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: Army Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative 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: April 2907
Description[?]:
.. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if victory is not feasibile by other means.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:14:28, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Madam Speaker, we want to see our Hutorian Armed Forces returned to the peak of their powers. They need to have all options available to them, not have weapons restrictions on them and have an incompetent government cripple our army! |
Date | 06:49:27, March 12, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, we would support this bill except for the creation of state defence industries. Nevertheless, we give our reluctant yay. |
Date | 10:58:12, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, it is this bill that will cripple our armed forces. It will take vital money away from front line services, equipment and operations and instead see it squandered on weapons that will be rarely used, if ever used. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, our reputation as a moral and fair military will be squandered over night. |
Date | 16:59:45, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, the CLP putting a price on the safety of this nation! Surely it is the governments job to protect its citizens yet the CLP are opting out because it is too expensive. Perhaps they should move aside and let another one of their UM patries run the finances because the CLP are not up to it! |
Date | 18:19:47, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, we have existed for a very long time without nuclear weapons at all. Was the nation endangered? No, Mr Speaker, one could argue its safety may even have been enhanced. As usual, Mr Speaker, the HNP are simply scaremongering. They know full well that the Ministry of Defence has, along with the Ministries of Justice and the Interior, the largest budget of all the departments. Mr Speaker, the people of Hutori would have something to say if a government were to slash spending on health and education simply to fund a bomb that would never be used. Mr Speaker, this is a reckless bill. |
Date | 18:24:23, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, the CLP are painting a picture that we would have a huge nuclear arsenal. We would propose a small but effective nuclear stock. But is it worth risking the nations safety to save money? |
Date | 18:32:24, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, we must turn the question back on the HNP. Is it worth spending money to risk the nation's safety? Nuclear missiles do not improve the safety of the people one iota. |
Date | 18:40:46, March 12, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Army Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, it is worth spending the money to ensure the nations safety! Nuclear Missiles will only make the Hutorian position even stronger! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 158 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 163 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
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: "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." - John Maynard Keynes |