2019-04-28

 

Solution to Philippines problems

I have been participating in a role play game where I am the president of South Korea. You can see my embassy postings here, which themselves are very interesting as I decided to attack the US because it was being an arrogant jackass, and wanted to test their limits to inform future action. I negotiated with the person playing Gorbachev in the USSR for a solution to the problems in the Philippines, and agreed to set up separate communist and Muslim-majority states. The negotiation process was very interesting and is shown below. My Filipino wife, Julia, playing the Philippines in the game, agreed to give up Visayas as an independent state, even though it is 24% of the Philippines territory. The game is set in January 1991, but the negotiated solution may be useful in 2019 too. The final text of the agreement can be found here and is reproduced below:

The Following Agreements are to be enacted:
1. The geographical region of the Visayan Islands are to be granted independence as the People's Republic of the Visayas
2. This Republic is to be organized underneath the leadership of the Philippine Communist Party, and its constitution shall enshrine all basic human rights as outlined by the UN
3. All members of the Philippine Communist Party, and affiliated organizations, shall be allowed free transport into the People's Republic of the Visayas, henceforth PRV
4. The PRV and Philippine government shall agree to a pact of non-aggression for ten years, and neither side shall sanction or host raids, attacks, skirmishes, or other manner of fighting between their borders.
5. The USSR, in order to keep the Philippine peace, shall establish a military presence in the PRV, known as the Overseas Philippines Force, in order to ensure no military conflict between the two sides occurs, and all human rights are respected. In the event of a violent or unlawful change in government in the Soviet Union, the force shall immediately withdraw.
6. The Soviet Union shall send a team of experts to accurately determine the value of private holdings in the Visayas, for which landholders are to be compensated by the Soviet government should Visayan seizure of land occur.
7. The Philippine Government shall grant the Mindanao islands sovereignty in Commonwealth with the Republic of the Philippines as the Republic of Moros.
8. An international coalition is to be assembled in order to ensure the peace is kept in this Republic and human rights respected.


Here is the negotiation:


kerravon (south korea)Today at 5:55 AM
Can we discuss the Philippines now? I researched the NPA issue and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_rebellion_in_the_Philippines#Samar
Communist rebellion in the Philippines
The CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion refers to the ongoing conflict between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the communist coalition of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People's Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF).
In 1969, the NPA was...

It seems that there is a high concentration of NPA on the island of Samar
I propose that Samar be set up as an autonomous region of the Philippines and that the NPA are requested to relocate there where they will be free to implement communism.
without human rights abuses
and without lying about the results
BlackCrownToday at 5:57 AM
Unless you establish an independent republic it is highly unlikely to work
The NPA despise your government
kerravon (south korea)Today at 5:58 AM
it has no chance of working regardless. It is the same wacky social experiment being tried again and again. Look at Venezuela in 2019
we need to negotiate what to do about the inevitable collapse and the rest of the Philippines is required to bail out another failed experiment
BlackCrownToday at 7:02 AM
The USSR will provide funding in the event that the inevitable collapse of the republic occurs to ensure the Philippines can restore order
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:05 AM
will the USSR also compensate the existing landowners who are going to have their property confiscated in communist land redistribution?
BlackCrownToday at 8:15 AM
Yes, of course
And we shall ensure the new state is unable to perform any crimes against human rights
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:16 AM
can we have UN oversight of this rather than USSR?
BlackCrownToday at 8:22 AM
The USSR would be far more appreciated by the communist state we are overseeing
The UN will only aggravate things
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:23 AM
i am concerned about the soviets getting a military base in the philippines. the USSR isn't part of the free world yet
BlackCrownToday at 8:23 AM
While it’s true that a full complete liberal democracy is not realized
We have given full democratic freedoms to our citizens
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:24 AM
what if the USSR has a coup by hardliners?
BlackCrownToday at 8:24 AM
Then the forces may be rightly expelled
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:25 AM
expelled by who?
BlackCrownToday at 8:41 AM
Well, for one, the Hardliners as per otl would require a complete return of all overseas forces
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:42 AM
irrespective of otl, i have no idea what a coup in the USSR will look like, and i don't want a hostile USSR base in the Philippines. It is not possible to expel them without risking a nuclear war. i am not willing to use force against the USSR.
BlackCrownToday at 8:43 AM
I will say that a coup would require all Soviet forces to instill order
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:43 AM
i don't trust your assessment as being 100% accurate, and freedom is too precious to gamble
the philippines is currently free, and even has US bases protecting it
(1991)
BlackCrownToday at 8:44 AM
Which is also one of the things the revolutionary organizations despise
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:44 AM
can the NPA pick a different country instead of the USSR?
like switzerland
BlackCrownToday at 8:45 AM
But, irregardless, we can also provide by treaty that any violent transition of government in the Soviet Union renders it invalid
The NPA would heavily request the Soviet Union do it, they don’t trust the western forces not to immediately overthrow them on Philippine orders
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:46 AM
no-one besides the USSR can possibly do it? not even a coalition of other countries?
eastern europe?
a treaty is useless. we can't use force to dislodge hardliners
BlackCrownToday at 8:46 AM
Eastern Europe is no longer socialist
And yes, a treaty will work
The Hardliners desperately needed international support
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:48 AM
you know what? i'm willing to take a gamble on a potentially hostile USSR base in the philippines as part of bringing the USSR in from the Cold War
it means likely ending the NPA insurgency, it's not like we get nothing from the deal
i'll need to speak to the philippines to explain the ramifications of a hostile USSR in their current country
potentially hostile
also i am not opposed to running social experiments on small islands with no human rights abuses and no lying about results
and freedom of speech too, so that non-communist thought can be taught
and it's just the island of Samar, right?
BlackCrownToday at 8:53 AM
Yes, though it may also be advisable to allow for some equally revolutionary islands to join
So all see the failures of the socialist program
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:54 AM
i'd prefer to run the experiments one at a time
BlackCrownToday at 8:54 AM
Would it not be more efficient to have it come and fall at once?
So the people don’t blame government controlled sabotage as preventing them from uniting
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:56 AM
i'm hoping that a failure in the first will lead to changing the parameters of the ideology in the second experiment, and so on, instead of the same old stupid failed ideology being tested
otherwise people will stop volunteering to be experimented on
BlackCrownToday at 8:58 AM
True, but it could also lead to an aggrevation of existing revolutionary spirit
kerravon (south korea)Today at 8:58 AM
ok, how about a timeline then? next experiment starts in 10 years after we have some data from the first?
even though the first is still continuing
it takes a while for socialism to collapse a country as seen in Venezuela
you have to wait until you've run out of other people's money
as per maggie thatcher
BlackCrownToday at 8:59 AM
True, though if you want a proper experiment, the new state would require more resources
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:00 AM
well venezuela will eventually provide one of those
some people claim the paris commune was a success
so samar could be on the same scale as that?
BlackCrownToday at 9:04 AM
Perhaps, but the Paris Commune did not have the food to feed itself for example
As a short term revolution, Paris was successful in its reorganization of society
Not as its ability to withstand the task of being a state, even if capitalist
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:05 AM
ok, so can you summarize the proposal?
BlackCrownToday at 9:13 AM
1. The People’s Republic of Samar (and any other potential islands) is established, with full providing of basic human rights as outlined by the UN
2. A Soviet overseas force of the Philippines is established to keep order in the new state
3. The Soviet Overseas Force can be removed by the request of both parties, or in the event of a violent transition of power inside the Soviet Union
Does that work?
If I may, I can recommend a few islands that could also be transferred to ensure the viability of the new state
Which will only prove the failures of socialism when it collapses
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:18 AM
ok, we do wish the participants to agree that the experiment is sound and that a failure means the theory must be wrong
so yes, expand the island list
and there must be a proviso of "no excuses, the theory is clearly wrong"
we need to agree in advance the wording of the declaration of failure
and possibly what changes are envisioned for the second experiment
the PRS are allowed to set themselves up for continued experimentation into the future if they wish
BlackCrownToday at 9:22 AM
Perhaps we can include all islands between and including Negros and Samar?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:23 AM
ok, i'm down with that so long as existing landowners are compensated by someone
so that they can get the hell out of dodge!
BlackCrownToday at 9:25 AM
Alright, then I would propose the new Republic be named the People's Republic of the Visayas
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:25 AM
ok
BlackCrownToday at 9:26 AM
1. The People’s Republic of the Visayas is established, with full providing of basic human rights as outlined by the UN
2. A Soviet overseas force of the Philippines is established to keep order in the new state
3. The Soviet Overseas Force can be removed by the request of both parties, or in the event of a violent transition of power inside the Soviet Union
4.  The Soviet Government shall send a commission to accurately determine the compensation needed in the event of the seizure of land, to be paid to the land owners
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:27 AM
who will be paying for it though?
we really need to do something to prevent Jeremy Corbyn trashing the UK with socialism in the future. Hopefully the PRV will prevent people from voting for him
violent or unlawful transition of power
BlackCrownToday at 9:36 AM
Define unlawful?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:37 AM
crikey. the OTL where hardliners staged a coup. it wasn't really violent. i don't know how to define that.
BlackCrownToday at 9:37 AM
Fair enough
Violent or unlawful works
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:38 AM
ok, let's hope philippines agrees to this
will we have a problem if the US opposes it?
BlackCrownToday at 9:38 AM
The US can not impose her will on the Philippines
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:39 AM
but it could implement sanctions on the philippines or PRV
BlackCrownToday at 9:47 AM
For a treaty agreed to by all parties and not violating any international agreement?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:48 AM
the US may be an arrogant jackass. who knows?
BlackCrownToday at 9:48 AM
Then the Soviet Union will veto any attempt at sanctions, and make up for any lost trade
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:49 AM
ok. and who is paying for the confiscated land?
BlackCrownToday at 9:49 AM
Soviets
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:49 AM
cool!
sounds great to me
who should i speak to about a similar deal for the muslim separatists?
as that is a separate experiment
and should we aim to have all this completed by the friday deadline when who knows what the world will look like?
BlackCrownToday at 9:56 AM
Yes, we should
I can also work with the Muslim separatists
It's rather simple, they desire an independent Midano
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:57 AM
you think the USSR should be the ones providing troops to Midano too?
BlackCrownToday at 9:58 AM
Ah, that's what you meant
Well, that can be facilitated by another party
Perhaps China?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:58 AM
I can't have a member of the free world?
BlackCrownToday at 9:59 AM
To be fair, an Islamic Government would probably be against most members who have oppressed them in the past
Perhaps Pakistan?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 9:59 AM
Australia?
South Korea?
How about absorbing it into Indonesia?
btw, i think it is Mindanao
BlackCrownToday at 10:04 AM
Aye you are correct
Would absorbing it into Indonesia not ruin the potential experiment to determine the viability of the secessionist state?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:05 AM
good point
but what exactly is the experiment there?
if it's the same as indonesia, then what's the point?
Japan is another option
BlackCrownToday at 10:06 AM
The experiment is both to determine the viability of the separatist state and of the Islamic Rule it outline
Indonesia, while run with Islamic rules in mind, isn't exactly an Islamic Government
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:07 AM
saudi arabia?
the koran is the constitution
BlackCrownToday at 10:07 AM
there is also difference between a Republic, as advocated by the separatists, and the monarchs of Indonesia and Saudi Arabia
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:07 AM
pakistan?
BlackCrownToday at 10:08 AM
You also have to keep in mind the geographical aspects
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:08 AM
but pakistan is already running the experiment
isn't it?
BlackCrownToday at 10:12 AM
Perhaps, though in a very different manner
The Pakistani experiment is influenced by ongoing conflict with India and China, the nature of her separation, and also the lost of "Eastern Pakistan"
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:14 AM
we want to prevent people in the future from insisting they want to install an islamic paradise in iraq etc
so we need to be very clear about what an "islamic paradise" is
it would be good to be running both an islamic paradise and a communist paradise at the same time
so we can see which one, if any, is the best
perhaps the islamic one can't have borrowing money
or an islamic paradise in egypt or algeria
also, should we be making these plans public in some form to influence other people's moves before the friday deadline? or keep it in secret?
also can japan buy the kurile islands back?
BlackCrownToday at 10:28 AM
Keep it in secret so the US doesn't try to intervene
And the Kuril Islands will remain Soviet
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:29 AM
ok
so do we want mindanao to have its own military instead of needing external military support?
that way the philippines can reinvade when it falls apart
BlackCrownToday at 10:30 AM
Yes, it should have its own military
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:30 AM
ok, so i think i need to talk to someone about what an "islamic paradise" is
so that the experiment is sound
any suggestions?
can mindanao just have autonomy instead of a separate state?
BlackCrownToday at 10:34 AM
I believe the separatists desire their own independent state
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:34 AM
for what reason? what do they specifically want to do?
what does a state buy you that full autonomy doesn't?
BlackCrownToday at 10:37 AM
Independent foreign policy, and a guarantee to their state that the central government will not intervene
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:37 AM
ok, so who do you suggest i speak to now?
actually, there's another problem. i don't trust muslims to not do human rights abuses
who is going to guarantee human rights like freedom of religion?
i think autonomy is better so that the central state can in fact intervene
when things get really bad
the experiment will be how good can an islamic state be when done under christian supervision
so that other muslim countries can ask for christian oversight :smiley:
BlackCrownToday at 10:42 AM
I think they really do not want Christian oversight
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:42 AM
but i think i want it
BlackCrownToday at 10:42 AM
But if you wish to reach a deal, they will not tolerate it
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:42 AM
autonomy is better than nothing
BlackCrownToday at 10:43 AM
And they will fight for independence, as they did in the past
