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: The National Army Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party
Status[?]: passed
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: May 2071
Description[?]:
To establish the first national army for all of Likatonia.
To defend and serve. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:56:32, June 20, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | We propose an army of 400,000 men (and women) who will be paid an average of $40,000 a year in salary and benefits.
That amounts to $16 billion on salaries.
We propose to spend an additional $10 billion on everything else, including training, building bases, upgrading equipment, and buying vehicles, arms and ammunition.
The total comes to $26 billion/year
We feel that since we have chosen to base our stats on America-this is a realistic number. That country spends 370.7 billion a year http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So we took the number, divided by ten, and cut ten billlion. We are now spending about the same as Italy on our national army. |
| Date | 21:58:24, June 20, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | Italy has 58 million people...
So for those who missed it..we are proposing a figure of 26 BILLION A YEAR for the national army |
| Date | 22:38:59, June 20, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | We feel this number is sactually on the low end, since the CIA figures might not reflect spending on physical infrastructure. However, we will stick to this for now...and shudder to think of what it will cost to build a modern navy and airforce.. |
| Date | 23:17:50, June 20, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | PP: The actual expenses will be much higher than that for the first several years. We're building from the ground up, after all. Our navy and airforce will START modern. |
| Date | 23:18:59, June 20, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | Either our expenses are higher or we run a slow buildup and spend a longer period of time gearing up our military. The LFP advocates a slower buildup. |
| Date | 08:46:38, June 21, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | The initial expenditures will be on capital, mostly on building bases, buildings, and infrastructure, and training. Once these are out of the way, then weapons and vehicles...
If that sounds good to everyone, i will put this to vote
|
| Date | 15:20:34, June 21, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | As if we would EVER advocate spending over half our income on defense. Why? If we do this, the people we are trying to defend will be destitute because we are spending so much defending them. We dont need nuclear weapons. we dont need anything but defensive weapons. How is that going to cost that much? there is no way we could support anything more than half this figure. |
| Date | 15:22:53, June 21, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | Ok, I was basing that on the old spreadsheet, so now having looked at the accounting bill that was a total overreaction. But please, at least bring it down to $20bn. |
| Date | 16:47:29, June 21, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | To equip one in four soldiers with a Humvee costs about $50,000 per soldier. That amounts to 5 billion of the ten we set aside. Then theres arms and ammunition, bases, physical infrastructure everything else.
Even at 26 billion we are spending 1% or less of GDP on our military whereas america spends a little over 3%
This is infact as small as we can get |
| Date | 07:27:43, June 24, 2005 CET |
From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | They can enlist but not Combat service.
Reason they are weaker overall in general.
Though they should be trained as highly as men in all forms and if their support unit was attacked they should fight.
Women get abused more when captured its for their own benefit. |
| Date | 07:29:30, June 24, 2005 CET |
From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | And Dont say Hummers its like saying our Army should be outfitted with Abrams Tanks like every other man and his dog we should have Leopard's or something. |
| Date | 07:32:07, June 24, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the The National Army Bill | | Message | i don't understand are you for better vehicles or poorer vehicles? Are you saying our army should spend less? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 98 |
| no | Total Seats: 25 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 77 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "All within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini |