massive cash payouts to mass murderers and those guilty of crimes against humanity. Rightly so.


Yours,

That is only a matter of how you view it, along the same lines of one man's terrorist could be another's freedom fighter.

While people choose to enlist to defend their countries, they dont choose the wars they fight, that is up to the politicians. In the same token, some have no choice, having been drafted or had to serve a period of national service.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

That is only a matter of how you view it, along the same lines of one man's terrorist could be another's freedom fighter.

While people choose to enlist to defend their countries, they dont choose the wars they fight, that is up to the politicians. In the same token, some have no choice, having been drafted or had to serve a period of national service.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

That is balderdash, honoured Ambassador, a genocidal murderer is a genocidal murderer, and a mass rapist is a mass rapist regardless of the conditions of their service in a nation's armed forces.

Currently this resolution gives large cash payouts of w.a. funding to those who have committed the worst crimes which it is possible to commit.

That is not a matter of perspective.


Yours,

That is balderdash, honoured Ambassador, a genocidal murderer is a genocidal murderer, and a mass rapist is a mass rapist regardless of the conditions of their service in a nation's armed forces.

Currently this resolution gives large cash payouts of w.a. funding to those who have committed the worst crimes which it is possible to commit.

That is not a matter of perspective.


Yours,We were not objecting to that, nor did you actually say that in the first place. What we were objecting to was your generalised reference, as how we saw it, to soldiers being mass murderers, that is all.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We were not objecting to that, nor did you actually say that in the first place. What we were objecting to was your generalised reference, as how we saw it, to soldiers being mass murderers, that is all.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador



You simply misread our statements then honoured Ambassador, and applied your own preconceptions to them also.

This is exactly what we said in the first place.

Yours,

You simply misread our statements then honoured Ambassador, and applied your own preconceptions to them also.

This is exactly what we said in the first place.

Yours,

I have no doubt that the repeal will pass. Its not that I dont have any faith in my proposal, but hindsight is 20/20. Now seeing that after all emotions have calmed and the sabers are put away that while my intentions were entirely in good faith; my legislation missed its aim. The cash payouts, upon looking back was a bad idea, but I do not regret the health care provisions in which was part of it.

In all of this I did learn that sometimes making a proposal on a issue close to ones heart clouds judgment and limits ones rational thinking. For all those offended, put off, alienated, etc; the Ambassador of Studly Penguins comes humbly before all, admitting 100% blame in this calamity, asks for a little forgivness/ or reconciliation from my fellow WA-members/Ambassadors.

In event of the repeal passing, the my delegation humbly requests the assistance of the Honorable Urgench in helping me turn it into a national issue on NS.

Sincerely and with great apologies
--Studly Penguins

I have no doubt that the repeal will pass. Its not that I dont have any faith in my proposal, but hindsight is 20/20. Now seeing that after all emotions have calmed and the sabers are put away that while my intentions were entirely in good faith; my legislation missed its aim. The cash payouts, upon looking back was a bad idea, but I do not regret the health care provisions in which was part of it.

In all of this I did learn that sometimes making a proposal on a issue close to ones heart clouds judgment and limits ones rational thinking. For all those offended, put off, alienated, etc; the Ambassador of Studly Penguins comes humbly before all, admitting 100% blame in this calamity, asks for a little forgivness/ or reconciliation from my fellow WA-members/Ambassadors.

In event of the repeal passing, the my delegation humbly requests the assistance of the Honorable Urgench in helping me turn it into a national issue on NS.

Sincerely and with great apologies
--Studly Penguins




You have no need to apologise to us respected Ambassador. Our economy has been able to cope with the strain of paying for the veterans reform act, others have not been so lucky, we can think of at least one nation brought to the brink of chaos by the economic strain.

You have not offended us either, international politics is not a profession to undertake if one is easily offended, doubtless we will at some time have reason to congratulate each other, and indeed further opportunity to disagree as vehemently as in recent times also.

As to your suggested cooperation between our delegations. it would be dishonest of us to profess an enthusiasm for such a project, but not because we would not wish to work with the respected delegation of Studly Penguins, whose commitment to their cause we admire, but rather because we have little enough experience for the kind of project they suggest.

We can suggest nations who have undertaken such tasks before, and help the respected delegation of Studly Penguins find a more experienced partner who will be able to help them achieve their aim better than we would be able to.

If the honoured Ambassador wishes to continue to discuss this idea perhaps they should do so by private message or Telegram.


Yours sincerely,

A big thank-you to Urgench. We will always be ready to give input where/when asked

As stated before, I'm really going to need to be convinced that this is a problem the WA should take up. i'd be willing to be persuaded, but i think a few things need to be made clear. firstly RL is not NS. just because a problem exists in the mythical Real world, does not mean it exists here. One of the examples used to persuade votes in another region was a bit of a sob story dealing with divorce and a custody battle. That was totally irrelevent to the resolution in question. If you want a Vets Rights Act here, it should give a solid definition of what constitutes a military veteran, prohibits those found guilty of atrocites, and/or dishonorably discharged from receiving the benefits, and most importantly(to me at least) is not open to non WA members. I voted against the last one because WA money could go to nations that are not members and do not contribute to the general fund.

