Great Lakes Provinces' classified and public actions

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281464181' post='2409953']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Now that you gave us a more detailed plan, I can see that the project would be much cheaper than I thought." noted Chancellor Atkin, facepalming. "We will be able to deal with the first three, though you'll have to consult with the Republic of York with the last one since that's their own territory. Also, we can pay for part of the price [i]and[/i] deal with the red tape. Would that be okay?"
[/quote]
Private reply:

"Sure, how much do you want us to pay? We don't really have a decent diplomatic relation with the Republic of York so could you contact them?"

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281464181' post='2409953']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Now that you gave us a more detailed plan, I can see that the project would be much cheaper than I thought." noted Chancellor Atkin, facepalming. "We will be able to deal with the first three, though you'll have to consult with the Republic of York with the last one since that's their own territory. Also, we can pay for part of the price [i]and[/i] deal with the red tape. Would that be okay?"
[/quote]
OOC: Just throwing in my 2 cents. The last part of the St. Lawrence Seaway (The Welland By-Pass) goes solely through Ontario, so it will be up to you Pikachurin. However HHAYD, the original price was in the 1950's where a hamburger cost a nickel. It will be WAY more than your 3 billion estimate (modern stadiums today can stretch over a billion dollars). Also remember that ice shuts down the system for half a year, so I don't know if this is the best investment for you. The best thing to do would be to upgrade the Welland Bypass, which is what really restricts the size of ships that can enter the seaway, so you can get ships a little bigger into the lakes. In real life, the costs and environmental considerations for expanding the canal have been to much for even the US and Canada, so the tiny GLP should in no way be able to justify it. Also, unless you want to spend billions further dredging the entire river system upstream of Quebec City, the water levels will be FAR too low to support Suezmax or even Panamax size ships. If I were you, I would just negotiate with another nation to use their ports for big ships and play with the hand geography dealt you.

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281464798' post='2409960']
Private reply:

"Sure, how much do you want us to pay? We don't really have a decent diplomatic relation with the Republic of York so could you contact them?"
[/quote]

[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"I will still have to discuss this matter with the Commons, since I'm not authorized to use Government money without their express consent."

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1281465646' post='2409970']
OOC: Just throwing in my 2 cents. The last part of the St. Lawrence Seaway (The Welland By-Pass) goes solely through Ontario, so it will be up to you Pikachurin. However HHAYD, the original price was in the 1950's where a hamburger cost a nickel. It will be WAY more than your 3 billion estimate (modern stadiums today can stretch over a billion dollars). Also remember that ice shuts down the system for half a year, so I don't know if this is the best investment for you. The best thing to do would be to upgrade the Welland Bypass, which is what really restricts the size of ships that can enter the seaway, so you can get ships a little bigger into the lakes. In real life, the costs and environmental considerations for expanding the canal have been to much for even the US and Canada, so the tiny GLP should in no way be able to justify it. Also, unless you want to spend billions further dredging the entire river system upstream of Quebec City, the water levels will be FAR too low to support Suezmax or even Panamax size ships. If I were you, I would just negotiate with another nation to use their ports for big ships and play with the hand geography dealt you.
[/quote]

OoC: Well, I don't control the Welland By-Pass, so it isn't my responsibility. Anyways, thank you for your input, KM. I completely forgot about those issues when I posted my reply.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1281465646' post='2409970']
OOC: Just throwing in my 2 cents. The last part of the St. Lawrence Seaway (The Welland By-Pass) goes solely through Ontario, so it will be up to you Pikachurin. However HHAYD, the original price was in the 1950's where a hamburger cost a nickel. It will be WAY more than your 3 billion estimate (modern stadiums today can stretch over a billion dollars). Also remember that ice shuts down the system for half a year, so I don't know if this is the best investment for you. The best thing to do would be to upgrade the Welland Bypass, which is what really restricts the size of ships that can enter the seaway, so you can get ships a little bigger into the lakes. In real life, the costs and environmental considerations for expanding the canal have been to much for even the US and Canada, so the tiny GLP should in no way be able to justify it. Also, unless you want to spend billions further dredging the entire river system upstream of Quebec City, the water levels will be FAR too low to support Suezmax or even Panamax size ships. If I were you, I would just negotiate with another nation to use their ports for big ships and play with the hand geography dealt you.
[/quote]
OOC: During the 1959, the cost of the project was $470 million. I couldn't find an inflation calculator so I used the US federal minimum wage to estimate how much it would cost today.

I at least want lake freighters to be able to sail in and out of the Great Lakes. Lake freighters (1000ft long) are larger than the Seawaymax ships (730ft long) but smaller that the new Panamax ships (1,200ft).

Edited August 10, 2010 by HHAYD

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281466550' post='2409990']
OOC: During the 1959, the cost of the project was $470 million. I couldn't find an inflation calculator so I used the US federal minimum wage to estimate how much it would cost today.

I at least want lake freighters to be able to sail in and out of the Great Lakes. Lake freighters (1000ft long) are larger than the Seawaymax ships (730ft long) but smaller that the new Panamax ships (1,200ft).
[/quote]
OOC: Again, river depth will be your main concern. You have control of Lake Ontario, so there is no need to upgrade any locks. However, the water level on the St. Lawrence River is too low to accept ships of much bigger size. The main shipping channel upstream of Quebec City is only 37 ft, and only 27 ft upstream of Montreal. Basically, unless you are willing to continually pay Pikachurin billions to dredge the river, you're not going to get bigger ships. If that did happen however, the smart thing to do would not be up upgrade all the locks. What I would do is just build a giant port on Lake Ontario, and if you want to bring goods to the upper lakes, you use a railroad to portage the goods around Niagara Falls and then load them onto lakers in Lake Erie.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281466214' post='2409983']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"I will still have to discuss this matter with the Commons, since I'm not authorized to use Government money without their express consent."
[/quote]
Private reply:

"I forgot about another important part, the upstream part of St. Lawrence river is too shallow for the larger ships. We can either dredge the river which would potentially become more expensive than expanding the locks or not dredge it, forcing shipping companies that want to take advantage of the max space by making their ships wider and not have more depth. The cheaper way would take time for the larger ships to appear."

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1281468154' post='2410021']
OOC: Again, river depth will be your main concern. You have control of Lake Ontario, so there is no need to upgrade any locks. However, the water level on the St. Lawrence River is too low to accept ships of much bigger size. The main shipping channel upstream of Quebec City is only 37 ft, and only 27 ft upstream of Montreal. Basically, unless you are willing to continually pay Pikachurin billions to dredge the river, you're not going to get bigger ships. If that did happen however, the smart thing to do would not be up upgrade all the locks. What I would do is just build a giant port on Lake Ontario, and if you want to bring goods to the upper lakes, you use a railroad to portage the goods around Niagara Falls and then load them onto lakers in Lake Erie.
[/quote]
OOC: I don't have to dredge the river. You can sail larger ships through the waterway as long as they are wider and don't have more draft.

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281472519' post='2410118']
Private reply:

"I forgot about another important part, the upstream part of St. Lawrence river is too shallow for the larger ships. We can either dredge the river which would potentially become more expensive than expanding the locks or not dredge it, forcing shipping companies that want to take advantage of the max space by making their ships wider and not have more depth. The cheaper way would take time for the larger ships to appear."
[/quote]
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Dredging the river would face too much opposition; hence it isn't an acceptable option. The latter would, perhaps, be better."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281472807' post='2410124']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Dredging the river would face too much opposition; hence it isn't an acceptable option. The latter would, perhaps, be better."
[/quote]
Private plan:

"I agree. How large of a ship should the locks be able to accommodate? I am thinking the max ship size the locks should accommodate have 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 45 meters wide. What should be the toll fee for each ton of cargo and ship to pay for the cost of the expansion and maintenance?

The Welland canal will present a major problem for us. A single super-lock will be built that can accommodate ships size of 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 40 meters wide. The other older locks will remain operational for smaller ships. A new canal has to be dug since tearing out the eight smaller locks would be too much of a hassle. However, that will be more expensive than the St. Lawrence River's waterway lock expansion project.

In case of a need for future expansion, a large strip of land should be left intact or at least easily removable if the waterway locks become congested"
-----------------------
Classified message from President Mays of GLP to Republic of York:

We are planning on expanding the St. Lawrence Seaway with Disparu's help to allow the large Laker ships to be able to sail out and in of the Great Lakes which would improve trading. Two of the locks in the St. Lawrence Seaway belong to you and they must be expanded or the entire expansion project would be useless. We are asking you to join our expansion project.

Snell and Eisenhower Lock:
[img]http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3788/po4.png[/img]

Edited August 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Michael McBride]

"After consideration with economic, environmental, and military minds, the Republic of York has decided [u][b]not[/b][/u] to grant approval for this project. The risks of another nation using the St. Lawrence to their advantage to hit our Ontario shores far outweigh the negligible economic impact we would receive from this project."

- Sir Michael Harland
President, Republic of York

[HHAYD]

Private, in President Mays' office:

"Paranoid much? I can't wait to see their reaction of a light battleship, destroyer, cruiser, and a submarine floating around in the Great Lakes."

--------------------------------
Private message from President Mays of GLP to Disparu:

"Republic of York said no, they are afraid of someone invading them from the Great Lakes. We got four options, convince Republic of York to join with the waterway lock expansion, build a bypass, continue the project but build two major harbors linked with rail lines to service large ships, or completely drop the project."

Edited August 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281479519' post='2410273']
Private plan:

"I agree. How large of a ship should the locks be able to accommodate? I am thinking the max ship size the locks should accommodate have 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 45 meters wide. What should be the toll fee for each ton of cargo and ship to pay for the cost of the expansion and maintenance?

The Welland canal will present a major problem for us. A single super-lock will be built that can accommodate ships size of 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 40 meters wide. The other older locks will remain operational for smaller ships. A new canal has to be dug since tearing out the eight smaller locks would be too much of a hassle. However, that will be more expensive than the St. Lawrence River's waterway lock expansion project.

In case of a need for future expansion, a large strip of land should be left intact or at least easily removable if the waterway locks become congested"
[/quote]
[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281495077' post='2410585']
Private message from President Mays of GLP to Disparu:

"Republic of York said no, they are afraid of someone invading them from the Great Lakes. We got four options, convince Republic of York to join with the waterway lock expansion, build a bypass, continue the project but build two major harbors linked with rail lines to service large ships, or completely drop the project."
[/quote]

[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"We can use [url="http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/commercial/transiting/toll-schedule/index.html"]this[/url] as a reference for toll fees. As for the Republic of York, I think that the third option will be better. York tends to be extremely adamant about their decisions sometimes, so that option isn't good. Building a bypass might spark even more environmental concerns and local opposition, while dropping the project will completely waste any effort that has gone to the project."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281532082' post='2411064']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"We can use [url="http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/commercial/transiting/toll-schedule/index.html"]this[/url] as a reference for toll fees. As for the Republic of York, I think that the third option will be better. York tends to be extremely adamant about their decisions sometimes, so that option isn't good. Building a bypass might spark even more environmental concerns and local opposition, while dropping the project will completely waste any effort that has gone to the project."
[/quote]
Private reply:

Both pictures are located north of the Republic of York's locks:
[img]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4913/po5.png[/img]
The first picture shows the proposed double-harbor, indicated by the red lines. They will be connected by massive covered conveyor lines to avoid having to load and unload trains.

The second picture shows the proposed bypass. The chunk of land that will be cut out will be between the brown marks, and between the brown marks and the water. The green line will be a structure to keep ships out of the other waterway since I believe that there is a sewage or water treatment plant located close by on the right. Due to the small amount of space between the two larger bodies of water, we might need to build a single lock instead of two. There shouldn't be any structures in the way other than the bridge.

Additional small structures are needed to prevent ships from hitting the hydroelectric dam. The costs of both options should be similar but the second one is definitely more convenient and cheaper for the shipping traffic. Some land on the southern-western side should not be developed to reserve space for any future expansions if the second option is picked.

Should we include a small discount for ships that are operated by businesses based in countries that participated in the waterway expansion? We won't be the only two using the St. Lawrence Seaway, companies based in USA, Bohovia, Blank Phoenix Empire, and Republic of York are also going to send in larger ships. I contacted USA about also helping out with the expansion, they ignored it.

Edited August 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Pikachurin]

[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Whatever's good for you, I suppose..." said Atkin, shrugging. "I do agree that we should offer discounts to ships from nations that participated in this upgrade, though. Anyways, I will still have to discuss all of this with the Commons. They've been a bit hysterical ever since the assassination of my predecessor."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281556664' post='2411451']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Whatever's good for you, I suppose..." said Atkin, shrugging. "I do agree that we should offer discounts to ships from nations that participated in this upgrade, though. Anyways, I will still have to discuss all of this with the Commons. They've been a bit hysterical ever since the assassination of my predecessor."
[/quote]
Private reply:

"I am not going to make the decision for you since it is on your land. As for the Commons, I understand why they would be hysterical thanks to the FLQ. I plan on discussing this this project to the Legislative once all of the details are hammered out."

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281557685' post='2411466']
Private reply:

"I am not going to make the decision for you since it is on your land. As for the Commons, I understand why they would be hysterical thanks to the FLQ. I plan on discussing this this project to the Legislative once all of the details are hammered out."
[/quote]
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"The last two maps you provided me showed your own territory, therefore that will be up to you. I have also already agreed to your previous proposals to expand locks within Disparuean territory. Nevertheless, thanks for your efforts on this project and your empathy on our current situation. It's appreciated, really."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281562525' post='2411562']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"The last two maps you provided me showed your own territory, therefore that will be up to you. I have also already agreed to your previous proposals to expand locks within Disparuean territory. Nevertheless, thanks for your efforts on this project and your empathy on our current situation. It's appreciated, really."
[/quote]
President Mays facepalmed at his geography failure and then headdesked when he realized he forgot to ask a question before replying.

Private reply:

"Should we pay 50/50 for the entire project's cost? Once we come up with a payment plan I can submit this to the Legislative. By the way, the GLP Department of Transportation said the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway upgrade in our territory would cost about 10 billion dollars."

Edited August 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281564391' post='2411607']
President Mays facepalmed at his geography failure and then headdesked when he realized he forgot to ask a question before replying.

Private reply:

"Should we pay 50/50 for the entire project's cost? Once we come up with a payment plan I can submit this to the Legislative. By the way, the GLP Department of Transportation said the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway upgrade in our territory would cost about 10 billion dollars."
[/quote]
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Of course."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281565486' post='2411632']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"Of course."
[/quote]
Private reply:

"Good to hear, what's your estimate cost on your expansion project?

This will be the basic detail of our project that I will submit to the Legislative once you have listed your estimated construction cost. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
---------------------------------------------
[b]Minimum size of the locks[/b]: 370 meters length, 8.22 meters draft (depth), and 55 meters wide.

[b]Max size of ships allowed[/b]: 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 45 meters wide. Exceptions for slightly larger ships can be made by case-by-case review and a doubled toll rate (will not apply to domestic/foreign aid naval ships).

[b]Toll, per metric tonne[/b]:

Bulk cargo: $0.8423

Grain: $0.64925

Coal: $0.64925

General cargo: $1.753

Steel slab: $1.4831

Containerized cargo: 0.8423

Government aid: $0

(OOC: I combined both toll rates for the St. Lawrence Seaway and divided them by two. :OOC)

[img]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/4913/po5.png[/img]

All St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project's participate countries' ships will receive a 25% discount on the toll fees.

Construction plan:

A two super-waterway locks will be built, one to bypass the Welland canal and the other to bypass the Snell and Eisenhower locks. Cost will run about $10 billions.

Edited August 11, 2010 by HHAYD

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281567370' post='2411669']
Private reply:

"Good to hear, what's your estimate cost on your expansion project?

This will be the basic detail of our project that I will submit to the Legislative once you have listed your estimated construction cost. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
[/quote]

[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"It will cost around DP$ 25 million on our side, assuming that the estimates from the Ministry of Transportation are correct. Again, thank you for your efforts on this matter.

One question though; would you mind if we gave special discounts to certain nations on our side? For example, we would be required to give discounts to our...trading partners due to our treaties."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1281584769' post='2412144']
[b]PRIVATE[/b]

"It will cost around DP$ 25 million on our side, assuming that the estimates from the Ministry of Transportation are correct. Again, thank you for your efforts on this matter.

One question though; would you mind if we gave special discounts to certain nations on our side? For example, we would be required to give discounts to our...trading partners due to our treaties."
[/quote]
Private reply:

"You can give discounts, though no more than 12.5% in my opinion if they didn't help fund the project. If you have an economical treaty with Republic of York, no more than 2.5% for giving us the trouble of having to build a super lock from scratch, unless if they were willing to cough up the 100% of the cash for the extra super lock.

I will be submitting the proposal to the Legislative soon. Hopefully they don't fillbuster it excessively since most large projects in GLP don't get tied by the environmental red-tape, but instead, by a couple of the Legislative's stubborn members."

Edited August 12, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

GLP National News:

President Mays Billy had proposed a bill called "St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project" to the Legislative a few hours ago to expand GLP's part of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the total cost will be about $10 billions. Disparu had also agreed on participating in the St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project

The basic details of the plan:

[quote][b]Minimum size of the locks[/b]: 370 meters length, 8.22 meters draft (depth), and 55 meters wide.

[b]Max size of ships allowed[/b]: 350 meters (1,148.3 ft) length, 8.1 meters draft (depth), and 45 meters wide. Exceptions for slightly larger ships can be made by case-by-case review and a doubled toll rate (will not apply to domestic/foreign aid naval ships).

[b]Toll, per metric tonne[/b]:

Bulk cargo: $0.8423

Grain: $0.64925

Coal: $0.64925

General cargo: $1.753

Steel slab: $1.4831

Containerized cargo: 0.8423

Government aid: $0

(OOC: I combined both toll rates for the St. Lawrence Seaway and divided them by two. :OOC)

[img]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/4913/po5.png[/img]

All St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project's participate countries' ships will receive a 25% discount on the toll fees.

Construction plan:

A two super-waterway locks will be built, one to bypass the Welland canal and the other to bypass the Snell and Eisenhower locks.[/quote]

GLP had requested Republic of York to participate in the St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project since they own the Snell and Eisenhower locks but Republic of York refused. This required a bypass to allow the larger ships to be able to sail in/out of the Great Lakes and from/into the Atlantic Ocean. The bill also called up for additional anti-ship defenses to be stationed close to the waterways and the locks.

As of now, the Democratic's and former Communist Party of GLP's members are filibustering the proposal, claiming that the expenses was too great, security risks, and would harm the environment. A few of the Economist members also joined the filibustering since they felt the proposal was too expensive. The Economist Party of GLP responded by kicking those members out of the party.

[HHAYD]

GLP National News:

Voting results on the St. Lawrence Seaway Expansion Project:

Representative: 95 yes, 47 nay
Senate: 8 yes, 4 nay

The proposal was narrowly approved and the construction for it is expected to be carried out in a week.
----
President Mays had proposed another bill to the Legislative, suggesting that all of the three-lane or higher highways should have one lane on each side removed and replaced by a 400 mph high speed rail. It also called for tripling the amount of existing high speed rails and reducing half of the regular rails.

Two types of high speed rails will be built, one is the passenger dedicated 400 mph and the other is the freight and passenger rail set to 350 mph.

It is meant to encourage inter-city mass transit commuting and improve freight transportation. The cost is estimated to be about $100 billion dollars. Although many economists and environmentalists approved of the bill since it would cut down on car commuting, which would reduce congestion, pollution, and would save money in the long run, many oppositions warned that removing a lane from a congested highway would be a bad idea and that it would be too expensive. The bill is expected to by filibustered like all previous bills.

Edited August 13, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

GLP National News:

The infrastructure expansion project had been approved by the Legislative.
-------------------------
Public announcement from the GLP government:

"Given the lack of communication from the USA, the fact that Delaware declared to be an independent country, and that they decided to expand into Maryland, tells us that USA had collapsed. We are sending in military forces to take back Michigan knowing that USA had failed their job to protect and serve the citizens of Michigan. They refused to give Michigan back to us saying that we failed to protect them, we will uphold what they told us.

Michigan has always been the homeland of Great Lakes States, and will be the homeland of Great Lakes Provinces, the successor of GLS."
---------------
OOC: If USA didn't fall due to inactivity, disregard the announcement.

[HHAYD]

GLP National News:

Just a few minutes ago, a large group came in semi-trucks and armored vans equipped with machine guns and missile launchers and launched an assault on the President House in Toronto. The Toronto City Police was caught off guard and is attempting to assist the President House's security team though they have not arrived yet. The TCP chief explained that the regular police officers would not stand a chance against heavily armed criminals and that the SWAT needs to be deployed instead. It appears that the criminal group had already breached the walls and gates and had stormed inside the building. Heavy gunfires are heard and seen erupting from the building and all of the group's armored vans are burning on the streets. Hank, the rogue super soldier wanted by Eggman Empire, was seen storming the building with the rest of the armed criminals. More details will be broadcasted as soon as we know.

OOC: RPing of the assault here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89146&view=findpost&p=2417415

Edited August 23, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

GLP National News:

President Mays had been severely injured from the fighting in the President House. Over 600 people were killed, most of them belonging to the Freedom Equality Organization and the Lighting Thieves Gang. He is in critical condition after taking a direct missile hit.

The President House itself had taken severe damages. Walls, ceilings, and floors were busted open. Half of the building received severe fire damages and the rest was torn up with explosives and bullets. The surrounding area in the blown wall enclosure was pitted with craters.
-----------------
Footage of the fighting from 1080p security cameras:

[i]A Spec Op armed with a flamethrower came charging into a hallway and sprayed burning napalm everywhere, covering dozens of FEO members that were charging down the hallway with the liquid. Flames and smoke engulfed the hallway as the Spec Op took a direct RPG-7 to the head, killing him.

In the president's office, a dozen of the FEO members charged into the room and seven of them were sliced open vertically from a gigantic chainsaw powered with a V-8 engine that was dropped onto them after hanging from the cables, dangling from the ceiling. The five remaining members were cut down by an automated minigun turret.

FEO members kept on pouring in and getting themselves constantly cut down. Finally one of them managed to destroy the turret with a RPG, and her head exploded like a watermelon as two Spec Ops and President Mays who were hiding the room fired their CRLMGs. The bodies piled up so much that half of the doorway was blocked with blood-soaked bodies. After another several dozens were killed, a LTG member managed to fire off a LATNT missile before getting mowed down. The missile ended up impacting President Mays' feet, throwing him out the busted window and onto the grass below.

Around the building were thousands of GLP soldiers and SWAT, backed up with dozens of armor and helicopters that were charging towards the President House. When they entered the building, a brief massive gunfire erupted between the LTG, FEO, and the military/police/security forces.[/i]