SENATE BILL: Anti-Conscription Amendment (Failed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

He doesn't need proof that it definately will happen someday. All he has to do is establish that the possibility exists that it might, since his arguement is to preserve the policy for use only as an emergency contingency. You on the other hand desire it to be completely taken off the table; therefore, the only one who needs to prove something is you. Specifically, that we will never ever end up like those fallen countries. Unless you believe in some kind of extreme form of "Atlasian Exceptionalism", that it is a very tall order indeed.

You reject debate about the distant future in preference to right now yet you also warn about "future" potential depreviations of liberty as result of this policy.

What are you talking about?

I am not saying that it is impossible for an attack to happen someday.  I'm saying that, irrespective of the circumstances, it is never justified for a government to deprive its people of basic liberties.  Atlasia wasn't founded on the idea that liberty is something we can compromise on or take away during certain circumstances.  Sjo seems to think that because other powerful nations fall, as he mentioned, the decline of this country is inevitable.  Nice strawman, though.

Uh, yes.  If conscription is ever enacted by this government, liberty will be deprived.  That is not merely a "potential" deprivation of liberty.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, something I just realized.  Constitutional amendments can be repealed, yes?  Because if this is the case, then technically we're not completely taking conscription off the table because amendments can be undone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

[Donerail]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

And how does my interpretation not mesh with the full context of what he was talking about?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

And how does my interpretation not mesh with the full context of what he was talking about?

Because, if all nations fall even if they are powerful, then there shouldn't be a reason to support conscription anyway- using his logic.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

[Donerail]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

I said that historically, nations do rise and fall, and the implication of that is that it is entirely possible that the same can apply to Atlasia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

And how does my interpretation not mesh with the full context of what he was talking about?

Because, if all nations fall even if they are powerful, then there shouldn't be a reason to support conscription anyway- using his logic.

Oh, I get it now. You are using a different definition of the word fall.


You are saying that if the country is going to completely collapse at some point, why bother. No, the point is that we won't always have the overwhelming power we have now and therefore in the future, other means may need to be provided for to defend the nation. The nation could still survive for several more decades, centuries, or even indefinately in a reduced status. It may not happen all at once. Your reponse would be "Just get it over with already". That would be several more generations of people that could have had their freedom preserved, but would not because of impractical notions of principle.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

No, our arguements are still at the root of our position that we may need conscription some day in the future which is the issue at hand.

You are the one who is arguing over interpretations of the word fall.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

I said that historically, nations do rise and fall, and the implication of that is that it is possible that the same can apply to Atlasia.

Well, then thank you for changing the context of your words.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

His context was perfectly clear before if you looked at the totality of a his statement as it was, before viewing it through a tactical lense.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"You disagree with me and you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"You disagree with me and you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

Personal insults, now?  Really?

This whole conversation changed from a reasonable, philosophical debate about conscription to someone not being able to clarify what they were saying.

Keep taking my words out of context, though.

[Donerail]

"You disagree with me, thus you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"You disagree with me, thus you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

...

Yes, that is totally the part of his post I was talking about.

Take some reading classes, guys.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"You disagree with me and you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

Personal insults, now?  Really?

This whole conversation changed from a reasonable, philosophical debate about conscription to someone not being able to clarify what they were saying.

Keep taking my words out of context, though.

Dude, you are the one making a big deal out of him clarifying what he said. He was clear then (to me at least) and he has been clear 3 or 4 times since, yet you keep harping on an issue of semantics and then accuse of him and me of getting off topic, when the clarification is made several times over. You are the one taking people out of context, you are the one making an issue whe he has clarified and you are the one who is far more off topic then we are. Quit pretending to Nap-Libby 2.0, already.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"You disagree with me, thus you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

No, to make it an insult, I would have posted the "redacted" version that I typed and then revised.

[Donerail]

"You disagree with me, thus you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

...

Yes, that is totally the part of his post I was talking about.

Take some reading classes, guys.

Fine then. To make the whole thing into an insult for which redaction would not be necessary, you'd do such.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think Clarence had it right when it established this as a choice between realism and idealism. It is not realistic to rest on the laurels of current strengrth, as justifications not to worry about future contingencies and thus defend forever removing conscription as a "practical" option, even if it is still technically possible via repeal of the Amendment.

No country remains on top forever and current projections are for China and then India to overtake and push us to number 3. Theoretically, we should stay there for quite a long while, but who knows what can happen. China and India might just collapse tomorrow and we may get another 130 years as top dog. Precisely because we don't know what will happen and since we are detemined to never use this unless absolutely necessary, we should not ban conscription via the Constitution. If we could predict the future, or we were using it more frequently, then I would take a different approach.