OOC: I've got a draft for a [MUCH] more sovereignty-friendly proposal that's partly about this subject mostly written, just in case enough people here decide that one seems "necessary", but forgot to copy it into portable memory before leaving work yesterday (and have today off from work) so can't post it in this forum until tomorrow or maybe the day after. It's currently called 'Rights About Military Service', and also covers the question of conscientious objectors because Charlotte Ryberg seems to have so many other projects under way as well as her attempt at handling that topic...
(This propposal was going to tackle the right & duty to refuse illegal orders, a requirement that illegal orders/actions be punished and a requirement that military courts act fairly, too, but the character-count limit got in the way: Those might now be parts of a separate proposal by the title of 'Rights In Military Service', instead...)

I stand by my regions original stance on the matter as it was also my personal stance. This is a National issue, and should be left as such; after the repeal. We do not need another resolution on the matter- I agree, however with the drafting of something similar and putting it to each individual nature as the author suggested.

I am also not in favor of a redraft. This is something that simply doesn't need WA intervention.

If a redraft comes up, we'll just have to repeal that one too.

-Arjel Khazaran, etc.

It looks like we go on the block tomorrow. I just wanted to say a special thanks to all 127 Delegates that have approved this measure so far and all of the member nations that have shown support.

The repeal is now at vote. We wish the representative of Zarquon Froods luck in it's passage, but given the response here they will not need it.

Voting FOR

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan stands firmly against this measure on progressive grounds pursuant to the advancement of peace. We are dismayed that other progressive nations have failed to recognize the value of the Veterans Reform Act, seeing any measure to support former military personnel as contributing to belligerence and international strife. It is the aim of my talk to demonstrate that this is not so, and I will establish through a few points that the Veterans Reform Act decreases belligerence and fosters a cosmopolitan, enlightened sentiment conducive to beneficial relations between states.

First, foreign nations helping veterans decreases certain negative strands of nationalism. It is well-known that military service fosters a love of homeland that can be taken too far; psychologically self-contained and conditioned to following orders more than making cautious judgments, the military can be socially problematic. Nationalism can easily give way to hatred, and Balawaristan, united to the international workers' struggle, concurs with the progressive, pacifistic nations in this respect. Former members of the military might carry over-nationalistic and even racist sentiments back to civilian life upon retirement. If they receive care and benefits from an international agency, the foreigner is humanized, and they become dependent upon the foreigner. Through generosity, through charity, we will re-educate the former military servicewomen and servicemen of the world.

Second, as there is nothing special about veterans per se, setting them apart from industrial laborers or mothers or intellectuals, we can surmise that the Veterans Reform Act paves the way to creating a rigorous international support network for all needy people. Granted, there will have to be further battles, but by allowing it to stand precedent, the people of the world will gradually become accustomed to holding more and more in common, and they may begin to see each other as neighbors more than rivals, as they will be dependent upon one-another.

Third, the Veterans ReformAct ensures a (sadly limited) leveling of global inequality. Wealthier nations will incur greater cost, and those areas of our world that are less productive will receive greater benefit. This is in keeping with the progressive aim of not just social justice but economic justice as well.

Fourthly, and finally, the more vigorously the international community supports veterans, the more power we hold over the respective militaries. It is well-known that military recruitment is conducted so as not to exceed the infrastructure. After assuming responsibility for the militaries of the World Assembly and the international support of veterans becomes the dominant paradigm, we will be able to slowly twist the spigot and reduce militaries on a global scale. This would be assisted by outlawing independent support of veterans, with only international veterans' programs holding any legitimacy.

This fourfold understanding affirms the Veterans Reform Act as not just being in keeping with the principles of peace and international cooperation but essential to the realization of a prosperous cosmopolitan order.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal, Ambassador

Being the first to approve it on the go, I have no doubts and vote for.

BTW, do you require any cheerleaders for your campaign?

I personally fully support this repeal, and after the vote in my region, I put my delegate vote in support of this Repeal.

The Emperor's Imperium of Cult Imperialis is quite frankly...outraged at this preposterous proposal! Let us look at the reasons behind this, shall we?

DISMAYED by the fact that member nations will be required to fund care for another nation's "veterans", including, but not limited to, those soldiers who have recently been at war againt them or those they will be at war with in the future;

Honestly? You're complaining about paying for these men and women to live after fighting in the name of our nations? Of our empires? To keep you in power!? These people would have gladly laid down their lives to keep your citizens safe and you're bawing to the WA because you need to toss them a penny? SHAME!

ALARMED by this resolution’s definition of “veteran” that includes not only those citizens who have willingly joined their nation’s armed services, but also those who have been conscripted which, in certain cases, can include a vast majority of a nation's citizens;

To be honest, who cares!? A trooper who puts his life on the line is still a trooper! Just because he didn't sign up to be shot at doesn't mean he didn't get shot at. Just because a sniper didn't volunteer to crack skulls at the length of a football field doesn't mean she didn't do it. A trooper is a trooper, full stop.

CONCERNED that the WA Veterans Assistance Office (WAVAO) requires all member nations to incur the monetary cost of all services allocated by Section 4 of the "Veterans Reform Act" through use of the W.A. General Fund;

This argument is basically the same as the first one, except you've defined where the credits are going to.

MORTIFIED that the expenditures incurred to the General Fund by the WAVAO are exponential, un-restricted, unregulated and extremely vulnerable to corrupt abuse, leading to a high likelihood of massive depletion of W.A. funds;

Members of the World Assembly are admitted for a reason, it's not as if every little hooligan of a nation, with a pair of five year olds that throw sticks acting as their army, is admitted to this fine establishment.

So with these reasons depleted, I ask you, where is your back up?
Good day sir.

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

Honestly? You're complaining about paying for these men and women to live after fighting in the name of our nations? Of our empires? To keep you in power!? These people would have gladly laid down their lives to keep your citizens safe and you're bawing to the WA because you need to toss them a penny? SHAME!
Let's look at the section you just quoted.
those soldiers who have recently been at war againt them or those they will be at war with in the future
They're not complaining about paying the people 'fighting in the name of our nations'. They're complaining about paying the people fighting against our nations. You do realize that this proposal makes you pay for the care of veterans who fight in wars against your own taxpayers...right?
To be honest, who cares!? A trooper who puts his life on the line is still a trooper! Just because he didn't sign up to be shot at doesn't mean he didn't get shot at. Just because a sniper didn't volunteer to crack skulls at the length of a football field doesn't mean she didn't do it. A trooper is a trooper, full stop.
Someone who is required by law to serve a short period, say 12 months, in the military, and who does so during peacetime, is not a 'veteran' under any reasonable definition of the term, yet is inexplicably given the same rights as the 'troopers' you refer to according to this proposal.
Members of the World Assembly are admitted for a reason, it's not as if every little hooligan of a nation, with a pair of five year olds that throw sticks acting as their army, is admitted to this fine establishment.
Is the incorrect answer. Any nation is entitled to join the World Assembly, and no nation can be expelled except for:
- submitting repeated illegal resolutions
- illegally controlling more than one WA resolution (through the use of puppets).

If a hooligan of a nation with a pair of five year olds that throw sticks acting as their army were to apply to join the WA, they would be accepted. In fact, that description reminds me of a nation that used to be in the organization (http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Golgothastan#Military); I think the use of racial slur 'hooligan' might also be offensive to well-known stick-flinger, former WA member Glog Firemaker.

Deep breaths, calm and clear thoughts, thorough attention to what the repeal actually says, and good knowledge of WA rules, will endear you greatly in your effort, thus far unsuccessful, to be taken seriously.

Our vote will be determined by regional consensus, though I should note President Dwight is still impounding all funds earmarked for WA appropriations and thus the vote on this repeal is of some internal political consequence. (Which may all come to nought, of course, if the ban on abortion passes and we necessarily resign.)

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Aye.

We the peaceful people of Nistraph avoid war whenever we can, but in such cases when we must make that horrible decision, we take care of our honored veterans without being compelled by the WA.

I see no reason that my peaceful island nation should have to pay for the warmongers who dispose of soldiers so readily.

The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan stands firmly against this measure on progressive grounds pursuant to the advancement of peace. We are dismayed that other progressive nations have failed to recognize the value of the Veterans Reform Act, seeing any measure to support former military personnel as contributing to belligerence and international strife. It is the aim of my talk to demonstrate that this is not so, and I will establish through a few points that the Veterans Reform Act decreases belligerence and fosters a cosmopolitan, enlightened sentiment conducive to beneficial relations between states.

First, foreign nations helping veterans decreases certain negative strands of nationalism. It is well-known that military service fosters a love of homeland that can be taken too far; psychologically self-contained and conditioned to following orders more than making cautious judgments, the military can be socially problematic. Nationalism can easily give way to hatred, and Balawaristan, united to the international workers' struggle, concurs with the progressive, pacifistic nations in this respect. Former members of the military might carry over-nationalistic and even racist sentiments back to civilian life upon retirement. If they receive care and benefits from an international agency, the foreigner is humanized, and they become dependent upon the foreigner. Through generosity, through charity, we will re-educate the former military servicewomen and servicemen of the world.

Second, as there is nothing special about veterans per se, setting them apart from industrial laborers or mothers or intellectuals, we can surmise that the Veterans Reform Act paves the way to creating a rigorous international support network for all needy people. Granted, there will have to be further battles, but by allowing it to stand precedent, the people of the world will gradually become accustomed to holding more and more in common, and they may begin to see each other as neighbors more than rivals, as they will be dependent upon one-another.

Third, the Veterans ReformAct ensures a (sadly limited) leveling of global inequality. Wealthier nations will incur greater cost, and those areas of our world that are less productive will receive greater benefit. This is in keeping with the progressive aim of not just social justice but economic justice as well.

Fourthly, and finally, the more vigorously the international community supports veterans, the more power we hold over the respective militaries. It is well-known that military recruitment is conducted so as not to exceed the infrastructure. After assuming responsibility for the militaries of the World Assembly and the international support of veterans becomes the dominant paradigm, we will be able to slowly twist the spigot and reduce militaries on a global scale. This would be assisted by outlawing independent support of veterans, with only international veterans' programs holding any legitimacy.

This fourfold understanding affirms the Veterans Reform Act as not just being in keeping with the principles of peace and international cooperation but essential to the realization of a prosperous cosmopolitan order.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal, Ambassador
While militants fight wars, governments start them. If anything the resolution this is repealing does more to support war rather than promote peace as it allows governments to throw their people out as cannon fodder and use funding from other nations to support those that survive, reducing the impact on their own coffers. It also allows nations to subvert funds from this international source via such things as Goods and Services Tax and Income Tax. Also, we see not how the resolution is reducing global inequality. It isnt like the veterans would give some of their money to others, as they would have their own needs to take care of, and it also takes money away that could be used to help the poor and underprivileged in peaceable nations

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

First, foreign nations helping veterans decreases certain negative strands of nationalism. It is well-known that military service fosters a love of homeland that can be taken too far; psychologically self-contained and conditioned to following orders more than making cautious judgments, the military can be socially problematic. Nationalism can easily give way to hatred, and Balawaristan, united to the international workers' struggle, concurs with the progressive, pacifistic nations in this respect. Former members of the military might carry over-nationalistic and even racist sentiments back to civilian life upon retirement. If they receive care and benefits from an international agency, the foreigner is humanized, and they become dependent upon the foreigner. Through generosity, through charity, we will re-educate the former military servicewomen and servicemen of the world.

Military service doesn't necessarily mean a love of country, there are cases where citizens are conscripted and they could actually care less if the country rotted in hell. I have nothing against rehabilitating veterans of my country, but I will not pay to rehabilitate my eneny's which is what the VRA makes me do by contributing to the General Fund for this purpose. Simply put, the issue should be left at the national level.

Second, as there is nothing special about veterans per se, setting them apart from industrial laborers or mothers or intellectuals, we can surmise that the Veterans Reform Act paves the way to creating a rigorous international support network for all needy people.

Wrong. You could argue that it actually drives a wedge between classes since veterans will now reap the benefits of this proposal while the working class must suffer. Let's be honest, by the definition of veteran in the VRA, anyone that has served in the military for any length of time no matter hat. They can range from those who have seen combat to those who polished the General's boots.

Third, the Veterans ReformAct ensures a (sadly limited) leveling of global inequality. Wealthier nations will incur greater cost, and those areas of our world that are less productive will receive greater benefit. This is in keeping with the progressive aim of not just social justice but economic justice as well.

No argument here. But I will say my economy took a pretty significant hit when the VRA passed. My currency lost double its value over night, without any issues addressed for a week prior to the final vote. Again, we want this on the national level.

Fourthly, and finally, the more vigorously the international community supports veterans, the more power we hold over the respective militaries. It is well-known that military recruitment is conducted so as not to exceed the infrastructure. After assuming responsibility for the militaries of the World Assembly and the international support of veterans becomes the dominant paradigm, we will be able to slowly twist the spigot and reduce militaries on a global scale. This would be assisted by outlawing independent support of veterans, with only international veterans' programs holding any legitimacy.

I don't see how you've come to this realisation. This actually promotes raising larger armies because nations do not directly incur the cost, the WA General Fund does. This means nations can support beyond their own infrastructure, which means larger armies all around.

The Emperor's Imperium of Cult Imperialis is quite frankly...outraged at this preposterous proposal! Let us look at the reasons behind this, shall we?

This should be good.

Honestly? You're complaining about paying for these men and women to live after fighting in the name of our nations? Of our empires? To keep you in power!? These people would have gladly laid down their lives to keep your citizens safe and you're bawing to the WA because you need to toss them a penny? SHAME!

NO! SHAME ON YOU! How dare you accuse me of not wanting to support the veterans of my military. I am not advocating that veteran not be supported. I am arguing that they should not be supported as outlined in the VRA. The fact that I have to contribute to a fund that will give aid to the veterans of an enemy that I have recently been at war with or one that I may be at war with in the future is absurd to say the least. Why should I contribute to such a thing, especially if they started the conflict? Really Ambassador.



To be honest, who cares!? A trooper who puts his life on the line is still a trooper! Just because he didn't sign up to be shot at doesn't mean he didn't get shot at. Just because a sniper didn't volunteer to crack skulls at the length of a football field doesn't mean she didn't do it. A trooper is a trooper, full stop.

As Ambassador Merrywether mentioned earlier, the VRA's definition of a veteran is not exclusive to those who have served in combat, but rather it includes EVERYONE who has EVER served in the military for ANY length of time. Techincally if you were a soldier for one minute and then discharged for whatever reason, you are entitled to the benefits of the VRA. Furthermore, this resolution will allow nations to mass larger armies because they will not directly incur the cost of medical support and what have you. As such this bill leaves a large hole that will allow corrupt nations to use their soldiers as cannon fodder because they simply wont have to pay to keep them alive, everyone else will.

This argument is basically the same as the first one, except you've defined where the credits are going to.

You're right, the first clause states the overall tone of the repeal, the third defines the accusation of the first. Get over it.

Members of the World Assembly are admitted for a reason, it's not as if every little hooligan of a nation, with a pair of five year olds that throw sticks acting as their army, is admitted to this fine establishment.

Nope, no, wrong, nuh uh, nein, youzacrazyinazehead, not gonna do it wouldn't be prudent....etc. No nation may be denied admission regardless of government, military, ethnicity, average age....etc unless they do something really stupid like illegal proposals and what not. Besides, if this were the case how the hell did you make it through the door Ambassador?

So with these reasons depleted, I ask you, where is your back up?
Good day sir.

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

My backup? Do you not see this very large robot that is broadcasting my voice? Tisk tisk Ambassador, I believe you need some air after that long winded speech you gave about...well nothing. Joebot, see that the honored Ambassador gets some fresh air.

"Yes, master."

Joebot grabs the Ambassador by his clothes and throws him out the nearest window where he falls into the reflecting pool below.

Anyone else object? There's plenty of room in the pool.

My backup? Do you not see this very large robot that is broadcasting my voice? Tisk tisk Ambassador, I believe you need some air after that long winded speech you gave about...well nothing. Joebot, see that the honored Ambassador gets some fresh air.

"Yes, master."

Joebot grabs the Ambassador by his clothes and throws him out the nearest window where he falls into the reflecting pool below.

Anyone else object? There's plenty of room in the pool.

Though we are actually in agreement with you, that looked like fun! Any chance you could give me a try?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Though we are actually in agreement with you, that looked like fun! Any chance you could give me a try?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador


Zarquon's voice emminates from Joebot's PA system.

No, I'm sorry. You must be this (Joebot holds up his hand) tall to ride.

whatever happened to the defenstrator catapult? haven't noticed it for a while.

Krankor votes for this repeal. None of our soldiers survive to be veterans, so the issue is moot.

whatever happened to the defenstrator catapult? haven't noticed it for a while.
Burnt-up in the destruction of the "former international organisation" HQ building, I think...

After further examining the issue at hand, the People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan concurs with the delegation from Bears Armed, and demands a repeal of this resolution, which unnecessarily strains the resources of WA members.

Burnt-up in the destruction of the "former international organisation" HQ building, I think...

If it's the Defenestrator v2 that being referred to, it is still intact and fully functional. It did require some repair work after the explosion, but you can't keep fine Yeldan technology down for long.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Drop out of the corrupt wa!we shouldnt have even had to repeal this!it never should have been passed!resist!fight back!form your own independent empires!death to the wa!

**The Commissar-General re-enters the hall, his great coat sopping wet and his face indignant. Bryant's right hand is held white-knuckled on the handle of his officer's sword, the left held open palmed as he approaches to resume adult discussion**

This should be good.
NO! SHAME ON YOU! How dare you accuse me of not wanting to support the veterans of my military. I am not advocating that veteran not be supported. I am arguing that they should not be supported as outlined in the VRA. The fact that I have to contribute to a fund that will give aid to the veterans of an enemy that I have recently been at war with or one that I may be at war with in the future is absurd to say the least. Why should I contribute to such a thing, especially if they started the conflict? Really Ambassador.

Because, Ambassador, it is not the nation that necessarily starts a conflict, but more often then not the leader. Surely you would not wish to condemn the life of a conscript, simply because he was forced to fire upon one of your troops? A soldier is a soldier, I remind you. A soldier is not bloody Rambo!



As Ambassador Merrywether mentioned earlier, the VRA's definition of a veteran is not exclusive to those who have served in combat, but rather it includes EVERYONE who has EVER served in the military for ANY length of time. Techincally if you were a soldier for one minute and then discharged for whatever reason, you are entitled to the benefits of the VRA. Furthermore, this resolution will allow nations to mass larger armies because they will not directly incur the cost of medical support and what have you. As such this bill leaves a large hole that will allow corrupt nations to use their soldiers as cannon fodder because they simply wont have to pay to keep them alive, everyone else will.


I concede on this point.


You're right, the first clause states the overall tone of the repeal, the third defines the accusation of the first. Get over it.


Done and done. I thank you for conceding that point.

Nope, no, wrong, nuh uh, nein, youzacrazyinazehead, not gonna do it wouldn't be prudent....etc. No nation may be denied admission regardless of government, military, ethnicity, average age....etc unless they do something really stupid like illegal proposals and what not. Besides, if this were the case how the hell did you make it through the door Ambassador?

[OOC] That statement was IC only. I'm aware that OOC we let everyone in. =P

[IC] I ask, Ambassador, that you also keep this conversation on an intelligent level. Physical force is not something you want to do to someone with the Adeptus Astartes backing them.

Yours sincerly

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

Because, Ambassador, it is not the nation that necessarily starts a conflict, but more often then not the leader. Surely you would not wish to condemn the life of a conscript, simply because he was forced to fire upon one of your troops? A soldier is a soldier, I remind you. A soldier is not bloody Rambo!

I am aware of that Ambassador, but if I am in full knowledge, and have proof to back that up, that the nation is extremely Facist or corrupt, and that its people will willing sacrifice their lives to see its agenda furthered. In situations like that, those in the service are just as guilty as their leaders, and I will not support them. Inversely if a corrupt despot conscripts citizens to use as cannon fodder, that's an entirely different situation altogether. Which is exactly why the WA should not be the one making the call, but rather each individual nation.

[OOC] That statement was IC only. I'm aware that OOC we let everyone in. =P

IC or OOC you're still wrong in saying nations are admitted for a reason. Everyone is allowed to join.

[IC] I ask, Ambassador, that you also keep this conversation on an intelligent level. Physical force is not something you want to do to someone with the Adeptus Astartes backing them.

Yours sincerly

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

Excuse me for not trimbling Ambassador. I feel the need to remind everyone that I am not physically in the room, for the time being I am in an undisclosed location due to various happenings (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=1028) within my borders. My voice is being broadcast through Joebot's™ (http://a74.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/48/l_d5ce643dc79f7dcfee1a2d3231487251.jpg) PA system. Oh, and I wouldn't advise getting physical with him, he has a rather nasty self destruct mechanism just in case someone should try to acquire the very valuable plans within him.

We only relieve these halls of Ambassadors who make outlandish accusations. Stay within the realm of reality, and you'll be fine.

It seemed to be a quiet day in the Palentine delegation, The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla was nowhere to be seen, perhaps he was out doingsomething unchaste, unhealthy, and unwholesome. Most of the ambassadors in the festering snakepit...err....WA General Assembly seemed much relieved for some reason. Unfortunately their joy was fated to be short lived, as the portal in the largish aquarium behind Sulla's desk was activated. Soon the aquaruim contained 3 or 4 dolphins swimming around.

"How nice it was of the good senator, to entertain us with such creatures that are cute, cuddly, and beloved by children everywhere.", thought some of the newer delgates to the WA. However they soon noticed the look of horror on the faces of those who have been here awhile. Yes it was THOSE dolphins swimming in the tank...the dreaded Palentine Naval Dolphins, the foul mouthed scourge of the southern seas. As a couple of dolphins started to yell out obscene propositions to some of the women ambassadors, the pod leader swam over to the waterprooof mic and began to speak.

"The<gross word><foul word><dirty adjective> Palentine Government <dirty word><yowzah> wishes to<filthy word> go on<very naughty word> record supporting this<foul epitath><very obscene word><anatomically impossable act>Repeal. And it <censored><bleep> congradulates the <very foul and gross explitive> Froods for getting<Bleep><foul><filth> it to<gross adjective> vote."

More hoots, chirps, dolphinic laughter, and obscene cheers follow.

Because, Ambassador, it is not the nation that necessarily starts a conflict, but more often then not the leader. Surely you would not wish to condemn the life of a conscript, simply because he was forced to fire upon one of your troops? A soldier is a soldier, I remind you. A soldier is not bloody Rambo!

While we will concede leaders start wars, not militants (I swear we wrote that somewhere else...), the resolution could be seen as to prop up those casual war-faring states by a) not placing the burden of looking after veterans on the nation's shoulders, and b) allowing those kinds of nations ways of channelling international funds into their war chest, since there is no real prevention of taxation on the veterans. In other words, this could encourage them cause they dont have to look after the vets and can take their money from them.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Drop out of the corrupt wa!we shouldnt have even had to repeal this!it never should have been passed!resist!fight back!form your own independent empires!death to the wa!


Good gravy man! Take a deep breath, and have a popcicle for goodness sake.

**The Commissar-General re-enters the hall, his great coat sopping wet and his face indignant. Bryant's right hand is held white-knuckled on the handle of his officer's sword, the left held open palmed as he approaches to resume adult discussion**

Just a heads up, should you draw that sword the ACME Weapon Nullifiers in the room will most likely render it as limp as an impotent man's penis.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department
WA Building Management

If all nations have to pay for veterans war in general will be reduced because giong to war has a higher collective cost. I say we keep the Veteran Reform Act. Don't repeal.

If all nations have to pay for veterans war in general will be reduced because giong to war has a higher collective cost. I say we keep the Veteran Reform Act. Don't repeal.

Nonsense. War has always been a bloody and expensive proposition, both for the winner and the loser. That has never stopped wars from being waged. And draining the coffers of the WA, and making nations pay not only for their veterans but for those of other nations, hasn't stopped wars either.

The nation I represent is currently involved in a war to prevent another nation from attacking its neighbors and taking them over - a war we did not start, but have every intention of finishing, in order to protect our allies and our neighbors. The idea that we might have to contribute to a WA fund which will pay to help the veterans of the aggressor nation that forced us into this fight is sickening to us.

There is no logical or reasonable reason whatsoever to keep this badly thought out and incredibly insulting legislation. Repeal!

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Nice spelling of "against"

Should've been reviewed before it was sent in.

Nice spelling of "against"

Should've been reviewed before it was sent in.

Congratulations, you found a typo. Would the esteemed ambassador care to offer something that even vaguely resembles an argument for or against the resolution in question?

I suppose I could point out that you forgot to put a period after "against", if I wanted to be snarky. But I'd rather see if you have anything constructive to say.

A.K. etc.

Just a heads up, should you draw that sword the ACME Weapon Nullifiers in the room will most likely render it as limp as an impotent man's penis.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department
WA Building Management
We have Weapon Nullifiers in the General Assembly (or whatever it's supposed to be called, nowadays) now, rather than just in the Bar?

We have Weapon Nullifiers in the General Assembly (or whatever it's supposed to be called, nowadays) now, rather than just in the Bar?

Why do you think that the good but unwholesome Senator Sulla does nothing more with his Colt 1911a, than field strip and clean it?;)

The Office of External Affairs and Diplomatic Events for Gimp GoncH has released the following statement:

"President Ryro has always expressed and has shown a deep concern for the well being of the nations veterans. Regardless of the WA decision on the repeal of this formerly approved measure, the President will not change his firm stance that veterans are to receive the hightest level of treatment of ALL the nations hospital patients and they are entitled to receive the most supreme of medical care following any international conflict. Therefore, the President has given the order to vote in support of this resolution."

Gimp Gonch's Department for the Welfare of Servicepersons also has released the following (very condensed statement) on the issue:

"Be there no misunderstanding: this department and the leadership of this nation are fully behind our veterans and those who wear the uniform."

David Tillson, the current Head of the Armed Services has said at a press conference:

"Frankly, we...uhh...dont take our direction from the WA. What we do with our treatment of our military is strictly a Gimp Gonch issue and not subject to international oversight."

We have Weapon Nullifiers in the General Assembly (or whatever it's supposed to be called, nowadays) now, rather than just in the Bar?

Yes we have them in the General Assembly Hall, in fact we had just finished installing them in the GA Hall in the old UN building when it blew up.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department
WA Building Management

that resolution should serve its purpose and not be repealed. The bottom line is: we should spend funding to help those in need. :wink:

new resolutions should serve their purpose before anyone should ever think about repealing.

new resolutions should serve their purpose before anyone should ever think about repealing.

What in the hell are you babbling about?

If all nations have to pay for veterans war in general will be reduced because giong to war has a higher collective cost. I say we keep the Veteran Reform Act. Don't repeal.

So you are saying that peaceful nations should fund the veterans of nations that treat their people like cannon fodder? and that if we dont like it, we have to yell our disapproval, which would be ignored if it could be heard over the gunfire because those nations see this as an easy way to support their veterans, even get some extra funding?

Mind you, this isnt counting for the millions who would be exploiting this by being in the military long enough to get a dishonourable discharge thanks to the vagueness when it comes to the description of a veteran

Seriously, if you want to reduce war, put the cost fair and squarely on the nation of the veterans, because in this way it actually helps to fund their wars.

that resolution should serve its purpose and not be repealed. The bottom line is: we should spend funding to help those in need. :wink:

We agree with your sentiments, and that is all fine and dandy, but why should the WA prop up warmongering states with money from pacifistic states? Why should a nation fund the veterans of a nation they just fought? Also, again I will point out, there are those that are abusing the description of veteran to get a free ride out of this as well. We agree veterans should be supported, but the resolution this is repealing is the wrong way to do it

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I would like to extend my congratulations to the great success and passage of the repeal.

~Wencee

This is an early message: I have to say that I would recommend to hold off any talk of veteran's reform for a few months, now that the ordeal is over.

Yours,

The resolution Repeal "Veterans Reform Act" was passed 3,122 votes to 892.

WOOT!!!

I want to thank everyone that voted for this measure, and a special thanks to Kenny and Urgenchi for helping draft it.

On a side note, and the fact that I feel like gloating abit, this was the fastest repeal in WA history. If I had actually submitted while the original was at vote it might have come directly afterwards. But, at least we no longer have the VRA to deal with.

Congratulations to Zarquon Froods for successfully repealing Resolution #32. The fact that said resolution got onto the books in the first place is another matter, but yeah, congratulations

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Why do you think that the good but unwholesome Senator Sulla does nothing more with his Colt 1911a, than field strip and clean it?;)
Respect for the possible targets's 'diplomatic' status? The simple fact that there are so many potential targets you'd never get the job of clearing them out finished, so it isn't worth starting?
Hr'rmm, anyway, now that the VRA is out of the way, would the Senator care to join the discussion about my own Mission's proposal on 'Rights About Military Service' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582788)?

Yes we have them in the General Assembly Hall, in fact we had just finished installing them in the GA Hall in the old UN building when it blew up.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department
WA Building Management
Ah. In that case, let's hope that they weren't what actually caused the old building's destruction...

With the passing of this repeal The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites would like to announce that it has dropped all charges of war crimes that it imposed on all non Flibbleite military personnel.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We congratulate the Empire of Zarquon Froods on the passage of this much-needed repeal.

Congratulations, you found a typo. Would the esteemed ambassador care to offer something that even vaguely resembles an argument for or against the resolution in question?

I suppose I could point out that you forgot to put a period after "against", if I wanted to be snarky. But I'd rather see if you have anything constructive to say.

A.K. etc.

Oh, how the internet gets offended so easily from its high horse.

Never heard of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm? Self-deprecating irony?

Ah well, then the humour of the post is beyond you then~ :)

Oh, how the internet gets offended so easily from its high horse.

Never heard of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm? Self-deprecating irony?

Ah well, then the humour of the post is beyond you then~ :)

I've heard of those things; it's unfortunate none of them could be detected in your two-line comment centered around spelling.

A.K. etc.

Joebot made his way towards the center of the room, as he stood there a very large loud speaker emarged from his utility belt and raised itself above his head. A voice began to boom out from the speaker. It was of course, Zarquon.

"Fellow Ambassadors, we applaud that this measure was so warmly welcomed by so many of you. We wish this repeal to serve as a gateway in strengthening relations between us all. And that one day we all might frolic together in the green meadows or......oh bollocks!!

I'm tired of living a lie. I hate every damned one of you! If we had voted this down in the first place I wouldn't have had to witness my economy be wrecked, my citizens thrown into civil war, my hemroids flare up.....while I don't think that's directly related but do you have any idea what's it's like aving to sit on an inflatable donut for hours on end? I didn't think so. Thanks to this organization I must now return to my nation and try to restore order.

So I leave you with this, you festering collective of unintelligable nincompoops, <insanely vile word> you and the <explitive> horse you rode in on. You <word that raised the Pope's hair> sorry sack of <vile verb><extremely vile noun> not fit to<nasty word> pour <really naughty word> out of a <this one was heard in Ursa Minor> boot!! You no good <word that would burn a nun's nose hairs>!!

Consider this my resignation from the World Assembly <vile noun>!"

As the final word left Zarquon's mouth Joebot raised his hand and made a wholly inappropriate gesture with it. Once Zarquon had finished he slowly walked down the isle with his cape slowly wafting in the breeze. As he past the Lay-Z Delegate 9000™ it slowly raised itself off the ground and hovered behind Joebot as he led the way.

The Empire of Zarquon Froods has left the building.

If we had voted this down in the first place

Hey, dont blame us, we weren't here when it passed, but we would have been against it if we were!

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The provision allowing the invading of neutral nations is, frankly, disturbing. Remember Belgium from the real world during World War I and World War II!

Hey, dont blame us, we weren't here when it passed, but we would have been against it if we were!

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador


Arr, I say good ridence. I could have drafted a better repeal with me eyes closed and got 100% support without sending a single telegram, whilst, and at the same time, gargling razor blades.

That Zarquon be a fake. Arr, but I do like them robes he use to wear.

I would personally say good riddance to the VRA, which former ambassador Ms. Berlin called it a lame-duck, but for me I call the VRA a miserable failure instead.

Personally, I would urge members to never speak of a replacement, ever.

Yours,

The provision allowing the invading of neutral nations is, frankly, disturbing. Remember Belgium from the real world during World War I and World War II!

Ummm, how is this related to the VRA? Unless I can safely assume it is to do with the current repeal at vote, of which this is the wrong thread, and to allay your fears there is a redraft happening, which needs the repeal so it can be implemented.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador