The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

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.

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)

Indeed; does that mean golden vote?

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

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

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.

I don't like the League proposed. We should be the dominating member, not some other nation's slave. But what you propose mr. Jarvis is suicide. An age of wars has begun. If America doesn't act our enemies will be knocking on our doorsteps.

But they won't even reach our shores, much less our doors, if we maintain the navy.

Riccardo93 said:

But they won't even reach our shores, much less our doors, if we maintain the navy.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Mr. Nightmore, do you truly believe that Canada or Mexico is a threat to the United States? Those are the only powers who could intervene in American affairs without getting through or around the navy.

Avindian said:

Exactly. Mr. Nightmore, do you truly believe that Canada or Mexico is a threat to the United States? Those are the only powers who could intervene in American affairs without getting through or around the navy.

Click to expand...

Canada and Mexico together with a Great Power like Russia or Britain could be a huge challenge. All other nations are rivals. If we fail to dominate, someone else will be successful and we would become a enslaved nation.

I hereby cast my vote for Jarvis.

We must end the state monopoly on murder and terror. Only when state restrictions on free enterprise are loosened or even removed can this be achieved.

Bare in mind, though, Jarvis...the South is watching. Be careful what actions you take.

Seek75 said:

I hereby cast my vote for Jarvis.

We must end the state monopoly on murder and terror. Only when state restrictions on free enterprise are loosened or even removed can this be achieved.

Bare in mind, though, Jarvis...the South is watching. Be careful what actions you take.

Click to expand...

As are the Colored people of America, and we will see if Mr. Jarvis is the friend of civil rights that he claims to be.

Based on the fact that we were on golden vote, I congratulate the honourable senator on his victory and wish him well in the post, though I regret what my failure means for the fate of the less fortunate here and for the stability of the world into the future.

Thank you for your support, Mr. Sherman, and for your kind words, Secretary McCahill. As for matters of race, I oppose Jim Crow, and any attempt to curtail the political rights of colored people. To further promote civil rights, I will appoint moderate to liberal judges who will ensure that the courts fairly represent all Americans. However, I will not actively force businesses to serve people they do not want; as a way to coerce them more gently, the tax cut granted to new or small businesses will not extend to those that have been found to discriminate. I cannot deny I support civil rights, and would love to see all people treated equally; but I oppose government involving itself in business, so I will not support laws (at least more radical ones) that force a business to accept any clientele they are not inclined to. On that same note, I would that my new cabinet position will focus on ensuring that Jim Crow, and other discriminatory laws across the nation, are removed.

However, before any such actions can begin, I will bring an end to this war; I ask my opponent if he will help me in constructing a peace proposal, as many of his ideas were solid; in fact, I encourage all Federals and Republicans to suggest ideas to bring to the diplomatic table in the coming months.

After that business is done, I will then begin work on reforming the tax code and spending. To those who fear that I will dismantle every aspect of the welfare state, I will assure you that unemployment benefits and safety regulations will remain in place.

I hope these next four years will be a return to normalcy, a triumph of peace, and an era of freedom. As it does appear this election is now over, I ask everyone and anyone who wants a cabinet position to contact me.

Thank you all for your support, and may God bless America.

- President Elect Joseph P. Jarvis

I thank the President-Elect for his kind offer to help mould the peace plans, which in the spirit of cooperation I will accept; however, I fear I can add little more when my true aim of the League of Nations has been shattered before conception.

On your comments on the welfare system, I am far less convinced. During the campaign you said, "One other thing I want to mention, is this constant statement that I will dissolve the welfare state. I want to say, that that is absolutely true." My party and I will continue to oppose cuts in benefits to those who need them; all I hope is that you will leave more intact than you have promised, else America and its people shall be worse off for it.

May I put on the record, that I shall, with all the influence at my disposal, oppose any attempts at the destruction of the welfare state with all the vigour and consistency with which you opposed its introduction.