Why I think "non-combat" is rubbish [BBC]

Day 555, 06:52 Published in Romania Romania by dsalageanu

Dear boyz & girlz,

I understood the reason behind the "non-combat" decision as a form of protest. Ok, I dig that. Nevertheless, "non-combat", in my humble opinions SHOUD mean that:

- Industry of war is being maintained in top shape
- Weapons are being stockpiled like there's no tomorrow
- Gold reserves are being secured
- Army is engaged in military maneuvers in order to maintain discipline and cohesion (a good option would be international deployment with precise objectives)
- International relations are being well maintained
- The country is exercising diplomatic pressure and lobby for the completion of the things we are protesting for in the first place.

You see, virtue has a strange way of working: if I can rape your behind and CHOOSE not too, I am virtuous. If I simply can't accomplish that specific act, I'm just impotent.

If we have the military, logistic and human capabilities to fight and CHOOSE NOT TO, we are making some sort of point. Otherwise, we are just being Emo.

In 2 weeks of "non-combat" we should have produced at least 10.000 weapons, which should be at our disposal if we would CHOOSE to get out of this "non-combat" state. Well, unless we got'em and I'm ill informed, we suck.

How about making a plain decision regarding this game. Either we quit because the game sucks bigtime (man, I hope my article won't be erased because of this, oh dear), or we stay and make THE BEST of it (we can choose to protest, but at least in an appropriate manner).

Waiting for your feedback.

dsalageanu