kitex Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][size="5"]Global Research[/size][/font] [img]http://www.oecd.org/vgn/images/portal/cit_731/0/54/39748906GlobalForum_50_150dpi.jpg[/img] [font="Times New Roman"][size="5"][u] [/u][/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][b][size="2"]Why the silence? The North American war [/size][/b] [b] [/b] [b] [/b][b][size="2"]By DDB[/size][/b][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="2"] C[/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="2"]urrently the imperialist nation the Empire of Pravus Ingruo is attacking the United States of America in a blatant act of land grabbing. They claim that the US has become "incompetent" and that their "brethren to the South"[1] are crying out for help. To add insult to injury, J Andres, a now former ally of the United States, not only did not condemn the Pravus Ingruo aggression, but also started combat operations against the US, beginning with the naval blockade of the US, but has now escalated into sending J Andrean troops onto US soil to attack the Americans! Also the newly formed Imperial States of America (formerly the Federal Republic of America) has joined in the action, assaulting the southern US. Yet, the most amazing part of this fiasco, is that there have been almost no legitimate armed action taken against the empires of Pravus Ingruo and J Andres. For the most part, the world, but more importantly, the other nations on the continent of North America have remained silent while this mindless slaughter goes on. The real question of this whole scenario is: Why is there so much silence? There are other conflicts going on in North America, such as the Canuckistan-GLP war, where peace talks have begun in the nation of Blue Water, but there has been no actual, serious help for the US. There have been condemnations from the nations of Artica, France, Koryo, the NPC, and the GNS and several nations such as Wallonia and the UFE empire have declared neutrality, but still, the only nations that have put their money where there mouth is are Blue Heaven,Canuckistan, Slavorussia, Helenski and England. Most of the nations in North America have been silent to this mass injustice. This is most likely due to the fact that the current powers of North America are afraid of the J Andres and Pravus Ingruo Empires. Here, in Disparu, the J Andres empire has a personal lapdog in the form of the Disparuean government. Due to seeing the awesome firepower of both the J Andres and Pravus Ingruo Empires, the rest of North America has been forced into silence. Every state knows that if they speak out against the imperial wars, that they risk being destroyed, but what they fail to realize is that by accommodating the Pravus Ingruo (and their allies) imperial expansion, they are putting their own nations at risk. The silence of the North American continent in the face of imperial aggression puts their own nations at risk. The empires of Pravus Ingruo and J Andres assume that many nations are not speaking out due to fear of their awesome military might. This seems to be holding quite true, but not speaking out puts those nations at risk because they are seen by the Pravus Ingruo empire and its allies as being controlled by fear and therefore easy pushovers. The governments of these nations have absolutely no qualms about using the threat of military might to force other nations to do their bidding. If other nations that were against the imperial wars spoke out and created a unified voice, the empires might think twice about attacking them, but, since virtually no one is taking a stand against the empires, they may very well decide that they will either turn these nations into client states at the very least or at the very most invade and absorb them into their empires. Only by standing up against empire will North America be a free and stable continent. To do that, the continent as a whole must stand up and in one voice reject the notions of empire and present a unified force to combat Pravus Ingruo and J Andres imperial aggression. If not, the nations that are currently silent may not be around for much longer. [b]Endnotes[/b] 1: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92904&view=findpost&p=2469276 [/size][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="2"][u]General Information about Global Research[/u] [/size][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="2"] Global Research Center is located in Montreal, Disparu and is a non-profit independent [/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="2"]research and media organization and is registered as such in Disparu. The Center also acts as a think tank on world affairs. The Center accepts articles from all points of view, but does not tolerate articles that attack a specific author.[/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="2"]OOC: If anyone wants to ever submit an article, please PM it to me first and then we can discuss it.[/size][/font] Edited January 19, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 "A good percentage of the most destructive wars in history were civil wars within China. My own nation has been criticized in the past for employing force to reunify our homeland, but history has shown that peace comes to China when it is one, not when it is divided amongst several weak states. A short destructive war for long term stability is often preferable to long term disunity and chaos." -Letter from Professor Zhou, Department of History Chair of Peking University Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 England has had no such involvment with the North American wars, however, Finland did, and Admiral Joona, chief of the Royal Navy was part of the Finnish Navy at the time when Finland lost its aid flotilla to mysterious circumstances off the American coast aswell as several J Andrean warships which were caught in an explosion of sorts. However, perhaps more Nations have not been involved with the war, is that what happens in North America is North Americas problem, as is with all regions of the world. For instance, without a doubt in my mind, I would bet the UFE would kick up a fuss or simply declare war, if the Royal Navy was involved in combat operations in Asia in force without invitation or treaty obligation to China. Moreover the recent tensions between England and Legion wouldnt be tolerated if an African fleet sailed to England to make war on Europe, or if England sailed its fleet to Africa to make war. It is for the regions the troubles occur in to determine the outcome. If North America wasnt largley Imperialist in nature as far as alliances and battle history goes, perhaps more Americans would stand against J Andres and the Empire of York. Blue Heaven will remember the Imperium of Canada and its actions of Empire undertaken into the Black Phoenix Empire, Coruscanta and even Blue Heaven itself during the Cold War, which esulted in Blue Heaven seceeding land to the Imperium, finally, its large land claims in Antarctica. In the end, the Nations in the region seized the chance when civil war broke out and removed the regime. J Andres and Louisianas invasion of Great Britain and Ireland is testement to Imperialism in its zenith as a campaign was launched against Europe out of America. In the end the Americans were driven back when Louisiana dissolved and J Andres were caught between the forces of France, Slavorussia, Finland and the Kingdom of Ireland. A continant must be motivated to conduct a war against Empire fo it to succeed. However, not all Empires are bad, take the Holy American Empire as an example, a bastion of stability for many decades now and enjoys an efficent, internationally respected images. - Margret Thatcher from her hospital bed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 When asked about the report, Imperial spokesman Daniel Davis had the following to say: "The Emperor officially has no comment on the report. He cannot be bothered to respond to every little factoid or untruth that is posted by random news organizations. However, there are some things in the report that I can comment on without the Emperor needing to." "First, it's obvious this "news organization", and I use the term lightly, does not fact check very well. The Empire of York is gone, and hasn't existed for some time. The nation is the Empire of Pravus Ingruo now, and has been for quite a while. News organizations, and nations themselves, would do well to recognize that fact lest they continue to make themselves look like fools. Further, this war has shown that the United States is weak and corrupt. Instead of the President, or ANY elected official or someone from the Order of Succession coming forward, a General spoke for them. Now their weakened military does not even respond to our attacks, instead preferring to flee and leaving their citizenry behind. And our assertions that our brethren to the south were crying out for help has been realized, as we have been met with open arms in the liberated states." "Third, I'm glad this company has such an insight into our national and internal affairs for the future, since they are so obviously sure of what we are going to do. Please, oh wise ones, tell us what we are going to do next because it is obvious that you have been to the future and have seen what is to come." "Finally, we expected silence not because nations were scared of us, but because what we were doing was right. History will prove us to be correct. This country, or her leaders, have never undertaken an aggressive war of expansion before this one. This is not something that was done without due thought put behind it, and only when the breaking point was finally reached did we act. Protest that if you will, but history will show a more peaceful, stable North America because of our efforts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) [font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#333333"][size=2]This article has been taken down due to not adhering to submission guidelines[/size][/color][/size][/font] Edited October 21, 2010 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Counter argument to the above article from one "Mr MB" I find the above article laughable, whilst the three Empires are warring across the United States, in the end the territory they gain will be under a solid leadership, competant, stong and unafraid of the world at large so to speak. They will be bringing stability to quite an unstable area of the continant, see the US Civil war in Delaware and other states breaking away from the Union, only to be slammed back down by US Military forces. Let us also not forget when the United States attacked Canadian Nations who wee fighting eachother in attempts to make peace. In attempts to make peace, they went to war. The system of Empire has worked for thousands of years, with many Empires lasting centuries such as the British Empire, the Roman Empire and the Mongols. Even the French had an Empire at one point and it was going great for them until the Coaltion of European Nations brought it down. In many places where the British Empire ruled, now stand strong, independant nations such as the Kingdom of Cochin which