The Oregon Debates Pt. 2
Day 491, 08:25
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Hari Michaelson
Continued from Pt. 1 (obviously)
Q3: What is your overall opinion of the Mexican War, wars of conquest, and war games?
CaptainCAPS: My opinion of the Mexican war is that is was very beneficial to the U.S in the fact that we trained our army, and increased wellness, and gained levels. The communication with troops and citizens was botched, and the end game strategy was also botched. I liked the idea of war with Mexico, and expanding the U.S, but the battles should have been savored in a way. For instance, not 3 at a time. But one at a time, one a day, so we could get optimal benefits from the war. As for wars of conquest, I support them to an extent, and disown them to an extent. I think wars of conquest are acceptable if it is with small nations, and they are not just to conquer one region and leave the rest of the nation in the dirt. (For example taking a high iron region, and leaving them with medium grain only) However, wars of conquest that actually threaten the existence of Indonesia and Romania, and the U.S are very bad. We need in this game a balance of powers, and if any empire disappears to another, we lose balance, and world structure. With war games, i support war games as much as one possibly can. I would propose a mutually beneficial plan to both Mexico and the U.S so we could do regular plans. If they accept, all is well and good. If they don’t, go through with the plan anyways. If worst comes to worst, we just lose a battle, we don’t lose a state. We have too many Mpps for Portugal or Mexico to feasibly invade.
ligtreb: I have to admit that I supported the original concept of the war with Mexico, which I believed to be war games with one Mexican territory, not trying to take over the whole country (and not fighting before the war with Portugal was resolved). The war with Mexico was planned and executed poorly, and hopefully we learn from this for the future.
I generally don't support wars of conquest, but would approve of war games if the details of them were planned before and ideally, if we could battle with an ally, that would be even better. The benefits of war games go both ways, for America and the country it attacks.
ssomo: Let me take them in the reverse order. I favor war games because of the wellness & fighting strength gains. They’re cheaper than wars, but not cheap, so we need to make sure the cost/benefit is maxed out.
I think any government action, besides reflecting well on the eUS people, must withstand both a strategic analysis AND a cost/benefit analysis. Wars of conquest, therefore, have a very very high bar to meet before I would approve them. But I would not rule them out.
The Mexican war was sold as a war game & became a war of aggression. It did not meet the strategic analysis & I said so at the time (on Mar 3 at its peak). Even so, I was surprised at how dramatically it unraveled.
Q4: Is it acceptable for the USA to utilize political takeovers as a tool in the New World?
CaptainCAPS: It is not acceptable for the USA to use political takeovers in the world with ANY nation, friend or foe. It’s a cheap way of conquest, one that may end up giving you the nation de facto, but not one that will benefit the masses, which want the wars for experience. It’s lowly, it’s cowardly, and I would not accept it.
ligtreb: Acceptable yes, but rarely. Political takeovers should be a tool of last resort. I don't like the concept of a political takeover, but I don't want to take anything off the table either.
ssomo: The short answer: Yes.The longer answer. PTOs are the eWorld’s nucular (sic) threat: Swift, silent, and very cost effective. Until the admin makes a citizenship module, we cannot take this tool off the table, if only as a deterrent to PEACE aggression. Because PTOs are so cost effective compared to resistance wars or full-scale invasions, we must first step up our defensive use of PTOs, and I endorsed Uncle Sam’s mobile voter Initiative. Beyond that, offensive PTOs should meet the same strategic analysis & reflect-well-on-the-eUS standards I’d apply to any government action. For example, we should consider its use to liberate captive nations.
Q5: There have been many calls for fiscal responsibility in Congress and the media after Uncle Sam’s impeachment. What is the best way for Congress to handle our nation’s finances?
CaptainCAPS: I do not believe that sending the proceeds of the tax money to fort Knox on a regular basis is a bad thing. "Blank checks" some may call it, but all it is, is the treasury. It is normally a good thing to send your nations money, to the place your nation puts the money......Fiscal responsibility though, with our Knox cash, needs to be put into place into our military; spreading our tank money to a newer generation of tanks that will gain more levels quicker than the old ones. It needs to be put into place on our buildings; buying only American hospitals and defense systems is a good way to do this. If we don’t have a Q5 hospital company in the U.S, now would be a good time for the Gov to get one. Fiscal responsibility needs to happen with lots of the excess money that the government gets after it is done spending fiscally responsible on its many things. I propose creating a IRS that keeps track of regular tax payers, and pays them all back a percentage of all excess money the government has every week or two. This creates a normally stimulated economy, and gives more money to the taxpayers. This would not leave the U.S broke, as it wouldn’t be a giant percentage of the excess funds, and they would only be called excess once the gov has done its spending with it.
ligtreb: The best way for Congress to handle our nation's finances and fiscal responsibility is to make everything as transparent as possible. No expense, big or small, should come as a surprise. There needs to be a resource somewhere, either in a newspaper, forum post or Google Doc that shows every expense by Congress and the country.
ssomo: Open the books. Perform a strategic analysis and a cost-benefit analysis of each program. Pursue the most cost-effective methods of meeting our strategic goals. Cut taxes to the lowest stable rate possible.
---
That's all folks. I was highly impressed by how eager these candidates were to share their views with the voters, and I highly encourage any and all voters in Oregon to take these responses into consideration when making your vote today.
Best of luck to all of you!
