The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

The Ethics of Warfare Bill:

The total amount of US, allied forces, and enemy forces, which were killed as the result of the war will be officially published.

The Hawks who voted for our entrance to the war will get first viewing of these statistics.

We will keep a tally of the dead in the Congress Chamber so as future Congressional sessions will never feel too far removed from War.

That is all.

Riccardo93 said:

I personally feel that we should not try to force independence or democracy on people; if they want freedom, let them achieve it.

Click to expand...

And how many more lives will be lost if we do not help? In the USA you can simply go to the ballot box if you want change. Perhaps you have ggrown ntoo comfortable in that and have forgotten that in other countries, change needs a revolution, like our American Revolution. And that revolution would have been utterly crushed if France, Spain and the Netherlands had not joined us. That crushing is being acted out all over the world, right now. The crushing of freedom, of equality, of liberty, and of democracy. You say Americans deserve this - do other people deserve less than Americans?

A good argument, sir, but we must consider this; what you are proposing however, is that we should be the instigators, rather than supporters, of their independence. Now that the Russians, the Austrians, and the Germans are weakened, this movements can form on their own, but if we try to push for it, all we will accomplish are, disorganised nations popping up, and many little emperors will pop up. As well, and I previously mentioned, France and Britain would be the greatest benefactors of this proposal, as they will gain unlimited control over Europe, since their only opposition would be weakened states in central Europe; this is just another great war waiting to happen. Instead, we should try to encourage liberalization of those nations by different means; rather than forcing 'liberty' on those peoples, and forcing ourselves into Europe for generations, we encourage the Emperors to liberalize for better peace treaties. That way, we are not completely forcing those nations into democracy, which none of them are used to, and will likely not long maintain, and we ensure that a balance of power is also kept.

It is with great concern that I read of the intention of forcing disarmament on the Tripartite powers. It is something I expected to arise, but I strongly caution against it as a pitfall that not only will derail the peace process, but ensure that this armistice "to end all wars" will only cause more conflict in the future. We, as the victorious powers, must not appear heavy-handed or vengeful in our creation and enforcement of conditions to a possible surrender and for the establishment of peace. Imagine that we, as a defeated power in the war of 1812, had been forced to disband the United States Army and Navy and pay reparations to Great Britain? Can you imagine the seething hatred that would boil within each of us? Militaries, regardless of their true power, are a point of pride for all nations. It is a fact of politics. To humiliate another nation's military is to humiliate the nation and its people, and enforce a feeling of betrayal and desire for retribution. We must not forget the hatred that arose after our own Civil War - and multiply that many times in a Europe that already has a propensity for foolish wars. If such a bill is passed, however, it must be enforced entirely, with regular inspections to confirm that disarmament has occurred and that rearmament is not clandestinely carried out.

I encourage the establishment of a referendum for nations and ethnic groups for self-determination and democritization. We must also temper the desire to destroy the old authoritarian regimes wantonly for the development of democracy for the sake of order. To not do so would cause absolute chaos in the defeated countries and doom the long-term prospects for peace. I pray that we, as victors, tread carefully and treat our vanquished foes with respect; lest our children meet them on the battlefield a few decades hence.

Major General Walter Mandrake

I must agree with General Mandrake; forcing disarmament would be the wrong way to go about things. This will be left to an Arms committee in the league of nations and the assemblies there to encourage it's members and other countries, as well, to reduce their standing armies and focus more on military cooperation against aggressors. By isolating the militarist powers we may prevent them from gaining the allies needed for victory.

In regards to the ethics of war bill, Mr Taggarman, I feel it is biased and not far reaching enough. I would agree that we need to announce the figures for the war, however your proposals seem stuffed with malice and hate. I propose a simpler bill which would require all government departments to issue reports including statistics on their work at least once a year. This would of course include war dead figures and military expenditure as well as reveal how the department's budget is split etc for the department of defence. In so doing you would educate the public and the members of congress who voted for action, but without the obvious forethought. The information would still be there as ammunition for pacifists, but it would allow everyone to make up their minds from the evidence provided.

I would support a Statistics Publications Act if someone were to draw it up.

I didn't foresee it as very long;

Statistics Publication Act
(i)All government departments are required to publish a report on their work at least once a year
(ii)It must include as many verifiable statistics as possible
(iii)It will be the responsibility of the secretary of each department to ensure the data are published
(iv)The Vice-President is charged with producing an overall report from the Federal Executive Bureau.

May I also suggest that an annual report about the government as a whole is to be produced by the Federal Executive Bureau.

OK, added

This act, in conjunction with the FRA wil ensure that we have the funds and the monetary stability neccesary to go on fighting this war.

I object to article 3 of the MSA; how can you justify that closing the engine of growth in our economy will provide monetary stability? All that this act does is cut down on the growth and enterprise that fund the taxation required for the war, and pushes business that could be happening in the already established centre of New York to other areas where they would be less profitable or abroad, thus depriving us of growth in the future.

I accept your point, the original reason for its temporary closure was to stop any exhange of our currency into foreign currency. Perhaps a more targeted approch is in order.

Maybe you should increase the duty on currency exchange and decrease the amount of US$ that can be taken in and out the country without notifying customs, thus disincentivising people from removing currency from the country; your change still is local and I feel completely stopping foreign exchange would prevent inwards investment.

Mikeboy said:

This act, in conjunction with the FRA wil ensure that we have the funds and the monetary stability neccesary to go on fighting this war.

The Monetary Stability Act

Article I:
The convertibility of dollars into gold is suspended.

Article II:
It shall be illegal to move gold out of the country unless approved by the Office of the Treasury.

Article III:
Currency exhange at the New York Stock Exchange is to cease.

Article IV:
This shall only be valid for the duration of the war.​

Click to expand...

This is also getting a no from me; do we want to tell the people what they can or can't buy?

Jarvis I think at this point we can just assume you're going to vote no to anything my administration proposes.

With good reason. Your administration is nothing but a legalized crime syndicate, stealing from people in order to fuel the mass-murder that you are committing.

I find it so ironic that men such as you protested so bitterly against President Carr's actions in Peru, and yet here you are, turning the Executive into nothing more than an engine for oppression, so that you may rule over the lives of the people and drain them of all they possess before throwing them into the harsh no-man's land that is Europe so they may be cut down by foreign warlords.

Mr Sherman, I think your views are vastly overstepping the mark; this administration has worked within its electoral mandate to push for transparency and social reform at home and take the tough choices necessary to ensure the liberty of all the peoples of the world. The actions of this government have prevented the culturally historical and vibrant peoples of the Old World from being destroyed by the tyrannical regimes of Eastern Europe, countering the forces of oppression you wish to cast the administration as. Indeed, the electorate even voted en masse the Federals in the mid-terms, meaning significant gains; what more ringing endorsement could there be of the actions of this administration?

Mikeboy said:

Jarvis I think at this point we can just assume you're going to vote no to anything my administration proposes.

Click to expand...

If you are going to keep up the oppresive laws and the restrictions when the war is about to end, then we will have to continue boycotting your administration.
The decision to begin this war was not unilateral, and many gave their lives in Chicago for the cause of peace.

With good reason. Your administration is nothing but a legalized crime syndicate, stealing from people in order to fuel the mass-murder that you are committing.

Click to expand...

This is why. We are not only invading a foreign country with little relation to ours and with no previous provocation just because we want to forward our interests, but we are losing hundreds of thousands of young able bodied men who would else be working to fuel our economy and make our nation prosperous in commerce and trade. A Europe under the tyrannical rule of the áncien régime did not prevent us from trading before and it shouldn't prevent us from trading with a Europe under authoritarian governments. It is communism that threatens our trade, not fascism or absolutism. We are wasting our resources for little purpose, and hence why I disagree with this war.

And not only we have to lose our children and our manpower, but we also have to abide by restrictions of an ever increasingly powerful state. The president restricts personal freedoms, attacks free trade and the private industry with his interventionist policies (whom we cannot oppose, only in the senate) and arrest those who oppose the draft (like the communists who died under strange circumstances). If this keeps up at the same rate as it is going now, we will live in a totalitarian USA where we'd lose our industry to the state and our freedoms because of a prolonged, meaningless war. We are gradually losing everything that makes us different from our european enemies. And that is why I oppose the bill.

Senator Carlsson of Alabama, pacifist

I vote yay on the bill! this bill will do great things for the farmers of Vermont and I am sure that by enacting these new potato regulations...

An advisor whispers in Governor Diante's ear

...I mean, this will be great for the war!

Whispering to advisor: We're at war??

---Damien Diante---

thekinguter said:

A Europe under the tyrannical rule of the áncien régime did not prevent us from trading before and it shouldn't prevent us from trading with a Europe under authoritarian governments. It is communism that threatens our trade, not fascism or absolutism.

Click to expand...

This sums up the Republican party well, both in foreign and domestic policy. Concerned only with lining their own pockets; pensions and eductation and safety standards and healthcare would be bad for industry they cry, meaning in truth bad for themselves. They are completely lacking in any understanding of the moral importance these issues hold in addition to the massive economic benefits that they will bring over the course of a few short years. In foreign policy they argue 'who cares if people are being butchered and oppressed when we can make a profit out of it?'

I shall not take lectures on morality from a Republican.