rules the Indian Subcontinant, even the three American Empires were once British, and each are now thriving metropolises of civilisation at the leading ege of civilisation. The Holy American Empire is stable, content, and spans a continant. The former Canadian Empire ruled vast ammounts of land until its usage of WMD's in the Tahoan war, at which point the Empire began to decline. What of the Slavorussian Empire? who stopped Finland and the Hanseatic people going to war, who gave away its province of Finland so it could be free once more. Empires are an excellent form of Government and the only downside is the whole Imperialism side of it, like we are seeing now in North America. But when its over, and the smoke settles and the rebuilding is over, the USA will have been transformed from an unstable, incompetant tract of land, into a region of the world under an Imperial banner. Efficient, advanced and better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddy Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 [color="#4169E1"]Blue Water finds this very interesting. [/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Interview with China's Premier Wei by DDB[/b] DDB: Hello Premier Wei. My name is DDB, director of the Global Research Center in Montreal, Disparu. How are you today? Premier Wei: I am well. DDB: That's good to hear. Currently China launched an invasion of the PRSEC. Why exactly was that done? Premier Wei: First I will correct the record, China did not launch an invasion of Yunnan. Our troops moved in to secure the rights of Chinese which were being infringed. Our forces did not open fire or treat the provincial soldiers as hostile. Most of the provincial soldiers peacefully gave way to the People's Liberation Army. After the would be tyrant in Yunnan was overthrown, the provincial government was sending a diplomatic representative to meet with our political leaders. It was at this time in the middle of supposed negotiations that after bellicose rhetoric from the Kingdom of Cochin, that some provincial rebels opened fire on the People's Liberation Army. DDB: Ok. Then, still the question remains, why did China send troops into the PRSEC when they were having what seemed to be a purely internal issue? Premier Wei: This was an internal issue, an internal Chinese issue. The policy of the Chinese National Government as outlined in the Jia Doctrine has always been to protect all Chinese People. It would be irresponsible and immoral of us to wait for the situation to escalate further. I would point out that in the absence of a strong doctrine, Chinese human rights have previously been violated. The entire North East of China was ethnically cleansed only in recent memory. DDB: Were all options, including diplomacy, put on the table before military action was decided upon? Premier Wei: Diplomacy was on the table, the Yunnanese rebels chose to start the firing while we were in the middle of negotiations. Currently one of our Vice Chairmen are speaking with the premier of the provincial government, however, it should be pointed out that he was either being duplicitious or more likely in my judgement there are those within Yunnan province who are beyond government control and wish to continue the previous President's persecution of the Chinese people. Never has it been acceptable to use negotiations as a rouse to mount surprise attacks. DDB: The Kingdom of Cochin challenged your government's assertion that there was genocide going on in the PRSEC and asked for "unbiased, incontrovertible proof that there had been any sort of oppression let alone butchery or genocide in PRSEC" and that request seems to never have been actually answered. Would you mind answering it now? Premier Wei: The Kingdom of Cochin is asking us for let a government intent on committing genocide to occur before we stop it. This is an inherently immoral and monstrous position. It reflects the Kingdom's long standing failure to understand Chinese history and to place Indian national interest ahead of civil rights. We know the path which the Yunnanese government was taking, it has had a history of using force as a means of asserting political control. We know the path which these totalitarian regimes take.... To go further I would point out to you that Chinese Civil Wars rank amongst the highest of conflicts in world history with the greatest amount of deaths both civilian and military. To allow for such instability to occur within China is asking for there to be butchery on an unimaginable scale and ignorant of the forces of history. DDB: You say that PRSEC forces fired upon Chinese soldiers, but, looking from their point of view, couldn't it be seen as a response to what they see as possible Chinese aggression? Premier Wei: No. First firing on your own countrymen is never acceptable. Second, the Yunnanese forces at the border had overwhelmingly surrendered. The People's Liberation Army entered into Yunnan Province peacefully. They then sent a diplomatic representative to negotiate the political status of Yunnan province, before these negotiations could be concluded the rebels opened fire. Launching military operations during diplomatic negotiations is not acceptable. DDB: You say that the PLA entered the PRSEC peacefully, but how is coming in with tanks, soldiers and planes, all meant for the purpose of war, peaceful? Premier Wei: The Yunnanese government had routinely violated human rights and used coercion. Our military needed to be able to protect itself. I would point out that the military of many countries have been used as instruments of peace keeping, stabilization, and humanitarian relief. This is nothing new, to try and make a issue of it is to apply a different standards to the Chinese nation than one does to others. DDB: Alright. Let's switch gears now, if you don't mind. Premier Wei, what do you think is China's role in Asia and in global affairs? Premier Wei: By China are you referring to the People's Republic of China or the entire United Federation of the East? DDB: Let's focus on China proper for now. Premier Wei: China's role is to grow economically and build a harmonious society. Our government has been instrumental in returning stability towards Asia and rising the standard of living for the Chinese people. China has been exploted for many years now by foreign imperialist aggression. Manchuria was ethnically cleansed, the faux PRC attempted to cleanse Han Chinese in their homeland, the Dragon Cult attempted to destroy Chinese Civilization and replace it with false truths. The Chinese people have been exploited by foreign powers for some time, we must focus on repairing our civilization and building a new economy. I believe our foreign policy can be broken down into three core areas: the first is military friends, China maintains strong relationships with most of the powers of the world which support national integrity, self determination, and anti-imperialism. The second is economic: China has worked to open up economic relations which treat China as an equal on the world stage and do not seek to exploit it. Our economic ties to ASEAN members who share our anti-imperialist vision of Asia are very strong. We also are allied with the Holy American Empire which has provided China with access to raw materials and proven itself a great friend. The third is political: China has worked to promote the ideal of Zeonism, we are seeking to create a united Asia, not one which China dominates but one which it pools its strength with our Asian brothers, the Federation between China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand is at the core of this. DDB: You say you have a strong relationship with world powers that are anti-imperialist, but some of those world powers are engaging in imperial acts, such as J Andres' invasion of the United States? Premier Wei: First let me say that China has not violated its non-aggression pact with the United States. That said, you are simplifying the North American situation. Central East North America is historically one country. Much of the area was one country prior to the Tahoe War. You need to differentiate imperialism as it is in its true form, namely the subjugation of another region and civil conflict between the same civilization culture which is seeking to unify itself under a single political entity. While the situation is tragic it is not the same type of imperialism as say the British conquest of India. DDB: What is your personal view of the United States, more specifically, is the PI-led invasion of the US not without merit? Premier Wei: My view is that we believe foreign countries should allow east central north America to resolve its political situation and establish a stable situation on its own. I believe it is improper for other countries to commit imperialism by interfering with this. Just as China's reunification and final political status should be left to Chinese the same courtesy must be given to the Americans. They have a right to a strong government capable of repelling foreign exploitation. China will remain neutral in the situation unless imperialist countries attempt to enter into the conflict against allies who have no business entering. DDB: Why do you so many nations on North America and the world at large are not commenting on the plight of the US? Premier Wei: Because it is none of their business. DDB: [/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="2"]Yet wouldn't one think that an aggressive and unwarranted war could potentially cause some worry among governments?[/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: If that was what was happening I would. But it is not what is happening. It is a region working out its own issues. Do you not think regions have the right to resolve their own disputes? [/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] DDB: They do, but it seems let us move on, as my personal views are not the subject of this interview. Internally, how is China doing?[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: Ah but they are because they form the ways in which you frame the question. If you make assumptions which are not true or are based knowledge created in certain power relationships which further certain interests, it creates a paradigm of conversation which is biased against marginalized groups in the current global power structure.[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] DDB: I would have to argue that China is not a marginalized group, noting their economic, political and military clout that affects the entire Pacific region.[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: Being accused of being imperialist when someone is trying to reunify their country by others who are occupying multiple countries is marginalization. China's military and political alliances are necessitated by foreign aggression against China and the attempted colonization of China through warlord proxies.[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] DDB: And yet are multiple parties doing this to you? From what I know only a handful of nation's, most notably Canuckistan and the Kingdom of Cochin have accused you of being imperialist?