the last time the government gave autonomy, it functioned more as a ceasefire for the government to prepare her forces
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:44 AM
i don't think we should be allowing separate states for religiously-intolerant people
that's not sufficient reason for the philippines to give up territory
i'd rather genocide religiously intolerant people
if they want to ban borrowing money etc, that's fine
they can have that under autonomy
BlackCrownToday at 10:46 AM
Ban borrowing money?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:46 AM
islam makes it illegal to charge interest
so i understand
BlackCrownToday at 10:47 AM
Also,the reason for the separatist state is that the Phillipines were conducting human rights abuses on them
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:48 AM
ok, so how about an apology from the philippines government?
BlackCrownToday at 10:48 AM
"Under President Ferdinand Marcos, it was alleged that at least 11 Muslim military trainees were killed in Corregidor, by soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.[51][52] The trainees were believed to be a part of an upcoming rebellion.[52] By then, University of the Philippines professor Nur Misuari had formed the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) to condemn the alleged killings of 11 Filipino Muslims and to seek the establishment of a Bangsamoro nation through the force of arms.[52]
In 1969, the MNLF was established and commenced an armed struggle against the Philippine government.[52] During one of the fierce battles of the insurgency in 1974, Jolo, Sulu was extensively damaged and news of the tragedy galvanized other Muslims around the world to pay greater attention to the conflict. Many civilians were supposedly killed when the Armed Forces razed much of Jolo municipality to the ground in a scorched-earth tactic.[53] Two years later, the Philippine government and the MNLF signed the Tripoli Agreement, declaring a ceasefire on both sides. The agreement provided that Mindanao would remain a part of the Philippines, but 13 of its provinces would be under the autonomous government for the Bangsamoro people.[52] President Marcos later reneged on the agreement, and violence ensued.
The Philippine government allegedly encouraged Christian settlers in Mindanao to form a militia called the Ilaga to fight the Moros. The Ilaga engaged in killings and human rights abuses and were responsible for the Manili massacre of 65 Moro Muslim civilians in a mosque in June 1971, including women and children.[54] The Ilaga allegedly also engaged in cannibalism, cutting off the body parts of their victims to eat in rituals.[55]
On 24 September 1974, the Philippine Army killed at least 1,000 Moro civilians who were praying in a mosque in what is known as the Malisbong massacre.[56] "
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:49 AM
ok, so an apology
and UN forces?
BlackCrownToday at 10:50 AM
An apology alone doesn't settle hearts
You need to essentially give them near sovreignity
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:51 AM
that's fine. full autonomy, UN forces to guarantee no repeat of abuses
that's autonomy++
BlackCrownToday at 10:51 AM
Perhaps make them a Sovereign Republic of Moro, in Commonwealth with the Philippine government
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:51 AM
same as the USSR?
no separate military, but they can have UN forces if they want
BlackCrownToday at 10:53 AM
Yes, and to appease secessionists, perhaps have an article that they can secede by popular referendum
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:54 AM
no, i don't want them to secede. i want to monitor them for human rights abuses
i don't trust islamic states
freedom to switch from islam to atheism would be a good start
BlackCrownToday at 10:56 AM
Atheism or secularism?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:56 AM
atheism
in some islamic states you are killed for declaring yourself an atheist
or even switching to some other religion
no freedom of religion :frowning:
BlackCrownToday at 10:59 AM
Yes, freedom of religion would be provided for in the constitution
kerravon (south korea)Today at 10:59 AM
i don't trust muslims to implement that
if they show evidence of being able to run an islamic paradise, only then can independence be considered
and one would ask why they need it anyway if it's already working out fine
maybe the philippines can switch to islam at that point
get rid of catholicism
which is causing such suffering by making contraception illegal
and making divorce illegal even in 2019
BlackCrownToday at 11:02 AM
An Islamic majority state can provide for freedom of religion
Much like a Christian majority state can
What matterss is the opinion of the leadership
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:03 AM
muslims are religious bigots. i don't trust them to implement their laws properly
BlackCrownToday at 11:03 AM
I would say that all religions have bigots
Muslim, Christian, Jewish whatever
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:04 AM
true, but modern christianity, as practised in australia, is benign
australia's 3rd longest serving PM was an atheist. i never heard a single person say they wouldn't vote for Hawke because he's an atheist
no-one in australia gives a rat's arse what your religion is
they only care if you are a religious bigot. and muslims are mostly religious bigots so are very low quality immigrants
i support an end to islamic immigration
BlackCrownToday at 11:06 AM
To me it seems like you care a lot about people's religion
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:06 AM
i converted to islam myself
but i'm muslim in name only
just like christianity in australia is meaningless
for a time i prayed at our local mosque
and attended friday prayers
i fasted during ramadan once or twice
i stopped eating pork for a while
my version of islam is benign. but i don't trust any other muslims except for people like mithal al-alusi in iraq
BlackCrownToday at 11:09 AM
Yes, but you acknowledge that you don't trust them because of their religion, yes?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:10 AM
yes, the majority of muslims are religious bigots. but i don't support discriminating against individual muslims just because the majority are bad. i treat people as individuals
i would be happy for mithal al alusi to migrate to australia
even though he's a muslim
BlackCrownToday at 11:11 AM
But you would ban immigration for all individuals because of the majority?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:11 AM
yes, if we can't detect which ones are like mithal al alusi then we need to have a blanket ban
BlackCrownToday at 11:11 AM
So you discriminate on Muslims because of religion
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:12 AM
not australian muslims. only foreign muslims
foreigners have no inherent right to come to australia
note that new zealand is an exception. we have free transfer of people with them
BlackCrownToday at 11:13 AM
Yes, but you would put a blanket ban on muslims because they are muslim
Yes?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:13 AM
correct. they need to provide evidence they are not muslim (e.g. eating pork) before being allowed to migrate to australia
BlackCrownToday at 11:13 AM
So you discriminate against Muslims
Boom, you care about religion in Australia
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:14 AM
FOREIGN muslims
BlackCrownToday at 11:14 AM
proving people care about religion there
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:14 AM
not IN Australia
i care about RELIGIOUS BIGOTS in Australia
BlackCrownToday at 11:14 AM
Yes, you care about foreign MUSLIMS
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:14 AM
foreign
not Australian
i don't mind discrimination against foreigners based on anything we deem appropriate
e.g. we discriminate in favor of new zealand vs UK
BlackCrownToday at 11:16 AM
Yes, do you acknowledge, in Australia, people care about religion
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:17 AM
no-one gives a shit if you convert from christianity to buddhism
so no, we don't care about religion
BlackCrownToday at 11:17 AM
No, you care about Islam
Islam is a religion
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:18 AM
we thought islam was just another religion like buddhism so didn't give a shit about it. it is only since 9/11 that people suddenly got concerned about this one particular religion
BlackCrownToday at 11:18 AM
Yes, so you care about religion
It doesn't matter if its one case
You care about this religion, yes or no?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:18 AM
ok, yes, we want to make sure that religions are benign, like buddhism
we don't want religions that encourage cannibalism etc
BlackCrownToday at 11:19 AM
And what of things like the Blood Cult of Buddhism
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:19 AM
if it's dangerous, we seek to eliminate it
the bible says to stone people to death for working on sunday
we seek to eliminate any christian stonings
and i personally seek to get christians to delete this text from their bible
BlackCrownToday at 11:27 AM
Well, I very much doubt the southern government will carry out human rights abuses with international groups watching them
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:27 AM
that's fine. autonomy, apology, UN troops. done deal
actually, i'm against dogmatic government
i want to be sure that an islamic state is not following any dogma
like the koran
which contains a lot of nasty stuff about non-muslims
non-muslims should have equal respect/rights in an islamic state
and you can add that to the PRV - the government cannot treat Marx's rantings as the gospel truth that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny
BlackCrownToday at 11:30 AM
Yes, we shall enfofrce that on the PRV
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:30 AM
cool
the muslims need to clarify what they mean by "islamic state" before we go any further on that one
i can't approve something i don't understand
i'm a muslim. i define "islamic state" as "exactly like australia"
or south korea
BlackCrownToday at 11:37 AM
An Islamic State is a state with appropriate representation for the Islamic majority
As the Phillipine government previously tried to instill Catholicism on the population
Commiting atrocities and warcrimes on those who didn't convert, and sending in Christian settlers to take away the land of the Islamic population
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:38 AM
wow
well modern philippines has changed. it is part of the free world
the muslims need to acknowledge this change
australia has bad things in its history too
but modern australia is almost faultless
most of the complaints, like legalized marijuana, are all debatable
BlackCrownToday at 11:41 AM
You overthrew the government two years ago
Actually, barely over a year
They do not trust you
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:42 AM
which government was overthrown?
BlackCrownToday at 11:43 AM
Marcos Dictatorship
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:44 AM
that was 1986
BlackCrownToday at 11:44 AM
My bad, less than five years ago
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:44 AM
if muslims don't trust "us", well we don't trust them either. we need some time for trust-building
the non-muslims in mindanao have rights too
BlackCrownToday at 11:45 AM
Yes, and there trust will be won in the Sovereign Republic of Moro, in Commonwealth with the Central Philllipine government
To show the efforts the Phillipine government will go to reconcile
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:46 AM
ok, i can accept that
but no right to secession is being granted
that can be negotiated at a later date, like scotland separating from the UK
or ireland
mainly like scotland, not ireland
or maybe quebec
speaking of which, how about letting the baltics secede?
BlackCrownToday at 11:48 AM
The Baltic states will better exist in Union with the Soviet government
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:49 AM
they really want their own countries with their own languages like they had before
BlackCrownToday at 11:49 AM
They have their republics within the Great Union
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:49 AM
ok, i'll settle for that for now
until USSR looks more like Canada
so i think we have an agreement for both PRV and Moro. Do you want to send a message to Philippines for approval?
BlackCrownToday at 11:52 AM
Yes, I assume you have informed them of parts of the deal?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 11:52 AM
no. she's at work at the moment
she'll be home in about 6 hours from now
btw, it seems to me that quite a lot has happened quite fast. is this the first game where that has happened?
BlackCrownToday at 12:03 PM
Where what in particular has happened?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:04 PM
solution to the philippines problems before round 1
BlackCrownToday at 12:04 PM
Not philippines necessarily
But people working fast to solve problems?  Yes
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:05 PM
ok, cool
do you think what we do here could have impact on the actual world?
BlackCrownToday at 12:07 PM
Like real world politics?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:07 PM
yes
BlackCrownToday at 12:08 PM
No, not particuarly
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:08 PM
ok, nevermind. i do think this is a great place for brainstorming
did you learn anything from our exchange?
BlackCrownToday at 12:08 PM
What do you mean by learn anything?
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:09 PM
like previously i couldn't have told you how to solve the problems of the philippines in 1991
could you?
all by yourself
after all, you didn't give me PRV as a ready-made solution
it needed to be negotiated
BlackCrownToday at 12:10 PM
Yes, I suppose a compromise and negotation was indeed required
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:10 PM
and could you have done that with someone else, like USA?
or taiwan
or even the philippines for that matter
BlackCrownToday at 12:16 PM
Yes, compromise is always a critical part of negotiations
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:16 PM
but could you have simply had the conversation you had with me, with someone else, like the taiwan rep, and come up with the same or a better solution?
BlackCrownToday at 12:17 PM
Every discussion with another person is different
kerravon (south korea)Today at 12:17 PM
ok
maybe you and i should solve the problems in other countries besides the philippines after this
BlackCrownToday at 12:20 PM
Perhaps


|



2018-12-07

 

Main Reasons for the 2003 Iraq War

There were 3 major reasons for the 2003 Iraq war, and it is important for debate which one you are criticizing. If you wish to win the intellectual debate against war, it is necessary to counter all 3 arguments.

1. Human Rights. The most beautiful (but not most important) reason was to just liberate oppressed people from state-slavery. This is an underlying theme - many people like liberating others. In places like Kosovo and Haiti, this is in fact the only reason the war was waged. But in most wars there will be additional security-related reasons.

2. Response to 9/11. Iraq was basically a huge social experiment. On 9/11 we were attacked by Arab Muslims, and the only thing we have ever seen Arab Muslims doing on TV is burning the American flag. Iraq was believed to be the least radical of all the Arab Muslims and we wanted to see if we could set up a democracy there and whether the Iraqis would vote for normal people and be no scarier than Switzerland, or whether they would vote for jihadis to kill all the infidels. The result of this social experiment would inform future action.

3. Geostrategy. There is an underlying theme that the world is more secure for the West if we take down enemy governments (even if those governments were democratically-elected). This was especially seen during the Cold War. The scariest thing is for enemies to have a powerful military as that means they can do harm to us or our friends/allies (including Israel). If an opportunity arises, we will weaken (such as Iraq in 1991) or eliminate (Iraq in 2003) the enemy's military capabilities.


|



2017-03-04

 

Rogue Nation

In the past I have mused about being about to reconfigure NATO to oppose the US, in the hypothetical situation where the US had a military coup and became a rogue state. I never actually expected that to happen, it's just that freedom is so precious that we must consider every single possibility.

I never expected America to have a president who actually supports theft. Trump openly stated that "we" should have taken Iraq's oil back in 2003 and maybe "we" will get another chance.

This is not the America that I supported in 2003. The America I supported was one that gave the gift of freedom to Iraq at great personal cost and never asked for a damned thing in return. This America is the most beautiful force for good the world has ever seen. The most generous people on the face of the planet, even on a per-capita basis.

What we have in 2017 is not what we had in 2003. In actual fact, Trump is the first person in the world I have actually seen who supports the concept of stealing from others. Stealing from people poorer than America in fact. Perhaps because Trump is used to stealing from others by declaring bankruptcy he doesn't think that stealing is wrong, even though I would have hoped that children in America are raised to believe that stealing is wrong.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. For whatever reason the US has become a rogue state, now is the time to implement emergency measures. Until such time as Trump admits that he was a horrible and disgusting human being for suggesting stealing oil from the Iraqi democracy, and we are extremely confident that he's not just bluffing, we should treat the US as a rogue state. Australia should lead the way in creating a new military alliance, and Iraq should join that alliance in order to protect against America. American forces should be removed from Iraq and replaced by new alliance forces like Australia.


|



2017-01-31

 

Gambia

Wow. I've gone for more than a year without posting anything.

Anyway, there has been a significant new event recently - Gambia has been liberated, and as far as I can tell, purely due to the very real threat of force being used. Note that it would have been wonderful to be able to string up Jammeh, but the free world is not yet in a position where we can bring justice everywhere. If we have to bribe Jammeh to leave and promise not to prosecute him, so be it. We can reevaluate this policy after we have worldwide liberal democracy and a habit of quick external military actions whenever a country ceases to be a liberal democracy.

Here were my thoughts (as expressed to an anti-war Finn I had previously debated) prior to knowing the end result of Gambia ...

Senegal is preparing to liberate Gambia. Are you going to oppose freedom the same way that you opposed freedom in Iraq? Are you going to say "what about DR Congo - Senegal shouldn't liberate Gambia unless it first liberates DRC?". Or are you going to say "North Korea is much worse than Gambia" and you won't support a war in Gambia until North Korea is liberated?

Are you going to actively oppose Senegal like you actively opposed the US, or are you just going to keep quiet?

If your position on Senegal is different from the US, does that make you a hypocrite?

Are you going to say nasty things about Senegal, like, "they're only doing it because they want to control the beaches and coconuts"?

Or are Senegalese just VERY NICE PEOPLE?

Also, if Senegal tries to get a UN Security Council resolution allowing it to use force, and the Chinese dictatorship vetoes it for the obvious reason that it is a dictatorship itself, will you say that democratic Senegal is waging an illegal war? Or will you say that any system that allows a dictator (China) to support another dictator (Gambia) is unjust and should be replaced ASAP, and while we're waiting for a replacement we should simply ignore this stupid immoral body?

As you can probably tell, neocon hawks like me do not support wars just because we blindly follow the US. We support any war that extends the free world, within reason (e.g. triggering a nuclear war would not be "within reason"). People like me have been accused of supporting "American imperialism". Am I now supporting "Senegalan imperialism"?

The fact that it is so rare for a country like Senegal to do something great, and it is so common for the US to do something great, is in no way my fault. I would love it if Japan led the way to world freedom. But they're not. It's not my fault, or America's fault, that the burden almost always falls on their shoulders.

Also, if, after liberation, Jammeh-supporting Gambians start committing terrorism against Jammeh-opposing Gambians, that is NOT the fault of Senegal, and even if we know it in advance (which we don't), we should NOT be giving in to the pro-Jammeh terrorists by refusing to liberate.

We also have no way of measuring exactly what percentage of Gambians support the use of external force in order to liberate their country. Whatever that percentage - x%, I support that x% - people who are willing to have a war of liberation instead of living in state slavery for eternity. Even if "x" is less than 50, it doesn't matter. Those x are my ideological allies and if the (100-x) try to stand in the way, I am happy for them to be killed without hesitation. In addition, I consider any deaths on either side to be the fault of Jammeh, not Senegal, and this is basically going to be Jammeh's last crime. If you have any problem with the liberation death toll, take it up with Jammeh, NOT Senegal.


|



2015-11-15

 

Act of War

ISIS is not just a terrorist organization. It is defacto an actual state. It has territory where it sets the laws, and is the government. As such, the attack on France which it claimed credit for, is a genuine Act of War for which France should be responding to. Not just France either. France should be invoking Article 5 of NATO, getting other nations to assist.

NATO is now so widespread that French troops can actually travel via land through all-NATO countries to reach Syria. France should then extinguish the defacto country/nation-state of ISIS. After doing so, it should remain there ostensibly to prevent ISIS regaining territory, but actually it should be creating an environment preventing Assad from entering "Free Syria", and assisting the Syrian Democratic Forces to build up a military that can take on Assad.

Although what would be even better is for France to just hold all of Syria responsible for the attacks on Paris, and defeat not just ISIS but also Assad.


BTW, I rarely blog these days, but I frequently tweet here.

|



2015-06-03

 

Hyperbolic Thinking

The last of the posts on Road of a Nation which I wish to share at the moment is another one from "thinker". She did very well reaching beyond my wall of (as someone else called it) dry sarcastic wit. Anyway here are two of her posts.


Maha...When I first started to post on this board I called Paul a racist warmonger.  I know him very well after many months and here is what I think about Paul(with apologies to Paul):

Paul is verbally brutal but his facts are almost always right.  He is so intellectual that he is often obnoxious.  He used sarcasm and hyperbole(exaggeration) sometimes in a very sophisticated way that is very difficult to understand if English is not your first language.  He is not a racist.  He IS what we in the west term a 'hawk'...someone who believes in the use of force and is not hesitant to use it.

He is logical, probably compulsive.  My best guess is that he has a heart of gold and is completely faithful to his family who know how brutally honest he is. He has a soft heart that cares deeply about all people.

At times he says things for the 'shock' to get your attention.  He is extremely competitive intellectually which makes him fierce in his views.  He would have made a great lawyer or judge because his opinions are grounded in fact.

...

You are obviously not as good at it as I am. Hehe.

Acually, I think you would have made a good judge or research lawyer but probably not so great a trial lawyer where there was a jury.  You would do well arguing a case in front of judges though.


|



2015-05-29

 

Thinker thinks

Another person of note from the Iraqi blogs is someone who went by the name "thinker". I think the below is what she would consider to be her greatest post. She called it her "epiphany". I'm not sure how useful it is, but I do like her pointing out that there's no one person "in charge" in a modern democracy. And I like the way she said that this was impossible according to communist doctrine. Regardless, without further ado, here is what she wrote back in 2004 ...


Hello Iraqi friends! OK, I'll start...

We use he word 'plan' differently.

In the 1950s and 60s, Soviet leaders were seeking intelligence on the American system.  The US was an engine of economic and industrial growth, and productivity. The government was popular. Everything worked.  Even the phone system. There were no periodic collapses.

But, according to Marxist economic theory, this was impossible. So the Soviet leadership was convinced that there had to be some secret organization planning and controlling the economy, businesses , etc. They devoted their resources to finding this organization that was doing the planning and controlling everything. Nothing can work without planning and intent.

Ahhh.  But they didn't understand our system of planning.

In a dictatorship, the Leaders have much more power than in a democracy.  After all, a king can say, "do it" and it is done.  Central planning is easy because the king can 'force' everyone to consensus.  Tribal systems work on consensus too.

In a democratic government, there are millions of plans for the government, contradictory plans, plans, upon plans...all different and some the opposite of one another. Different committees of congress have opposite plans and the president might have a different plan.

Let's use Defense planning as an example. I'll bet there are detailed plans in the US Defense Department for invading every country in the world. There are probably even different types of these plans.  But, these are not 'plans' in the Soviet style because obviously we have no plan for such a thing. Like the US architects style, these are just concepts and 'thinking excercises' done to be prepared in the event of a disaster. They are not plans.

These types of studies are done in the Transportation, Education and other Departments. In any direction that an elected official decides to go, he has many, many plans to choose from depending on the circumstances, the problem that has to be solved, his budget.

But, Congress might control the budget, teachers unions at the local level might control part of the policy, local politicians might have a different plan preference, etc.
To the Soviets, this looked like chaos. How could you possibly have a 5 Year Plan in such a system?

The way planning is done in a democracy is decentalized but provides for maximum flexibility to change plans, alter plans at any given time to allow for changed circumstances, new ideas, new understandings, etc. Planning is SEPARATE from decision making.

I want to explain this to you so that you know that there was a plan to 'invade' Iraq many years before we went in...but I would not be surprised to learn that there was also a 'plan' SOMEWHERE to invade England! And, of course you know how ridiculous that is! When we say the word 'plan'...please remember this difference!

Planning in the US is a process of fact-finding, having a million possibilities, and being prepared so that under any circumstance or crisis, we can go in any direction at any given time.  FLEXIBLE! If there is a crisis, someone has thought about the different possibilities for years and can present mulitiple plans, their consequences, etc. to decision makers.  Then, the decision makers might all have different ideas. And the people in a democracy in different roles change often.

When combined with 'free speech' and transparency, there is almost no way to implement a conspiracy, sinister design, or force everyone to agree.
We compromise, work out win/win agreements, all based on the moral and rational arguments of large numbers of people.

It is a system that may have to be lived to be understood.

No one has the power that you Iraqis think they have. It is all decentralized power sharing.  And all of our people understand it.  We don't relate to one another as puppets, bosses, dictators, or as superiors.  Even the President of the United States.

Until you understand realationships in the US, nothing will make sense.

We even relate in families this way more than other cultures.  When the passengers in the last plane on Sept. 11th realized what the hijackers true intent was...the passengers on the plane...VOTED on a plan!


|



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?