The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[yourworstnightm]

You all talk as if the US could keep out of this new string of wars. That's not true, if we don't go to the war, the war will come to us.

[BigBadBob]

Voting on behalf of the anti-League, anti-anti-Jim Crow lobbies: Jarvis.

[theAhawk]

Mr Mandrake, you said it yourself, "America MUST take the lead role in enforcing peace and democratization. We cannot, must not, rely on other European powers to do it." That is precisely the reason we need to back the League of Nations. It will allow us to pursue our foreign policy for more effectively by working on a global scale. I do not understand why you doubt it will work; by working globally we can help to prevent wars before they happen, through negotiation and economic sanctions, and if that fails we can stand up against imperialism and aggression with international allies. Moreover, if Mr Jarvis is elected, we would be totally isolated from Europe and the rest of the world, allowing it to descend into chaos and drag us down with it.
In Russia, I agree that there is very little we can do to promote democracy in such chaos, yet we can support the new republics that surround it and the idea of backing a side when we cannot know the outcome is ludicrous unless there is a substantial offer on the table. Right now, however much I hope for liberty there, we must be pragmatic and stay out of the conflict.

[Riccardo93]

When have I said I would isolate us? I have said I would non get ourselves in wars, but interacting with Europe is not only perfectly acceptable, it is vital to promote both peace and economic growth. Peaceful trade, open discourse, and impartiality will do more to promote peace than any new programme. Remember that our involvement in Europe caused this war (formation of Germany, isolation of France, supplying Germany and Austria, forming the Commonwealth and alienating those nations, and our militaristic actions in Latin America), and that we should not be so foolish as to think that we can try the same thing and get a different result.

I agree we must be pragmatic on Russia, and I would not back any faction unless it made concrete promises to reform. Indeed, if no side makes any efforts to liberalize, then we will do nothing about them. As for the new nations arising, my peace proposal has already made attempts to ensure that not only are they recognized by all nations, and that they form non aggression pacts, but that the League of European States would be created to ensure that those agreements are enforced. If you are so sceptical of the League of European States, why is your League of Nations so much better?

[theAhawk]

You have said that you wash your hands of Europe and would let it collapse before the new order has even begun. The reasons for the war were because national agendas trumped the global one of peace and stability; the fact is that my of our political predecessors failed to realise that America's true national interest is to create a climate which is precipitous to free trade and prosperity, only achievable by working globally for the global interests of peace and stability. These aims are only achievable if nations are willing to cooperate and a forum in which negotiations can happen and the rule of law can be enforced is vital to this process. The League is the only way I can see at this point in time of providing that forum and that law.

A League of European states is not a bad one, were it coming from London, Paris, Berlin, Prague, Madrid or Vienna, but when it is the aspiration of a man in Washington DC there is something wrong. Ideally, European states should cooperate, yet from outside the organisation it is impossible for its conceiver to be promote it and ensure it does its work. The League of Nations is better because it is supported by us not hoisted upon unwilling Europeans. If we are unwilling to cooperate globally, why should the countries of Europe? We should lead by example; do as I say, not as I do, never got anyone anywhere.

[Riccardo93]

Are the Europeans willing, then? Do the Germans or the Russians want this League? Do the British or the French? I haven't heard anything about this, from either side; the former, will accept anything short of their destruction; the latter, want the complete of Germany and Russia. We will be forcing the same, and no one can deny it. If we are pushing for this League, we will have to make concessions to the British and French, concessions that would lead to a worse situation for the Allies, and would do little more than create an atmosphere for retribution and revanchism.

A European League will have a more vested interest in maintaining peace in Europe than a global League, which would be prone to the whims of other national purposes, not a global goal. Even you have argued that the League will promote Americanism, not a globalist ideal (I personally reject both notions, Americanizing the world through political and military means, rather than through more soft power, economic and cultural might; globalism, because nations will lose their intrinsic freedom, and become bound by, and to, the imperial powers who will simply pursue their interests). Those imperial powers could easily form agreements to undermine the League, and promote their own imperial ambitions through those political avenues (Britain and France likely working or such goals).

[theAhawk]

You have missed my point; there is no way we can convince the Europeans to accept globalisation if we are not willing to. Period.

Furthermore, I have already had positive responses from both the British and French governments regarding a global league, the former even offering the location free of charge on which to site the League as a gesture of support. I have no knowledge of how they would react to an organisation of limited scope.

How does a global League demand more concessions than a local one? Indeed, I would argue it does the opposite, indicating we will not just abandon them at our whim if aggression flares up again.

If you believe European governments are truely drawn to attacking each other continually, why would a European League have a vested interest in maintaining the peace?

Finally, I disagree that the League could be used to further imperial ambitions; as I have to repeat time and time again, it is set up to prevent aggression and imperialism, whether it be through the legal bodies like the International Court of Justice or the composition of congress which allows for both fair representation and action at the same time. I quote you; "Not a bad proposal at all."

[BigBadBob]

((It would probably be advisable to ask me before you make statements about other countries' governments)).

Mr. McCahill, I was under the impression that our talks with the British have been slightly hampered by their demands for Germany to become subject to "restructuring" before acceptance into the League.

As for the French, you and I are both fully aware that they oppose admitting Germany into the League at all, and continue to demand that reparations to France be extracted from their defeated neighbor. The millions of French military and civilian dead, and thousands of acres of destroyed land will not so easily be forgotten.

- John F. Harrison, Secretary of the Treasury

[theAhawk]

((Sorry, but the rest of the points still stand; also, I did say it ages ago and nobody picked me up on it so I kind of assumed the statement was OK, but...))

The point was that they are not opposed to the principle of global cooperation; in fact, their primary problems with the proposals are the leniency with which both parties would treat the defeated powers and their acceptance into the League without proving their worth, not the body itself.

((Isn't Germany restructuring on it's own?))

[BigBadBob]

((Isn't Germany restructuring on it's own?))

Well, the Brits and the French sure as hell don't trust the Germans to do it right on their own.

[Riccardo93]

Indeed, the ideas are good. But even the best laid plans can falter. And if we create a system that can be abused, then we, and the rest of the world, will live in tyranny. I also do believe that the balance of powers you proposed was a good idea; however, as we've seen here, the executive forces have continually seized more and more control in the interest of 'maintaining order, protecting the public, peace,' and other reasons, with such a case being in the draft and war powers act past by the Federal administration, acts you supported. Furthermore, we have more examples of executive expansion, and power being collected in the hands of a few ambitious people. We cannot have such a system in place. The League could be sued for imperial purposes, just as we were used in this war.

A local League would include all European states, would have those minor, new states as representatives, it would be smaller (and fewer representatives equal more individual power), and it can have power at the European states want, and we don't have to foot the bill for European wars. Furthermore, they would look only after European affairs, not after Asian matters, which they have no real interest in, and would likely make arbitrary rulings, much like we've made in Europe since Jamous' term.

As for France and Britain supporting the League, how valid are your sources? I am certain there are proponents of it, but do they represent the majority in those nations? Would they agree with it? And, most of all, how do the other nations fell about it? It would be exactly the same as forcing it on Belgium. However, in my League, they have a vested interest. In yours, they'd have a minor position in the world, and would likely be forced to align itself with France. Another concern I have of the League is this; if the nations start exerting more independence, and acting in their own interests, how would the League react? Would it idly stand by, and let its power be absolved? Or would it act, and weaken a nation's freedom? Neither situation is appealing, and such a situation is not only plausible, but likely.

And why would I want globalisation? I want cooperation, and free trade, but globalism connotes a single power governing over the world, as this League could very well transform into.

[BigBadBob]

I believe the League of Nations is too bold an idea; too prone to failure; and too likely to drag Americans into unjust wars through abuse of a system in which we have no veto power but resignation from the League.

The League of European States on the other hand, is much more manageable, but has the problem that the United States has no say whatsoever. If we were to have some representation in your League, although one that has no obligation to adhere to League decisions, in essence, an advisory position, then I could support it.

I will however, continue to oppose the size of your downsizing of welfare, and your campaign against the Federal Reserve.

- John F. Harrison, Secretary of the Treasury

[theAhawk]

If the country has no real interest in Asian affairs, there is no need for it to raise its voice in the League of Nations; the same is true of Asian countries in European affairs. However, the fact that global peace and prosperity are linked for all countries means that Europe should have an interest in maintaining stability in Asia and Africa. By making the League smaller you are not increasing the volume of the voice, just decreasing the effect it can have and who hears it.

Indeed, politicians in Brussels should not feel forced to align itself with France; that is only diminishing its voice all the more. Just because they are geographically or ideologically similar does not mean that it is necessary to agree, or forced when to do.

Regarding the independence of nations, the regulation of them should vary depending on the action; if by exerting more independence, they are invading other countries that should be stopped, but if they are only expanding their farms to ensure their people can be fed that is an entirely different matter. Here we are allowed to exert our individuality through free speech, but we are not allowed to do it by killing our neighbour; just as an efficient state is based on the rule of law, so should an efficient global community.

Globalisation is the reality in which we now live; people and goods are more mobile than ever and each economy is interdependent on its neighbours and the world. True globalism is about cooperation and that is what the League is designed to facilitate.

Furthermore, why is veto power necessary? Firstly, it shows no confidence in the League' ability to do the right thing. Secondly, it would compromise its ability to act based on more than likely another power's say so, eg Russia or China. Thirdly, the system of the League has been specifically designed to ensure that it will not be dragged into unjust wars, so no veto would be necessary to prevent them (see the ICJ, see the higher vote thresholds needed for military action, etc)

[zagoroth]

Jarvis

[BigBadBob]

We're tied at 6-6.

[theAhawk]

Indeed; does that mean golden vote?

[BigBadBob]

Sure, why the heck not?

[Marshall Daub]

What I had said about enforcing peace needed some more clarification because what I meant was not conveyed. I am not saying that we should "police the world", what I mean is that America, without relying on an unproven global body, must step forward and lead. We shall emerge from this war the most preeminent power in the world, unmatched in military might, and from a position of lofty morality having fought this war to prevent tyranny from reigning in Europe and our own hemisphere. We cannot rely on a global organization, made up of constituent monarchies, autocracies, and republics, to speak with one voice and approach the future with unity of purpose. America has a mission, and I am not saying through force of arms, to spread liberty and freedom where it may. This is the greatest chance since the founding of our country to have a true chance at expanding the realm of democracy to many other nations and peoples, and we would be derelict in our duty to disregard it.

We must use all our influence, economic and political, to ensure that our defeated enemies reform and democratize in a controlled, stable manner. Not the chaos of Russia. In this same vein, I cannot conscience a massive cut in the funding for our armed forces. This is a repeated mistake that our government makes after every major war and we find ourselves scrambling during the next war to raise an army. The stability of Europe is going to depend on the strength of our word, backed by a credible military force, or all we have fought this war for will blow away like ashes.

Walter Mandrake

[yourworstnightm]

I still can't support either candidate. Explain to me how they are not traitors trying to weaken our home land?

[Riccardo93]

I am not weakening our nation. I support maintaining our navy and expanding our airforce (slightly). I'm largely just downsizing the army and reducing some military spending, since I have no intention on going to war in my term (considering that there is no willing, or indeed able, to fight us even now, at reduced strength, I feel some cuts will not weaken our position). Furthermore, America will become stronger under my administration industrially and commercially, which is a far superior way to lead the world.

Seeing how you agree with my scepticism about the League of Nations, something which Mister McCahill has long championed, and proposes nothing be done with Russia, and offers nothing that I don't in his peace proposal, the key issue then emerges; do you want America to cede her power to some League? Do you want America to begin policing the world, having her sons die because of European imperialism and divisiveness? If you do, then by all means, vote for McCahill. However, if you want America to maintain her freedom, keep out of useless imperial wars, and have a freer, stronger market, a vote for Jarvis/Ritter is the only choice.