[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: There have been in the past. France's previous government colonized Hong Kong directly. Further, China's international legitimacy is created in spite of efforts of countries which have acted imperialistically. It was only through China's application of its political and military might, that we were able to reunify most of the country. This is not really pertinent to my main point though, which is regarding North America. Groups, just like in China which were not part of the East Central North American continent are inserting themselves and attempting to impose their morality and view of legitimacy in the region.This is in contrast to the politics and desires of the people. If the people support PI they will win, if the people support the USA they will win.[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] DDB: Quite true. May I ask how does the Chinese government view the PRSEC? More specifically, before this incident with the PRSEC, did China view them as a free and sovereign nation?[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: The People's Republic of China viewed Yunnan as part of China, as was reflected in the province's formal name the People's Republic of South Eastern China. Prior to the latest crisis the national government was willing to pursue diplomatic avenues of reunification and had made several proposals with the People's Republic of South Eastern China. However, considering previous history of coercive oppression in the PRSEC and the political path which it was undertaking, the national government could not permit the provincial government to commit crimes against the Chinese People. Diplomacy became an active avenue again after the provincial president was overthrown. However, enroute to diplomatic negotiations, rebels seemed to coopt provincial decision making and opened fire on the People's Liberation Army.[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] DDB: How does your government balance being open to the world and its security concerns?[/size][/size] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="2"] Premier Wei: Chinese are a more peaceful culture than the North Americans, we do not carry fire arms, Chinese place family and communal obligations above individual freedom. I believe it is fair to say that our nation has less of a proclivity than the Americans towards violence. Further we have a greater cultural trust of authority. Therefore I think that we can count on our citizens to maintain public safety without requiring too much coercive power. Our people love their People's Liberation Army and Public Security Officers. [/size][/size] DDB: [/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="2"]Seeing as I have a plane to catch, I will have to cut this interview short. It was a pleasure talking to you. I wish you luck on leading China into an era of peace and prosperity[/size] I wish you luck on leading China into an era of peace and prosperity Premier Wei: Thank you. [/font] Edited November 17, 2010 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 The Foreign Ministry would like to know why the interview was cut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1287699222' post='2490093'] The Foreign Ministry would like to know why the interview was cut? [/quote] [b]Private to the Chinese Foreign Ministry[/b] [b] [/b] [i]To Whom It May Concern:[/i] [i] [/i] The interview with Premier Wei had to unfortunately be cut short because our director, DDB, had to be back in North America in order to take care of some personal matters. Sincerely, The Global Research Team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Blue Heaven and the GLP: Was a potential war brewing?[/b] [b]by Roger Smith[/b] Recently I was talking to a source in the Ministry of Intelligence that was a part of Department 5600, the Blue Heaven government's covert actions unit that is, in reality, controlled by the Minister of Defense. We were talking about the current instability and North America and how it was so interesting that the number of states that destabilized the region were increasing, instead of it just being the GLP. He then asked if it was OK to email me something, I agreed. The email he sent me had in it a file that was dated during Blue Heaven's civil war and authorized "any and all covert actions against the nation of the GLP." I found this highly interesting and as I read further, it became clear to me that the government of Blue Heaven [i]wanted[/i] a war with the GLP. According to the document, the government of Blue Heaven sent in Operators from Department 5600 so that they could purposely be caught and a war would be started with the GLP. The document states that the current generals and government officials were planning on invading the GLP and enlisting the help of the United States and the Hakkarian Empire." It even states that government may have planned on contacting Disparu and J Andres to also aid them in their war. The main objective of the war was "to make sure that Blue Heaven would never again be threatened by an aggressive nation." There was also a hint of possible imperialism, saying that "if the GLP is conquered, they shall not be absorbed into Blue Heaven, but shall be a protectorate in name only, as the tar sands in Alberta can help contribute to national energy security." This is quite disturbing. to see that my nation's leaders, who use to be in power, would be willing to risk everything in war with the GLP as to help create a "stable security situation for Blue Heaven." That the regime would purposefully create a war which we would most likely lose, seeing as how we barely won the intial war with the GLP and the counteroffensive that was launched was disastrous, with us having to eventually pull out. [i][b]Roger Smith[/b] is the current Prime Minister of Blue Heaven and a member of its Conservative Party.[/i] [/font] Edited February 25, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Interview with Arthur Sinclair Jr.[/b] [b] [/b] [b]by Elizabeth Kinnes[/b] [b] [/b] [b] [/b] EK: Hello Mr. Sinclair Jr. My name is EK, a research associate of the Global Research Center. How are you? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: I'm doing fine Ms. EK. EK: Currently the Empire of PI is engaging in combat with US forces, exactly why has this occurred? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: The government of the United States has grown weak and ineffective. They are not fulfilling the needs of their people. The government of the Empire decided to take action to improve the lives of our brothers living both to the north and south of our borders. EK: And how is bombing and creating chaos in a nation helping people? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Short term disruption is sometimes needed to create long term stability. By removing the weak and ineffective leadership from these lands, we are laying the groundwork to a stable, prosperous future for the North American east coast. Also, I should note that we have not bombed civilians or civilian targets. We have taken every reasonable precaution to minimize civilian casualties. EK: According to the Emperor, the PI's "brethen to the south" were crying out for help. Where did the PI government get this information? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Eyewitness accounts of events occurring in the United States' east coast states, news reports, and interviews with Imperial citizens who had visited the United States on business or had visited family. EK: Was there any way for these eyewitness accounts and new reports to actually be verified? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Multiple reports from different sources all pointing to the same conclusion usually verify themselves. Also, the news organizations doing the reporting were credible and the eyewitnesses had no reason to lie. EK: So, these reports went unverified? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: The reports verified themselves by coming from multiple places and multiple sources, all pointing to the same conclusion. Our forces in the field have also verified these reports as we have advanced south and north. EK: Were there any diplomatic meetings between your nation and the nations of J Andres or the ISA at least a 3 months prior to or at anytime leading up to the invasion of the US? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: There were no diplomatic meetings between the Maritime Republic, the Imperial States, and the Empire prior to the invasion of the United States. EK: Why do you think they joined in on the invasion? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: You would have to ask them about that. EK: Ok. Why do you think that so many North American nations are being silent on this war? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: You would have to ask them. I can't speculate on their motives. EK: Internally, are there any people in your nation who oppose the invasion? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: I'm sure there are some civilians who oppose the invasion, but I would guess they are a small minority. No member of the government has expressed displeasure. EK: What do you say to accusations that your nation's war with the US is imperial? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Do you mean accusations that the war is imperialism? EK: Yes. Arthur Sinclair Jr.: I would say those people need to look up the definition of imperialism. We aren't acquiring colonies or dependencies, nor do we consider ourselves a foreign power to the people of the United States. We consider them brothers. EK: Yet didn't your own Emperor say that there"may be calls that this is an imperialistic move"? If it has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism, then why even mention it? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Because there are some world leaders who are not as educated on actual terms such as "imperialism" as they should be. EK: Was diplomacy at all first tried before invading the United States? Even, though there would be a low chance that the government would hand over its lands to your nation. Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Before the invasion? No. Diplomacy was attempted simultaneously with the invasion to avoid as much bloodshed as possible. EK: Couldn't the US government have been allowed to have a period of greater than 24 hours to give serious thought to the situation they found themselves in? It could seem like you gave the Americans such a short time as you knew that they were most likely not going to have thought out a well-planned answer and wanted to quicken the pace of the invasion. Arthur Sinclair Jr.: If we had given them any warning, they could have started preparations for an invasion, which would have resulted in the deaths of more Imperial troops and more civilians. There was no reason to put our troops and civilians in harm's way. EK: What is your view on J Andres breaking its MDP with the United States and invading them? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: What the Maritime Republic does with its foreign affairs policy is their business and theirs alone. EK: What role do you see the PI playing in North America and on the greater global stage in the forseeable future? Arthur Sinclair Jr.: I see the Empire being a major stabilizing force in North America forward in the future. We will worry about our place in the world later as the world continues to shape itself. EK: It has been very nice talking with you Mr. Sinclair. Hopefully, I or one of our research associates will be able to interview you again. Arthur Sinclair Jr.: Pleasure. [i][b]Elizabeth Kinnes[/b] is a Research Associate and is currently an undergraduate at the University of York[/i] [/font] Edited February 25, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) nvm Edited October 23, 2010 by Fizzydog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][color="#5d5d5d"][size="2"][b]Imperialism's main problem: It's fall[/b] [b] [/b][/size][/color][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][color="#5d5d5d"][size="2"][b]by EK [/b] [/size][/color][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][color="#5d5d5d"][size="2"]For centuries, the world has witnessed the rise and fall of empires all over the world. All of them, for the most part, ended up being based on military power and going around and imposing their rule upon others (as well as engaging in genocidal acts and exploiting the native population, at least during the 18th-20th centuries). While the empires were still in their prime, in many cases, there was, at most, a time of intellectual enlightenment or at least relative peace as well as problems that may have occurred had an empire not been there. In the end, though, the main problem with imperialism is not its rise, but is fall. A prime example is India, when the British Empire was forced to retreat from there in the late 1940s. Before the British left, they partitioned India. In splitting up India, the nation of Pakistan was created out of what was formerly Indian territory. The borders for India and Pakistan were "hurriedly drawn up by a British lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe, who had little knowledge of Indian conditions and with the use of out-of-date maps and census materials."[1] Due to this major error by Mr. Radcliffe it resulted in the mass slaughter of civilians due to ethnic and religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims. Also, another problem that led to a large loss of life was the Kashmir situation. At their independence, both Pakistan and India claimed the Kashmir region as their own. The British never solved this dispute, due to their wanting to quickly get out of the region. Due to both nations claiming the region, they went to war in 1947, when Pakistan sent military personnel into the region. The result was that "Pakistan controlled 'Azad' (Free) Kashmir and the adjacent Northern Areas, while India remained in control of two-thirds of the former princely state."[2] The war ended with the signing of the Karachi Agreement which formally established a cease fire line based on the above boundaries. India and Pakistan ended up having three more wars over the Kashmir region, with each nation claiming victory. Only when the British Empire fell did these long seated problems come to the fore. This has not only happened with the British Empire, but more famously with the Roman Empire, whos fall plunged western Europe into the Dark Ages for centuries. This happens when all empires fall, even more problems arise, which is why empires should never be created in the first place. Empires are not eternal and when they fall, everyone suffers. [/size][/color][/font] [font="Times New Roman"] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"] [/font] [font="Times New Roman"][color="#5d5d5d"][size="2"] [b]Endnotes[/b] [/size][/color][/font] [font="Times New Roman"][color="#5d5d5d"][size="2"]1: [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...on1947_01.shtml[/url] 2: [url="http://beta.stimson.org/southasia/?SN=SA2001112045"]http://beta.stimson....SN=SA2001112045[/url] [/size][/color][/font][font="Times New Roman"][i][b]EK[/b] is a Research Associate and is currently an undergraduate at the University of York[/i][/font] Edited February 25, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted October 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]War coming to Europe?[/b] [b]by DDB[/b] For as long as anyone has known, Europe has had on and off love affairs with war. At many points in it history, Europe was plagued by war, at others, it was a peaceful, stable continent. Recently, several European nations, specifically, England, the Athenian Federation, Germanic Union, Scottish Republic and the United Slavic Republics, have issued a threat to the government of Ireland. Could war be coming to Europe? In the joint announcement by the above-mentioned nations, it stated that Ireland was to "release of all prisoners of war back to J Andres" and " make an apology for holding the prisoners of war unjustly."[1] The coalition gave Ireland a mere 24 hours to comply and if they did not then the coalition would "consider alternative action."[2] This has to do with the Kingdom of Ireland rebelling against J Andres imperial rule and after the war, shipped J Andres troops back to Ireland. There are many nations making comments that Ireland is wrong to hold J Andres POWs, yet they are entirely wrong as after the J Andres-Ireland war, peace talks [i]never[/i] occurred, not even a peace treaty draft was bought up, thus for all intents and purposes, J Andres and Ireland are still officially at war. Ireland has every right to keep J Andres POWs. