Talk:The Kodiak Security Service Law, 643 (Res): Difference between revisions
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Talk:The Kodiak Security Service Law, 643 (Res) (view source)
Revision as of 23:02, 26 December 2022
, 1 year ago4 revisions imported
FDold>Rakkeyal m (add br) |
m (4 revisions imported) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
__TOC__
=Initial Debate=
Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 09/08/2022<br>
@Assembly Member <br>
Line 339 ⟶ 341:
Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 21:56<br>
This legislation has been approved. This channel shall be archived in 18 hours.
=First Review=
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 08/12/2022 13:51<br>
@Assembly Member <br>
The Kodiak Security Service Law , 643<br>
An act to mandate service in the Armed Forces and secure opportunities for citizens of the Kodiak Republic.<br>
https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Kodiak_Security_Service_Law,_643<br>
<br>
This Act is automatically under review in accordance to Article 6. It is the duty of the Assembly to either Repeal, Renew, or Amend this act.<br>
<br>
Voting is presently set for 15 Dec 2022 <br>
Patrick Barber<br>
pinned <br>
a message<br>
to this channel. See all <br>
pinned messages<br>
.<br>
— 08/12/2022 13:51<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
removed <br>
The West Virginian Coalition<br>
from the thread.<br>
— 08/12/2022 22:10<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 08/12/2022 22:26<br>
This was a law that may have seemed like a necessity at the time, but ultimately achieved nothing other than forcing Kodiakers into military service and a war. With that war being resolved and resolutions to prevent it from re-occuring, I think it is time we repeal conscription.<br>
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 09/12/2022 01:11<br>
I think the very idea of the bill is good, but we should, due to the lack of military action, reduce the number of months required in service. Basic radio or gun handling and first aid skills can help people.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 02:17<br>
I agree with Phil; a short time of compulsory military service would be good to increase the preparedness of our defense forces and populous in general in case of another conflict.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 03:09<br>
In the age of modern warfare, mass conscription is unhealthy and ineffective. I believe we should instead introduce incentives for volunteering in the military. This way we can achieve a smaller, but well-motivated and highly equipped modern fighting force.<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 03:20<br>
As the Author of this bill, I feel personally attacked by the Chancellor's claim that my bill, who's job was simply to shore up our nations very lackluster defenses, was the cause of the war. We were attacked because our enemy believed themselves capable of victory. Our inability to defend our borders properly, our weakness, is what caused our nation to come under attack from a foreign power.<br>
<br>
To say this bill caused the war to occur is frankly an insult.<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 03:46<br>
That is not what I stated, or implied. I did state that it seemed necessary at the time. I also stated that it forced citizens to go to war, not that it caused the war. <br>
<br>
Conscription results in little more than poor morale. It can be necessary in emergency situations, which is why it came up in the first place but it is a bill for its time that is no longer conducive to an effective military.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 07:48<br>
Personally, I think we should amend this act. I'm not in favor of mandatory conscription, besides its taking manpower from other vital economic sectors, but it is obvious our armed forces are less than optimal. I believe we should build a strong standing army comprised of volunteers. We should reform our military organization to accommodate the military being a viable career path. I'm talking tuition assistance, insurance benefits, pensions, etc. to incentivize Kodiakers to volunteer for the army and possibly even stay in it. <br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 08:02<br>
I disagree. The act should be repealed. It does not in and of itself provide readiness beyond manpower. If we desire to increase military quality, administration and money should be spent on the military we have and not the acquisition of more soldiers. Especially now that we have more concrete assurances from the URA. In fact, we should explore becoming a full member of the Assembly of Nations to grant us more access to diplomatic protections<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 08:05<br>
Then perhaps not amend this act but draft a new bill focusing on increasing the viability of the military as a career path and incentivizing volunteers.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 08:10<br>
Perhaps or perhaps not - but this review should in my political opinion select to repeal conscription. <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 08:23<br>
I agree with repealing conscription. Any attempt to reform our armed forces into a modern and professional fighting force starts at making it volunteer-only. <br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 08:56<br>
And Mr. President, if we repeal this bill without setting up any other kind of system to deal with our severe manpower shortage, we will be right back at Square 1 as we were when Mr. Luchens posted the original Defense Reports. I must be vocal in my belief that we keep the bill to at least attempt to have a semi-competent defense force until such a time that we implement better reforms to encourage more voluntary enlistment. I'm willing to support the repeal of my bill when we have something to replace it with, but until then for the sake of our national defense, I cannot support this.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 09:00<br>
then we should consider reintroducing a version of this resolution<br>
https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Emergency_Defense_Spending_Resolution,_645<br>
not utilising conscription<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 11:16<br>
The NUP’s official stance on this act, as well as my personal one, is that we should not repeal this bill until a better bill is in place. In this state of vulnerability militarily, mandatory military service should stay in place in one way or another until Kodiak can replace its systems, vehicles, etc. with newer and better equipment. Until then, only manpower can reinforce our already battered military. Maybe, as a compromise, we could scale back conscription in return for a greater recruitment budget and a new recruitment drive. However, as things stand right now with no other bill lined up to fill the disparity in our military preparedness, the NUP will not vote to repeal this bill.<br>
Therefore, if the KWP wants the NUP to vote to repeal this bill, they should put forward a bill that would replenish the loss our military would take if this bill were repealed.<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:42<br>
We introduced this during the war. we sent young Kodiakers to the front unwillingly. And we were consistently defeated and outclassed by our opponents who didn't care how much manpower we had, because it didn't make a difference. And the NUP solution is to do more of the same? Soldiers forced to be there against their will, have poor morale and will break easily. You'll have your precious numbers heading for the hills. However a well trained, volunteer military, modernised for future threats is far better suited to the task. What's more, we now have the time to achieve this goal without thrusting our citizens into harms way without their consent.<br>
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 12:44<br>
This bill CANNOT be repealed. How would Kodiak ever defend itself in case of another war? What if we couldn’t get bailed out the current war? Things could have been much worse. We need to enhance our armed forces to prevent this from happening again. Some form of conscription is necessary… it’s obvious no Kodiak would even want to serve nor would receive substantial federal funding, hence why the military was so bad. This is a matter of national security… is that too much to ask?<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 12:46<br>
We’re in a state of peace right now. It makes no sense to keep the compulsory military service and instead redirect that manpower to post-war recovery. We can afford to partake in a heavy, long-term modernization program; we don’t have to drain our economy of even more manpower to pay people to stand around against their will. We need government incentives for the military. We need military pensions, benefits, tuition assistance, not more conscripts. <br>
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/12/2022 12:47<br>
We should not force our unwilling citizens to go to war it just makes bad soldiers and more desertions now that conflict is over it is more then a reasonable idea to repeal it it shouldn’t have been implemented in the first place especially at the age range it has if I remember correctly<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:51<br>
Which is why I recommend a change of direction. When we have issues with deserters who don't want to be there, what will you do? What's next? a commissariat to stand at the back and shoot them if they run?<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 12:52<br>
I agree that we need military benefits, tuition assistance, etc. but I’m thinking about what we need right now. Those things are things we will need to phase in slowly, and eventually we will stop what you call “conscription” (as I see it it is compulsory military service, just like Israel). I agree with the KWP in that the military needs better incentives, but right now, we need more manpower, , at least until we can phase in new technology.<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:55<br>
Why right now? We have peace and a treaty that prevents similar events from occurring again. We now have the time to do this properly. Not half arse it now and have to fix the ingrained problems that come with it down the line.<br>
I do think we need to fix the military but forcing bodies into it is not the way to do it.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:02<br>
Just because TGN is unlikely to attack again, we have shown our military’s weakness in the war, and I doubt another nation would think us a worthy adversary anymore. Even if it’s just a small advantage, larger numbers offer an advantage on any battlefield and an even bigger advantage on paper, something other nations would take into consideration when deciding if they could attack or not. <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:09<br>
We are at peace and our largest threat won’t dare to invade us under the ire of the international community. Quite frankly an extensive modernization program is the best option. Instating conscription will only drain manpower and resources from the economy which could’ve been directed to said modernization program. If we were to go to war we’d only send more Kodiak lives to death for little gain. I am staunchly against mandatory military service.<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:14<br>
Firstly, our neighbours are URA members who are bound to upgold the treaty recognising our sovereign borders. <br>
Secondly, while we remain economically weaker, they will always have an advantage over us, no matter how many bodies we throw at them. If war happens again, it will not matter if we are outnumbered or outnumber them if they can outmanoeuvre us regardless. It is exactly what happened last time and exactly what will happen again unless we can get past this concept that a meat grinder is an effective military strategy. Modernisation will level the playing field far more than bodies.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:16<br>
To be frank, our military equipment is extremely outdated, and modernization will take an extremely long time. If we increase benefits of military service, we could keep mandatory military service with high morale too. Also, why are you against compulsory military service? Some of the most modernized militaries irl, such as South Korea and Israel, enforce mandatory military service with little to no problems. Also, your points about people being taken away from the economy are hollow. The military, specifically the military industrial complex, contributes a great deal to the economy, and the more equipment that needs to be made (and more does with more service members), the greater the economy grows in that regard.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:22<br>
We will never know where the next invasion will come from; peace treaty or not, alliance or not, terrorist or nation, an attack is always a possibility. That is why every country is generally prepared militarily, and we are not. And, although I agree that the military needs to undergo heavy modernization, the only thing that will strengthen our military in this time of weakness is more men. I am trying to emphasize that this bill, if renewed, would continue only as a temporary measure until modernization is far enough in progress. Then, we shall revote. <br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 13:23<br>
This paranoia is misplaced. We have one active enemy at one border, currently cowed by a larger international military alliance.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:24<br>
Those militaries aren’t good because of mandatory service, they are good despite it. Israel is the bastion of Jews and surrounded by enemies. They’re already motivated so mandatory service won’t hinder their morale all that much. South Korea is the same, they literally border a lunatic dictator who has access to WMDs and dreams of uniting the peninsula under them.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:24<br>
This is not paranoia, this is emphasis on why general military preparedness is always necessary.<br>
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:27<br>
You don’t think Kodiak doesn’t have a renewed since of nationality and a higher morale? We stuck out in this war and didn’t give up. I’m sure Kodiak citizens want to see their country defend itself and succeed.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:27<br>
I disagree, I think those militaries are good because of that aspect (among other things), not despite it. With more incentives, our drafted military personnel can be just as motivated.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:28<br>
Our citizens are tired of fighting a war. Sheer nationalism doesn’t make a good military it makes a ticking time bomb. <br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:28<br>
Wars? @Patrick Barber how many wars has Kodiak undergone?<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:29<br>
One war is too many<br>
No matter how patriotic and nationalistic out citizens are everyone will get tired of war.<br>
Besides this war has exposed the total inadequacy of our military. The international community will know this sudden influx of personal is a bluff<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 13:31<br>
there was the revolution in the 400s, the Europeian Coup in the 500s, and this event in the 600s. I can't think of any active wars we've had other than those three<br>
one major home-soil war every 60 years or so? <br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:32<br>
I agree, but I would argue that Kodiak has not necessarily undergone war fatigue. Everywhere else besides the Darrent did not feel many effects from what I remembers; even if the economic hurt is large, that doesn’t constitute war fatigue. Russia’s economy has been destroyed by war, and 76% or more in Russia still actively support the war.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:33<br>
I wouldn’t necessarily trust Russian polls for judging war support. <br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:34<br>
The war has exposed the inadequacy of our military, which I believe can only be reinforced right now by manpower, even if it looks like a bluff.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:35<br>
The poll was conducted by a transparent, unbiased, third party, humanitarian organization (not based in Russia).<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:36<br>
I’m willing to reach a compromise. The bill stays for the meantime but we will phase it out over the long term for a extensive modernization program. I do not want military service to be something every future generation has to expect.<br>
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:36<br>
We can’t modernize the military if there isn’t an increase of manpower… there’s no good way to do that. I feel like we need some numbers here… how many people are active duty? Reserve? Eligible?<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 09/12/2022 13:37<br>
Mr. Crysler may be willing to make that compromise, but I will be voting to repeal<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:37<br>
Let's maybe not use Russia as a model for anything?<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:38<br>
That seems like a good compromise, and generally what I’ve been arguing for. Thank you. <br>
Klaus Mikaelson — 09/12/2022 13:39<br>
"you get what you want, the other side gets nothing right now" <br>
- "yes, that's a good compromise"<br>
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:40<br>
What wouldn’t KWP get? The idea would be that conscription would eventually be phased out and added to focus on military modernization. <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:40<br>
I mean the modernization program would’ve been long term anyways<br>
I won’t support the bill in its current state though<br>
I believe Amendments that would immediately begin the modernization program should be introduced. <br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:42<br>
And maybe set a date when the bill would be automatically deactivated, without a vote? <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:42<br>
Yes perhaps<br>
Though for it to pass it would depend on KWP support<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:43<br>
So if modernisation will happen anyway, and we are not at risk in the meantime, why keep it? Why keep spending money on a program that would be dropped in a few years anyway?<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:44<br>
Ideally I would like to drop the mandatory service and start modernization immediately whilst establishing international allies<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:44<br>
We've already established international allies. That's what the treaty did.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:45<br>
Alright guys I gtg, good debate. Have a good night/day 🙂<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:45<br>
Alr bye :) <br>
I gtg too also, bye<br>
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 09/12/2022 19:46<br>
For the moment, I won't add too much more to the debate that has not already been discussed (OOC: hurray for debate!) - I agree that the defence force needs a renewed modernisation program in the long term, previously our modernisation efforts have been relatively short term (3 year periods), we ought to look to the short - medium AND - long term now that we have proof of many deficiencies that I'm sure our military would be very eager to highlight for us. I hope this can be looked at jointly by all of the GA.<br>
<br>
I do not currently believe that this bill is an answer, and conscription will need to be phased out if not repealed.<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 23:59<br>
Yes, because that stopped Hitler in 1937, 1938, 1939... oh wait.<br>
John Edwards [KWP] — 10/12/2022 00:24<br>
Except TGN aren't in the same situation as Germany in 1937. They are more powerful than us individually, and were able to invade without interference by neutral parties. That has been resolved with the treaty. If they try it again, they face the combined threat of the URA immediately. The time of acting against us without getting trounced has passed for them.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 00:25<br>
we can presume I think with high accuracy that TGN isn't the force it once was, if they were so keen to accept cash to walk away<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 01:16<br>
If the NUP is concerned with immediate manpower shortages, how about not conscripting any new personnel but allowing the requiring active personnel to stay? Then we can phase them out and transform our military into a professional, volunteer force.<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 07:50<br>
I believe we have very different concepts as to how long it will take to modernize the military.<br>
I would like to hear how long the KWP representatives believe it would take us to create and establish production of a single modern Main Battle Tank<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:01<br>
We don't necessarily have to make it completely domestically. We can do a Poland and use a foreign design but have them invest in factories in our country. It would probably take 1.5-2 years to set that up.<br>
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:02<br>
Leopard 2PL lol<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:02<br>
Well more like K2PL<br>
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 10/12/2022 08:13<br>
I am not too keen on becoming dependent on military equipment off of foreign nations… if that’s what we plan to do we need to expand our production domestically.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:15<br>
They'll invest into factories inside Kodiak, we'll learn more about making an MBT. We get an MBT pretty quickly. And we can make our own later on.<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:34<br>
We dont' have any of the industry to even begin producing our own homemade vehicles<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:36<br>
That's why we'll get foreign companies to begin investing into building factories that'll produce their products. In exchange we'll be able to buy their systems for much cheaper.<br>
and we'll gain experience building these systems<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:36<br>
We don't even have any capacity for electronics manufacturing<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:37<br>
well we have to modernize to survive<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 08:37<br>
1.5-2 years is very optimistic. Also, I agree with Aaron; I very much would not like to rely on foreign countries to supply our military. And MBTs are not the only things we need to modernize: our entire navy, APCs, helicopters, fighters, bombers, artillery (especially the munitions for it), recon vehicles, CSTAR equipment, MANPADS, ATGMs, shoulder fired anti air draft weapons, mines, everything down to standard primary and secondary weapons for infantry. <br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:37<br>
We are, for lack of better numbers, decades off. I must stress and remind the Assembly that our current tanks are about equivalent to the T-55 <br>
And we even have the equivalent to T-34/85s as mainline Battle Tanks in our current military<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:39<br>
If we are going to modernize we quite frankly have to rely on foreign partners to being able to modernize in a reasonable time<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:40<br>
Well I have to ask then if the current government is willing to write that check<br>
Our current military is essentially on par with Afghanistan<br>
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:42<br>
I think that a very good idea when designing/manufacturing MBT would be to use similar parts, thanks to which you would not have to open too many new production lines<br>
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:44<br>
It is currently... what year?<br>
648?<br>
We have not purchased overseas for the military in almost 40 years<br>
We have nothing left in terms of replacement parts<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:48<br>
At least for a MBT designed by a foreign company who is willing to invest into building factories in our country to make these. It will probably take 1.5-2 years to get production chugging along. How long it'll take to actually outfit our army, I don't know. We don't currently have the infrastructure for a large domestic military-industrial complex, which only exacerbates the need to immediately start the modernization process.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:49<br>
We'll need that check if Kodiak is to survive a future invasion.<br>
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:50<br>
how about setting up a system like in Finland?<br>
small amount of normal soldiers, and many reservists<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 09:36<br>
that's what they're proposing<br>
Mandatory service would make a lot of trained reservists<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:04<br>
Given that the entire debate thus far as been about repeal or renew, and there have been no specific amendments proposed that have attracted the debate, I feel that we are approaching an impasse that will only be resolved with a vote. I will allow for 24 hours for an actual amendment that can attract the support of some of the members otherwise I will begin the vote. <br>
If members wish to develop a new funding bill, then I encourage them to propose it in my office, as this is not a funding bill.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:37<br>
The M1 Abrams took 8 years to develop and mass produce, and the US is a country with a huge preexisting military industrial complex. It could take us decades to develop a tank on par with other countries.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:38<br>
Not develop, we’ll be licensing a foreign design to start off. A situation similar to Poland and SK.<br>
SK is building factories in Poland and gives the the entire K2 package. In exchange Poland pays for the tanks obviously but also allow SK to manufacture K2s in Poland which they’ll sell.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:49<br>
I adjust my estimates, probably 3-4 years<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:50<br>
We could do that, but then again, we're talking about all of our equipment. In my opinion, it would not be good to be reliant on foreign companies for all of our equipment, not to mention it would be a LOT more expensive than just making it ourselves. Also, it probably wouldn't even be logistically possible.<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:51<br>
SK is allowing Poland to produce their own modified version of the K2, the K2PL which will be domestically manufactured in Poland. It is also the model that makes up the bulk of the Polish-SK orders. We could set up a similar scheme.<br>
This would heavily simplify logistics and would jumpstart our military industrial complex<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:53<br>
None of these questions about equipment are meaningful to the question: should we impress citizens into the military<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:53<br>
Again, we're talking about all of our equipment. Also, we wouldn't want to get into a Saudi Arabia situation where our main arms supplier gets mad at us for one reason for another and then all the sudden we're not getting much military equipment anymore.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:53<br>
If we don't have equipment we don't need more soldiers.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:54<br>
True, probably for discussion in a future bill.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:54<br>
Which is in and of itself a hyperbole on the part of my colleagues in the nup<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:54<br>
As it stands if no further amendments to the bill are made I’m going to vote to repeal it.<br>
Call me naive but I trust the international community to back us<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:55<br>
Call me paranoid, but in this matter, we should only be self reliant.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:56<br>
I think it important to remember that the only allies our enemy could attract have already committed to our defense <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:57<br>
We can’t be self reliant right now, if we are invaded again we’re toast with this bill enabled or not.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 10:58<br>
That's not true. We have made massive advances in our military over the three years the war was in action<br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:59<br>
Well Mr. Kalimeno is assuming that we’ll be attacked within the decade before any significant modernization program can bear fruit.<br>
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:59<br>
Anyways, I see no further debate is necessary here. I think we have stated, and restated, and restated our points. The NUP is going to vote to renew this bill, along with any moderates independents we can muster up. Good debates though, I honestly had fun. <br>
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:59<br>
Yea it was a good debate, a lot of fun.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 10/12/2022 11:00<br>
I hope to see you both in the education proposal<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
pinned <br>
a message<br>
to this channel. See all <br>
pinned messages<br>
.<br>
— 10/12/2022 17:25<br>
EasyPoll<br>
BOT<br>
— 11/12/2022 11:28<br>
<br>
Question<br>
The Kodiak Security Service Law shall be Retained or Repealed?<br>
<br>
Choices<br>
🇦 Retain<br>
🇧 Repeal<br>
🇨 Abstain<br>
<br>
Final Result<br>
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [14 • 47%]<br>
🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [12 • 40%]<br>
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [4 • 13%]<br>
30 users voted<br>
<br>
Settings<br>
:alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)<br>
:spy: Anonymous Poll<br>
:one: allowed choice<br>
<br>
:lock: No other votes allowed<br>
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member<br>
Poll ID: MMhACozZNp<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 11/12/2022 11:28<br>
@Assembly Member <br>
The vote is now active. Debate is suspended. 72 hours are given for the poll.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— 13/12/2022 13:38<br>
@Assembly Member <br>
The vote will end in approx 22 hours. Please be sure to vote if you have not yet done so.<br>
Patrick Barber<br>
OP<br>
— Yesterday at 11:29<br>
The vote is complete. The Kodiak Security Service law has been retained and will return to the floor in 3 years time for its next review unless repealed beforehand.<br>
The thread shall remain for 24 hours before it is archived.
| |||
