Page 9 of 9

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:00 am
by Losthaven
Losthaven votes FOR this proposal. The measure seems reasonably calculated to foster peace, and our political leaning toward pacifistic measures compels our support. We have reached a point in our evolution where natural selection is no longer a major driving force, given our ability to shape and control our environment. We continue to evolve as social creatures, and we must at some point stop culling ourselves through violence if we are to survive as a species.

We agree, however, that there are conceptual problems with putting such STRONG disarmament restraints on member nations. The concentration of community resources to apply military force toward necessary goals is one of the defining features of a nation, and I do see why the stringent restrictions proposed here are being rejected by many members.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:13 pm
by Kenmoria
"Preventing Unjust Warfare" was defeated 10,110 votes to 2,917.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:56 pm
by Marxist Germany
Kenmoria wrote:
"Preventing Unjust Warfare" was defeated 10,110 votes to 2,917.

OOC:That was an unexpected lemming and delegate stomp.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:57 pm
by Havip
"In clause 2c, how can a government be expected to weigh up these costs and returns if the concept of "expected returns" from a war is so abstract and unmeasureable?How can, for example, curbing the spread of a hostile ideology be weighed up? Furthermore, are these expected returns for the nation engaging in war or for the world as a whole? That is not clear to me." :D

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:31 am
by Kenmoria
Marxist Germany wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:
"Preventing Unjust Warfare" was defeated 10,110 votes to 2,917.

OOC:That was an unexpected lemming and delegate stomp.

(OOC: Certainly very stomping, but not entirely unexpected. The amount of delegates voting against was a surprise though; I thought delegates would be mostly in favour but the individual nations against it.)