We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Stopping Arms Sales Abroad
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Socialist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2100
Description[?]:
| We feel it is completely unethical to sell arms to other nations, it is effectively subsidising warfare. By selling arms to other nations we are saying we support their fight, and this may lead us into a war we wanted nothing to do with. While it may earn a little revenue for government, we feel this is greatly outweighed by the moral costs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Current: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Proposed: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:14:07, August 20, 2005 CET | From |  Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Stopping Arms Sales Abroad |
| Message | Absolutely not. Completely against. On the contrary, we would like to expand arms sales abroad to boost our defense industry |
| Date | 22:25:27, August 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Stopping Arms Sales Abroad |
| Message | Um, selling arms at a market price is not, in any sense, 'subsidising warfare'. Selling weapons does not say we support a particular fight. I also cannot see how it could possibly lead us into a war that we want nothing to do with. How can you possibly think that? Is it something like this? Client nation: Hi Trigunia, we would like to pay you the market rate for some fighter planes, please. Trigunia: OK, here's your planes and your invoice. Client nation: <melodramic laugh> Ha ha, you fools! Now you must fight in our wars! Trigunia: Err, why? Client nation: Umm, because you sold us some military hardware? Trigunia: So? Client nation: Oh. Sorry. Anyway, sometimes you actually DO want to support a nation's fight. OOC: I don't know if you remember a little thing called The Lend-Lease Act. It's one of the reasons we don't speak German today (well, except in Germany). |
| Date | 09:59:04, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Stopping Arms Sales Abroad |
| Message | We feel it is subsidising warfare because countries can now gain access to weaponry they didn't have before, which allows them to to go to war with people they couldn't before. While thats not too bad as long as they are a responcible nation that simply wants them for their own protection, this is not something that is often considered before they are sold. Both Britian and America have made weapons sales that they have regretted later, and Britian's have even on one occasion lead to the genecide of entire tribes in Northern Africa. And to reply to the Liberty Party's great piece of thearte, here is our own. In 3 Acts! Act 1: Client nation: Hi Trigunia, we would like to pay you the market rate for some fighter planes, please. Trigunia: OK, here's your planes and your invoice. Client nation: ! [Client nation moves offstage to the left, the sound of carpet bombing ensues.] Act 2: Client nation's enemies: We cannot tolerate Trigunia continuing to supply Client Nation with these weapons, if you do not desist, we will have to attack the next shipment. Trigunia: Gasp! But we make too much money selling these arms, [Rubs hands together greedily] so we will continue selling them none-the-less. We are sure these are empty threats. Act 3: Trigunia: Gasp! Oh no! Client Nation's Enemies have attacked one of our shipments! We didn't see that coming! Now we are drawn into a war we wanted nothing to do with! Gasp! We feel this work is something Shakespeare himself would have been proud of. Anyway, that's what we fear may happen, without being so radically simplified of course. And in the light of the Liberty Party's last point, which we feel is a good one, we are changing the proposal slightly, to allow selling to close allies only. |
| Date | 23:49:00, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Stopping Arms Sales Abroad |
| Message | We agree that DSP's description is like Shakespeare - great theatre but wholly unrealistic. We remain convinced that it is possible to have an arms industry that sells abroad without necessarily funding wars in progress. We appreciate the modified proposal, but realistically, if the government already has to approve arms sales on a case by case basis, the fact that we are going to be selling to people we regard as allies is pretty much a given. For that reason, The Liberty Party will still be voting NO. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 283 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 156 |
| Random fact: If you want to know how many players there are in Particracy right now, check out the Game Statistics buried at the bottom of the World Map screen. |
| Random quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe |