Shadow of the Andes - An Interactive Chilean AAR

Comrades of the Congreso,

I cannot support this bill!

How can a simple majority of 50% or more take it upon themselves to enact by that means a piece of legislation that will require 2/3rds or more of the legislative body to pass a certain type of law?

The same tactics used in this way regarding military policy now will be used in the future to limit policies of social reform, wealth redistribution, and any other areas of legislation that a simple majority - such as a liberal-national coalition - can get pass.

And, on the other hand, what is to stop a simple majority of the left, including yours truly, from using these same tactics against the policies of the right?

This is the kind of parliamentary trickery that causes the workingman to distrust liberal democraacy and seek a new industrial democracy.

I cannot in good conscience support such tactics that will so obviously backfire upon my comrades and I in the future.

Then Senor, are you willing to let those men go to war over the matter of a fifty percent plus one vote? How will this protect the worker, those you love so dearly?

This bill only affects matters of war, and I doubt any other such limited bill could be passed, especially with the support of Liberales, Conservadores, Nationales, Socialistas, and Comunistas? This law is limited and helps prevent unnecessary deaths.

((Guys, TH already said there was a 2/3 majority to go to war, so don't use 51% majority for going to war when it wasn't 51%. And quite frankly, making it so every legislation needs a 4/5 majority to pass is just idiotic, a real Congresso could never get anything done with those limitations.))

After my resignation, it has become clear to me that only political allies of the current President ever achieve the position of General. This politicizing of the Army must not stand I propose the following bill to the Congresso to ensure that the Armed Forces of Chile may be free from political influence.

Separations of Influence Bill

1.No active or reserve member of any branch of the Chilean Armed Forces will be allowed to be an active member of any political party or take a role in any political primaries while enlisted.
-1a. Only the general election is exempt from this rulling.

2. No active or reserve member of any branch of the Chilean Armed Forces will be allowed to attend any political rallies or meetings while enlisted.

3. Any officers of the Chilean Armed forces of the rank of or equivalent to Liutenant shall not be allowed to run for a political office while currently in the field or holding military personel under their direct command.

4. Unless a Coup or Rebellion against the Government of Chile has military capabilities or has the moral right to protecting the people of Chile and the Consitution, no General may submit a "support" or "against" towards the coup and government.
-4a. The Supreme Court to define "the moral right to protecting the people of Chile and the Constitution."

5. No individual having held a political position may become an officer of a rank higher than or equivalent to Liutenant unless otherwise decided by a unanimous vote by all members of the Congresso during times of dire need.

((It wouldn't be 4/5 for everything, only for war.

And I've done something odd on this, because the font is appearing smaller; it's only affecting Paradox forums. It's not affecting my posting, it just annoys me. So without going to tech support mods or anything (unless any of you guys are reading ), do any of all know what could be the problem? Just PM, cause I don't want to fill up this thread with more useless posts...))

I believe that the military has every right to vote on who its commander-in-chief will be, so I cannot support your bill, General.

If you would reread 1a Rosa, you would see that it does not prevent anyone from voting for the President.

((Did you even read the thing?))

((I did; it prevents soldiers from voting in the primary, which limits their right to vote))

However, General, if turn your gaze to Section, military men are prevented in voting in primaries. Throughout my administration, I championed voting rights; to turn back on the military, men who die protecting this country, is something that concerns me.

While you indeed do concede to the soldiers the right to vote in the general election, let's consider this. 3 parties have two candidates each. Of those six men, only one is an antiwar candidate who won't completely gut the military (which one other would do). Unfortunately, the candidate with the sound foreign policy is beaten, and the soldiers are left with two radical jingoists and a candidate who is opposed to the military itself! Had they had the right to vote in the primaries, that may not have been the case.

Senor, just because a man may be pro-war and pro-expanding the borders of Chile, does not mean he has the ability to do so. The President does not have the ability to declare war, the Congresso does, which the members of the Armed Forces can still vote for. And what of all the independent voters who do not vote in primaries anyway? Or you saying that their votes mean nothing as well?

Certainly their vote mean something, but they chose not to vote; your bill would prevent soldiers from voting simply because of their profession.

And no, the president cannot alone declare war, but he has the power of the bully pulpit, to sway public opinion, and browbeat the Congreso into supporting a war. Which is why Minister Romano proposed his bill, and why I support it; it will decrease the chances of Chile getting into a war of Aggression.

As well, Senor Romano, would mind my changing, or expanding, the bill?

((Perhaps the Romano-Santa Rosa Military Reform Act))

I. Declaration of War
1. A congressional vote on a war must reach or exceed two-thirds of the vote.
2. In the event of a presidential veto, the override vote must reach or exceed three-fourths of the vote.

II. Army Chief of Staff
1. The position of Army Chief of Staff (referred to as COS) will be elected by majority vote.
2. The COS will, from any serving member of the Armed Forces of Chile, will nominate a successor should the COS fall ill, die, or in any other way be incapable of selecting commanders.
3. The COS has no power to distribute soldiers through the army.
3a The COS can however, request the Congreso to revise a presidential distribution in peacetime (the vote requires a simple majority).

III. Presidential War Powers
1. The President cannot, under any circumstances revoke the right of Habeas Corpus.
2. The President cannot torture enemy combatants.
3. The President has full control over military maneouvres, distribution, and supply.
3a. Refer to II3a on COS distribution challenges.
3b. The president can defer supply, manueouvre, and otehr day-to-day affairs to his War Minister
4. The President cannot raise funds for the military without congressional approval.

This bill can be modified, and suggestions are encouraged.

They are not being forbidden from voting due to their profession. They can still vote. What this bill would do is prevent each political party from gaining unwanted influence within the Armed Forces, something you must surely agree with.

All Unions allowed

A bill requiring a 2/3 vote for war seems to be a constitutional amendment rather than a simple change in law. I think 2/3 of the Congresso would need to vote for it. I ask the Supreme Court for clarification.

Roseno, I was not an active General leading our Army during the war. I am Minister of the Interior. Don't see why you blame me for leading our troops badly. Your ignorance is astounding.

General Pedro Rivera- Minister of the Interior

Obviously it is your ignorance, as you cannot be both the Minister of the Interior and a General. I am shocked that the Communistas and Socialistas would not see this as a sure sign of a Military Dictatorship. And I did not single you out as the sole reason for our failure. You, as the Minister of the Interior, share the same responsibility as the President, and thus the deaths are as much on you as it is on him. It saddens me to see Chile in such a poor state with such a terrible Minister of the Interior, the worst in all of Chilean history. I would rather see Disraeli rise from the dead and perform the responsibilities of the Minister of the Interior, rather than continue to see your ignorance in office.

-Sebastian Roseno

General is a title not my position. I will no longer use it while speaking as Minister. I was replaced by Andondie from my active military role to join the cabinet. I do not lead any troops after his changes went into effect. There is no military dictatorship. I am surprised you did not mention Gen. Zepeda in your blame as he led the troops in battle. I personally do not place any blame on Zepeda. War is unpredictable and many unexpected things do happen. Sometimes no one is to blame just bad luck and circumstances beyond our control.

Pedro Rivera

((TH some bills are being proposed, can you please take them into account. I feel like this entire AAR has become a presidential voting campaign filled with coups and no bills. Those who try to make bills simply get ignored or nothing seems to happen.))

Gentleman. I would ask you to stop your bickering. You are both fine men and these insults between you serve nothing but to lower yourselves. Señor Roseno, I would refute your challenge of generalships being appointed only to cronies of the president. I would point out that you have always voted for me and I appointed you. Are you suggesting you were only appointed due to you bring a crony? I would also point out that all appointments are made in consultation with a nuetral chief staff and that the spread of generals has been across 3 parties and not just the liberals.

In relation to the bills being put forward, I cannot support them in their current form. The appointment of generals, distribution of forces and raising of brigades is already cumbersome without adding more levels. In particular the president should have complete control over the budget.

I agree changes are needed but I am not convinced by the bills before me.

Presidente Andonie

King50000 said:

Obviously it is your ignorance, as you cannot be both the Minister of the Interior and a General. I am shocked that the Communistas and Socialistas would not see this as a sure sign of a Military Dictatorship. And I did not single you out as the sole reason for our failure. You, as the Minister of the Interior, share the same responsibility as the President, and thus the deaths are as much on you as it is on him. It saddens me to see Chile in such a poor state with such a terrible Minister of the Interior, the worst in all of Chilean history. I would rather see Disraeli rise from the dead and perform the responsibilities of the Minister of the Interior, rather than continue to see your ignorance in office.

-Sebastian Roseno

Click to expand...

(( That can be arranged! Braaaaains, braaains, Republicano braaaains! ))

22-01-2012, 13:44
rudders10

Gentleman. I would ask you to stop your bickering. You are both fine men and these insults between you serve nothing but to lower yourselves. Señor Roseno, I would refute your challenge of generalships being appointed only to cronies of the president. I would point out that you have always voted for me and I appointed you. Are you suggesting you were only appointed due to you bring a crony? I would also point out that all appointments are made in consultation with a nuetral chief staff and that the spread of generals has been across 3 parties and not just the liberals.

In relation to the bills being put forward, I cannot support them in their current form. The appointment of generals, distribution of forces and raising of brigades is already cumbersome without adding more levels. In particular the president should have complete control over the budget.

I agree changes are needed but I am not convinced by the bills before me.

Presidente Andonie

Click to expand...

Why do we have here? A "President" confessing that his generals are political creatures. He adds that the executive isn't strong enough. He wants control over the budget and the bills we pass. Are we going to let him have what he wants? Shall we jeopardize our Republic? He was elected under at least unusual circumstances, buried thousands of young men in foreign ground, and says he says it's not enough? He also wants us Congressmen to put our pants down? No more shall we accept this.


I ask Andonie to resign and call for new elections.

Mathrim said:

Why do we have here? A "President" confessing that his generals are political creatures. He adds that the executive isn't strong enough. He wants control over the budget and the bills we pass. Are we going to let him have what he wants? Shall we jeopardize our Republic? He was elected under at least unusual circumstances, buried thousands of young men in foreign ground, and says he says it's not enough? He also wants us Congressmen to put our pants down? No more shall we accept this.

M
I ask Andonie to resign and call for new elections.

Click to expand...

I get tired of people reading statements and making stuff up from it. The president already controls the budget for military spending. If you spent more time learning and less forming militia you might already know that. I said that this power should remain with the president. I did say that changes are needed in the structures we have regarding the military but never said that this should mean more power to the executive. And I never said the generals were appointed as political favours. Please read more carefully
señor.

I would also point out I tried to veto the war that was introduced by the congress.