---
The Muckraker: The less you read, the more we spam.
Q3: What is your overall opinion of the Mexican War, wars of conquest, and war games?
CaptainCAPS: My opinion of the Mexican war is that is was very beneficial to the U.S in the fact that we trained our army, and increased wellness, and gained levels. The communication with troops and citizens was botched, and the end game strategy was also botched. I liked the idea of war with Mexico, and expanding the U.S, but the battles should have been savored in a way. For instance, not 3 at a time. But one at a time, one a day, so we could get optimal benefits from the war. As for wars of conquest, I support them to an extent, and disown them to an extent. I think wars of conquest are acceptable if it is with small nations, and they are not just to conquer one region and leave the rest of the nation in the dirt. (For example taking a high iron region, and leaving them with medium grain only) However, wars of conquest that actually threaten the existence of Indonesia and Romania, and the U.S are very bad. We need in this game a balance of powers, and if any empire disappears to another, we lose balance, and world structure. With war games, i support war games as much as one possibly can. I would propose a mutually beneficial plan to both Mexico and the U.S so we could do regular plans. If they accept, all is well and good. If they don’t, go through with the plan anyways. If worst comes to worst, we just lose a battle, we don’t lose a state. We have too many Mpps for Portugal or Mexico to feasibly invade.
ligtreb: I have to admit that I supported the original concept of the war with Mexico, which I believed to be war games with one Mexican territory, not trying to take over the whole country (and not fighting before the war with Portugal was resolved). The war with Mexico was planned and executed poorly, and hopefully we learn from this for the future.
I generally don't support wars of conquest, but would approve of war games if the details of them were planned before and ideally, if we could battle with an ally, that would be even better. The benefits of war games go both ways, for America and the country it attacks.
ssomo: Let me take them in the reverse order. I favor war games because of the wellness & fighting strength gains. They’re cheaper than wars, but not cheap, so we need to make sure the cost/benefit is maxed out.
I think any government action, besides reflecting well on the eUS people, must withstand both a strategic analysis AND a cost/benefit analysis. Wars of conquest, therefore, have a very very high bar to meet before I would approve them. But I would not rule them out.
The Mexican war was sold as a war game & became a war of aggression. It did not meet the strategic analysis & I said so at the time (on Mar 3 at its peak). Even so, I was surprised at how dramatically it unraveled.
Q4: Is it acceptable for the USA to utilize political takeovers as a tool in the New World?
CaptainCAPS: It is not acceptable for the USA to use political takeovers in the world with ANY nation, friend or foe. It’s a cheap way of conquest, one that may end up giving you the nation de facto, but not one that will benefit the masses, which want the wars for experience. It’s lowly, it’s cowardly, and I would not accept it.
ligtreb: Acceptable yes, but rarely. Political takeovers should be a tool of last resort. I don't like the concept of a political takeover, but I don't want to take anything off the table either.
ssomo: The short answer: Yes.The longer answer. PTOs are the eWorld’s nucular (sic) threat: Swift, silent, and very cost effective. Until the admin makes a citizenship module, we cannot take this tool off the table, if only as a deterrent to PEACE aggression. Because PTOs are so cost effective compared to resistance wars or full-scale invasions, we must first step up our defensive use of PTOs, and I endorsed Uncle Sam’s mobile voter Initiative. Beyond that, offensive PTOs should meet the same strategic analysis & reflect-well-on-the-eUS standards I’d apply to any government action. For example, we should consider its use to liberate captive nations.
Q5: There have been many calls for fiscal responsibility in Congress and the media after Uncle Sam’s impeachment. What is the best way for Congress to handle our nation’s finances?
CaptainCAPS: I do not believe that sending the proceeds of the tax money to fort Knox on a regular basis is a bad thing. "Blank checks" some may call it, but all it is, is the treasury. It is normally a good thing to send your nations money, to the place your nation puts the money......Fiscal responsibility though, with our Knox cash, needs to be put into place into our military; spreading our tank money to a newer generation of tanks that will gain more levels quicker than the old ones. It needs to be put into place on our buildings; buying only American hospitals and defense systems is a good way to do this. If we don’t have a Q5 hospital company in the U.S, now would be a good time for the Gov to get one. Fiscal responsibility needs to happen with lots of the excess money that the government gets after it is done spending fiscally responsible on its many things. I propose creating a IRS that keeps track of regular tax payers, and pays them all back a percentage of all excess money the government has every week or two. This creates a normally stimulated economy, and gives more money to the taxpayers. This would not leave the U.S broke, as it wouldn’t be a giant percentage of the excess funds, and they would only be called excess once the gov has done its spending with it.
ligtreb: The best way for Congress to handle our nation's finances and fiscal responsibility is to make everything as transparent as possible. No expense, big or small, should come as a surprise. There needs to be a resource somewhere, either in a newspaper, forum post or Google Doc that shows every expense by Congress and the country.
ssomo: Open the books. Perform a strategic analysis and a cost-benefit analysis of each program. Pursue the most cost-effective methods of meeting our strategic goals. Cut taxes to the lowest stable rate possible.
---
That's all folks. I was highly impressed by how eager these candidates were to share their views with the voters, and I highly encourage any and all voters in Oregon to take these responses into consideration when making your vote today.
Best of luck to all of you!
---
The Muckraker: The less you read, the more we spam.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments