New Rogernomics;7481 Wrote:If they are authorizing operations that create a regional alignment, then we must hold the Delegate AND the minister/official responsible.
Quote:The military deciding upon an operation and presenting it to the Delegate for approval, can hardly make a Delegate into a power-hungry idiot that wants to coup the region. They have to be that well before, and since you bring up "couping", I hardly think saying in an act "you can R/D" will prevent the Delegate couping. They'll do that anyway. It certainly didn't stop anyone who couped Lazarus multiple times. So my original point still stands, if you appoint/elect an incompetent military commander, then that is on region - and not on this proposed amendment.
Quote:I don't understand why you are so determined to refute the position that the commander-and-chief of the military and the operational commander is ultimately responsible to their region, and that the ultimate sanction is to remove them from their position. It is also incorrect to suggest that I implied at any point that is the only sanction, as that includes the court and public opposition encouraging the Delegate to change their mind.
The only sanction the citizenry can legally pursue against the Delegate is removal, according to the Mandate. The Court can't do anything about people not playing by the rules unless they commit a crime. That is exactly the kind of action we shouldn't be giving ourselves reason to do, and that it's even on the table right now is a sure sign that this can create unrest and be used as justification for a coup.
Quote:There is no such thing as an achievable balance between "raiding" and defending", and nor can you argue that invading other regions and being at war, as is currently justified by acts (or has been in the past), is a fair balance - as in itself war is not a balance but the goal with aim of seizing the sovereign territory of another region. If you have any military of any kind at all, you will make other regions not like you. That seems more of an argument against the existence of a military than an argument against this amendment.
Wars declared against regions like the NPO absolutely cannot be equated to R/D, where we would be acting as an unprovoked aggressor or intervening in other people's business.
Quote:Making Lazarus independent or not is not the declared purpose of this amendment, nor does it stand the hope of making unrest to allow the commander-and-chief of the military to allow raids and defenses requested by the military, and NOT by the Delegate. Unless you are seriously suggesting TNP is descending into civil war because they allow the commander-and-chief to decide. Nowhere does this permit the Delegate to suggest an operation, as it must be suggested first by their operational commander, an operational commander that is directly responsible to the region for their conduct.
Quote:How? This amendment does not permit R/D as a policy. It permits the operational commander to request an operation that MAY be a defense or MAY be a raid, it does not justify whether a raid or a defense is moral or not, or even if one should take place, and it does NOT permit the Delegate to propose an operation. It does not mention "raid" or "defense" at all either, as those are just some options permitted by allowing the military to propose operations to the Delegate, and not the only options.
Lazarus is not TNP. Lazarus has already had a civil war motivated largely by the R/D rift, and has already been subverted by raiders. If the Delegate chooses to veto one side of R/D or if the commander chooses only to suggest one side, then Lazarus will have become aligned by personal actions rather than by law. I don't think that ought to be possible but this act (as it is) makes it so.
Quote:This never states "raid" or "defense" in the whole amendment, and certainly doesn't advocate for either.
Quote:Finally, it is not in the spirit of this amendment to allow the Delegate to set R/D policy, and in my opinion to do so would require another amendment that details regional positions on R/D and not just allowing the operational commander to propose an operation to the Delegate, and frankly I don't think anyone is ready to declare Lazarus exclusively "raider" or "defender" at this time.
Why change the section relating to alignment at all if the point of the amendment is not to permit R/D? What is it supposed to permit?