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: Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
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: July 2129
Description[?]:
| Here it is. We all knew it was coming! the RL player has gone off the deep end, tormented about the War in Iraq and the "global struggle against extremism". So here it goes: |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are banned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:10:55, October 16, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | The RL player who claims to care about the poor downtrodden common man, opposes a war that successfully overthrew a maniacal dictator who gassed people. What a suprise. |
| Date | 03:08:00, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | We ovewrthrew him by killing 100,000+ people. The US, no matter how big our 10-gallon hats are, is not God. There are any number of ways to overthrow a dictator without occupying a country and stealing their oil and resources. Plus, even more than that, I oppose the method by which we invaded the country. It was immaturely planned. and the documented lies our administration told us. |
| Date | 03:49:52, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | "There are any number of ways to overthrow a dictator without occupying a country" I suppose a more effective way was to keep on writing him friendly letters from our favorite international bureaucrats? I suppose Saddam appreciated all the paper that he got full of useless resolutions and sanctions and oil for food nonsense. Otherwise, he might have had to oppress his people a bit more to provide the heating and toilet paper for his 50 gigantic palaces. "stealing their oil and resources." Oh yes. The US has stolen oil. Oh yes, they have stolen resources(the only major resource Iraq has is oil) Perhaps that's why the price of oil has risen so far since we entered Iraq? Perhaps that's why the US has spent billions on the war, and billions more rebuilding every single thing we blow up to get the pansies inside? Insane amounts of tax dollars have been spent on the war. Hundreds of US soldiers have died from policies directly implemented to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. The only thing the US has gained from this is removing a maniacal dictator from power. But it has come at a tremendous loss. The oil output of Iraq is still not even close to what it used to be. The US hasnt gotten a dollar of it. And we have had to spend billions of dollars per year dealing with blowing stuff up and rebuilding it. Not to mention all the American lives lost and destroyed. "The US, no matter how big our 10-gallon hats are, is not God." We dont have to be god to take out the garbage and recognize when it needs to be done. "We ovewrthrew him by killing 100,000+ people." I suppose you have a source for this? Now what about a source detailing how many of those people were innocent, and how many weren't? What about a source for the crap Saddam pulled? "and the documented lies our administration told us." I suppose you believe the Democrats who said the same thing that the Republicans were saying before the war, but have had a change of heart now? There is a widely circulated quote of Kerry talking about how we knew for sure that Saddam had WMDs. They knew he had had them and used them in the past. They knew he had done some shady things with them. And Chalabi promised us that they were still there. "Plus, even more than that, I oppose the method by which we invaded the country. It was immaturely planned." I agree there, but I suppose you could have done a better job? Perhaps we would be doing better in the war right now if we immediately sent all of our captured terrorists/enemy combatants/POWs/whatever back to the Taliban, as long as they promised not to let them fight again. I guess that would have to be a better plan. |
| Date | 04:37:47, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | "I suppose a more effective way was to keep on writing him friendly letters from our favorite international bureaucrats? I suppose Saddam appreciated all the paper that he got full of useless resolutions and sanctions and oil for food nonsense." Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean using strong punctuation in a letter to a dictator. The US and Europe has enough bright minds (and soft power to back them up) to do all the good in the world. The Oil for Food program and embargo were hopeless disasters. But there are a number of contributors to that other than initial diplomacy didn't work so mass slaughters were the only other option. "I suppose you have a source for this?" (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/) (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/28/international1305EDT0569.DTL) (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992290312.html?oneclick=true) Just try Googling "100,000 Iraqis" I suppose you thought there was no way to justify that. No, what’s really unjustifiable is the 1.5 million Iraqi's we killed during the 90's. (http://www.stopusa.be/scripts/texte.php?section=BDBA&langue=3&id=9027) "Perhaps that's why the price of oil has risen so far since we entered Iraq?" The price of gasoline isn't directly proportional to the amount of oil America steals from the third world. That's almost common sense by now. A very large portion of the gas prices are due to the weakening US dollar (not to mention the recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast). "I suppose you believe the Democrats who said the same thing that the Republicans were saying before the war, but have had a change of heart now? There is a widely circulated quote of Kerry talking about how we knew for sure that Saddam had WMDs. They knew he had had them and used them in the past. They knew he had done some shady things with them. And Chalabi promised us that they were still there." First, don't call me a Democrat. Second, It's well documented that The UN inspectors, CIA, FBI, United Kingdom, and even the White House knew that it was very unlikely that Saddam has the frequently mentioned weapons that could leave a "mushroom cloud" (See the Downing Street Memo among other things). "We don’t have to be god to take out the garbage and recognize when it needs to be done." I suppose that's true if you consider war corporatism, the Project for the New American Century, Neo-Conservative Manifesto, etc. "what needs to be done". "...but I suppose you could have done a better job?" I probably couldn't have, but I hold my Secretary of Defense to a higher standard on military strategy than I hold myself to. "Perhaps we would be doing better in the war right now if we immediately sent all of our captured terrorists/enemy combatants/POWs/whatever back to the Taliban, as long as they promised not to let them fight again. I guess that would have to be a better plan." Not once have I advocated that. I would really just like the enemy combatants treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions until their innocence can be assured. At which point they could be freed. |
| Date | 05:40:30, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | "Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean using strong punctuation in a letter to a dictator. The US and Europe has enough bright minds (and soft power to back them up) to do all the good in the world. The Oil for Food program and embargo were hopeless disasters. But there are a number of contributors to that other than initial diplomacy didn't work so mass slaughters were the only other option." They tried friendly diplomacy, and it didnt work. If they fail often enough, it stands to reason that they will continue to fail. "(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/) (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/28/international1305EDT0569.DTL) (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992290312.html?oneclick=true) Just try Googling "100,000 Iraqis" I suppose you thought there was no way to justify that. No, what’s really unjustifiable is the 1.5 million Iraqi's we killed during the 90's. (http://www.stopusa.be/scripts/texte.php?section=BDBA&langue=3&id=9027)" The last time I heard a number it was far more conservative. I think it was the 10-30000 mentioned elsewhere in the article. "The price of gasoline isn't directly proportional to the amount of oil America steals from the third world. That's almost common sense by now." Most of the world's oil supply comes from the middle east. The price of oil is very dependent on the supply of oil. That IS common sense. "A very large portion of the gas prices are due to the weakening US dollar (not to mention the recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast)." It was about 2.60$ for gasoline where I live before the hurricanes. This was about a dollar more than a year before it. The dollar is a big part of it, but even taking that into consideration, the price of oil has been on the increase worldwide. " "I suppose you believe the Democrats who said the same thing that the Republicans were saying before the war, but have had a change of heart now? There is a widely circulated quote of Kerry talking about how we knew for sure that Saddam had WMDs. They knew he had had them and used them in the past. They knew he had done some shady things with them. And Chalabi promised us that they were still there." First, don't call me a Democrat. Second, It's well documented that The UN inspectors, CIA, FBI, United Kingdom, and even the White House knew that it was very unlikely that Saddam has the frequently mentioned weapons that could leave a "mushroom cloud" (See the Downing Street Memo among other things)." I didnt mean to call you a Democrat, but you sound like you believe them on this issue. The thing is, the politicians who are against the war now were some of the same ones who talked in favor of it before. The point is that Bush wasnt the only one fooled. Plus, Bush wouldnt have picked WMDs as the reason if he hadnt thought it was true. Not because he's such an honest guy, but because he knew that the truth would eventually come out. If he had had to lie, he would have used something that couldnt be disproved. "I hold my Secretary of Defense to a higher standard on military strategy than I hold myself to." I would have assumed that you didnt think much of him. "Not once have I advocated that." You did in Lodamun. "I would really just like the enemy combatants treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions until their innocence can be assured. At which point they could be freed." I would care about this issue, if they hadnt tortured our soldiers and violated the Geneva convention in a dozen other ways. The laws shouldnt protect those who ignore them. |
| Date | 18:21:41, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | Bush wasn't fooled. He lied. Read the recent White House Iraq Group revelations: the unaccountable fearmongers in power invented a lie, and then sold the lie to the American public. And i speak as someone who protested against Saddam's regime (great friends to Reagan & co) many years before Bush could even located Iraq on a map. During the time when Saddam (backed by Reagan & co) was gassing the Kurds. I'm thrilled that this butcher is out of power, and disappointed that trhew Kurds have still not been given their own country. But none of that changes that fact that Bush & co deliberately lied to Americans for the Busheviks' own interests. |
| Date | 18:40:48, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | While I doubt that Bush deliberately lied, considering that it would obviously come out into the open eventually, I dont doubt that he has been dishonest concerning many things in the past. While I think the war itself was a collassal error, I am not naive enough to think that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam, or that the UN would have ever had an effect. I can understand an opinion like GA's much more than DSP's. Yes the US did some bad stuff. But Saddam being taken out of power is itself enough to "balance" much of it. Anyone who claims to be a big fan of human rights can't really support a guy who gassed people. And yes, it's about time the Kurds got their own country. |
| Date | 21:48:58, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | No one is defending Saddam. But, if we say Bush can invade any country that abuses human rights (especially since his own govt tortures or deports people to be tortured by other states) then we just let the bully with the most guns impose his will on anyone he wants. And in 50 years, that emans we're letting some future dictatore of China impose his will on the whole world. Very bad precedent. If Bush really cared about human rights, he'd have invaded Sudan, or Saudi Arabia. At a minimum, he would stop deporting people to Syria to be tortured. But he doesn't. He cares about oil, and his own power. Meanwhile, his policies undercut the Iraqi democratic opposition, people who were REALLY opposed to Saddam, unlike the Busheviks who were always GOOD FRIENDS of Saddam while he gassed the Kurds and murdered marsh Arabs. Anyone who believes a word Bush says about foreign policy is being naive. He never cared about human rights. First he was invading Iraq because Saddam masterminded Sept 11. No evidence? OK, they were invading Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. No evidence? OK, make up stories about yellowcake in Niger. Force the UN to pull out its weapons inspectors (Bush did that, not Saddam) so that the truth -- Iraq did not have a significant nuclear weapons programme -- can't come out and undercut Bushevik spin. And afterwards, when it's discovered that there never was was a "smoking gun"? Claim that you invaded Iraq to free the people from dictatorship -- something that's jsut fine and dandy in Saudi Arabia, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I'm sorry, but it was lies from start to finish. And despite Bush attempts to cover it up, the truth is starting to come out. Read a newspaper from any free country outside the US, and it's there in black and white. Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rove lied. They wanted a war, and they twisted the truth any way they could to get one. |
| Date | 03:54:59, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Defense Good, Defense Idustry Bad Act |
| Message | "The last time I heard a number it was far more conservative. I think it was the 10-30000 mentioned elsewhere in the article." The 10,000-30,000 estimate counts bodies that have been identified. The 100,000 estimate counts the death rate 13 months before the war and then 13 months after March 2003. "I didnt mean to call you a Democrat, but you sound like you believe them on this issue. The thing is, the politicians who are against the war now were some of the same ones who talked in favor of it before. The point is that Bush wasnt the only one fooled. Plus, Bush wouldnt have picked WMDs as the reason if he hadnt thought it was true. Not because he's such an honest guy, but because he knew that the truth would eventually come out. If he had had to lie, he would have used something that couldnt be disproved." Whether or not politicians are in favor of a war has no effect on me. They aren't expert's on any subjects in any stretch of the definition (except maybe corporate law). Do I personally know if Bush was fooled or not? No. I do know that those advocating the war the hardest (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.) did lie. It's documented. I actually think Bush was less of a greedy corporate whore and more of a puppet for his administration. "You did in Lodamun." There's a considerable difference between the Global Struggle Against Extremism and the military position of the Five Nations. "I would care about this issue, if they hadnt tortured our soldiers and violated the Geneva convention in a dozen other ways. The laws shouldnt protect those who ignore them." An eye for an eye and a world superpower gets the f**k blown out of itself. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 91 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 27 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command." - Niccolo Machiavelli |