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: Military Policy Debate
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2050
Description[?]:
| This debate is to hopefully synchronize views on militancy between the parties, or at the very least, to find out where everyone stands. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:04:30, May 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Forgive me if I let someone else open the debate officially. I'm eager to see what everyone else thinks, but reluctant to share my own views until I have at least a vague idea of what others believe. |
| Date | 04:34:55, May 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Actually, forgive me that. I'll explain my ideas for the military. I have the funny and unpopular idea that the quickest way to really stop wars is to utterly destroy nations that attempt to start them. If a clear string of causes-and-effects can be established, then no one will start wars because they don't want the international community falling on them and tearing them to shreds. We shouldn't start wars, because we don't want that happening to us. We should have a strong but primarily defensive military and a string of international defensive alliances to ensure that no one can start wars with impunity. |
| Date | 09:43:14, May 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | NCP -I'm amazed ...I thought you were on the far left on this one....Of course I agree |
| Date | 11:00:55, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Well I'm sure you can all guess where I stand. War is always wrong except in the extreme cases where it can be clearly proved that by going to war you are saving many more lives than you are forefeiting. |
| Date | 16:55:28, May 02, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | We are a pacifist party. The military should be for defense only. |
| Date | 20:34:08, May 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Situation: Country A attacks Country B and proceeds to kill/enslave everyone in Country B. Country C is not directly threatened by this conflict. How should C respond? |
| Date | 08:52:45, May 03, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | It depends. Things are never so clear cut. |
| Date | 18:38:10, May 03, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Maybe so. Would you give an example? |
| Date | 22:35:23, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | just as i said - the balance should be considered. If c believes that it can quite easily, with not too great a loss of life, liberate b from a, and furthermore the international community is in agreement that this is the case and that the atrocities committed by a are unforgivable, with plenty of evidence to support them being in the wrong, then it is justified for c to go to war. However, this precise situation, as Labour suggests, never arises. THere are always other factors which lead us to think that country b may have been in the wrong to start, or that by attacking a we would be even further endangering and disadvantaging the citizens of b, or other such things. thus, practically, war is very rarely justified. |
| Date | 00:18:04, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | If B was wrong to start, then we stay out. If the evidence is ambivalent on it, then we go in. Very, very few crimes can warrant genocide as a response. If the international community won't agree but B needs help, then we go in anyways. We, obviously, would never dream of doing it if B didn't ask. Just because the rest of the world approves of a slaughter doesn't mean we would. Obviously, there's an exception if liberating B would decimate our military - in that case we'd need international support first. In that case, we should be CONSTANTLY seeking such international support. |
| Date | 09:08:37, May 06, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | I believe in a strong Navy with more Tactical Air Craft Carriers than Strategic ones. A Medium sized Army with a strong emphasis on Artillary and Lorried Infantry. Tanks. Airforce-Many tank Busters and Long Range Bombers. So obviously im proposing that we have a defensive Military for ourselves. I dont like the idea of us starting wars. But we should be capable of defending ourselves. |
| Date | 14:37:07, May 06, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | RWLP Aircraft carriers and long range bombers are offensive weapons though. |
| Date | 03:34:41, May 07, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Yeah, long range bombers don't have any defensive capability at all. A defensive airforce is going to be heavy on fighter craft and very very low on bombers. |
| Date | 00:50:42, May 11, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | This was singularly unproductive. I'll shift it to vote to save the transcript. I wonder what happens if everyone abstains on a bill? We should try it and find out. |
| Date | 07:42:14, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | Tactical AirCraft Carriers are Short Arm Punches and only good for looking after your own Terratories! Bombers true but i want them! |
| Date | 07:46:12, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | No Proposal equals no change! Handy little texts say so! ; ) |
| Date | 20:39:45, May 11, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | I'm aware that it makes no change, we're just saving the debate for the future rather than leaving it on the nation page forever. |
| Date | 07:20:41, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Military Policy Debate |
| Message | National Centrist Party Message This was singularly unproductive. I'll shift it to vote to save the transcript. I wonder what happens if everyone abstains on a bill? We should try it and find out. !!!!Thats what im getting at! ; ) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 164 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "Anarchy stands for the liberation of the human mind from the domination of religion, the liberation of the human body from the domination of property, liberation from the shackles and restraints of government." - Emma Goldman |