| SPSF's Ideology |
Personally I don't see this proposal as changing how the SPSF works. It would basically just replace the independent label with a description of how it works already. I obviously like how the Special Forces have been doing under you, so it's performance is a very good template for our laws.
@QD: fix your sig. 
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Exactly! I know, for me, my proposal was simply trying to do a better job at stipulating what the SPSF already is.
I am leaving the wording to you guys and yielding to the arguments. Just PERSONAL beliefs (and I have 16 years of RL military experience) that I would rather serve in an Armed Forces that was "Independant" vs "No methodology". Just comes across as "Doing what we want/need" vs "What do you guys want to do tonite?","I don't know, what do you want to do?". It's just words. I've spoken my beliefs. Whatever.
The proposal doesn't say SPSF has "no methodology". It outlines that the SPSF serves the region, obeys our laws, welcomes everyone and acts within our foreign policy (perhaps even advancing it). What it doesn't do is, however, give that a simple name or label.
We don't call the U.S Army, for example, a "defender" army or an "invader" army or an "independent" army or even a "realist" army (which it usually is, in some respects). It's a national army and it serves the country and remains under strict control and confidence of the state and by extension, the American people. Putting the U.S Army into an ideological box like that would create assumptions about what is supposed to do, which might contradict foreign policy objectives as they evolve. For example, under various different governments over the past two centuries, the U.S Army has been isolationist, interventionist, hyper-interventionist, unilaterialist, multi-lateralist -- and it's changed as such because of changes in the American government and foreign policy without necessarily those changes strictly reflecting the interests of America per se. We're doing something similar in the most recent proposals by removing those labels and instead, defining the army by its defining characteristics: 1) Under civilian control. 2) Observant of our laws and obligations. 3) Observant of our foreign policy. 4) Open to all citizens.
4. The SPSF shall not identify itself under any ideological banner.
I'm not really understanding what exactly is there in Unibot's proposal that would make the SPSF "lack a methodology". We are saying that the proposal was modelled after how the Special Forces currently work, so it makes perfect sense to say that this proposal wouldn't affect at all the current methodology. I would like to think that the effectiveness of our military does not depend on the label we use, instead of the people that lead it.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System Quote:4. The SPSF shall not identify itself under any ideological banner. That's one of the proposals being considered, Quietdad. But there's a more recent one being put forth by me which says instead... 5. The SPSF must, at all times, observe our laws, policies, the charter and our legal and contractual obligations, defend The South Pacific, refrain from conduct abroad which contradicts foreign policy and make an effort to include, welcome and accommodate all citizens as members, regardless of their beliefs.
I gotta say i agree with kris and uni on this one. I dont see how uni's proposal will change the way spsf is run or its activities.
I motion unibots proposal for vote.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Seconded.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |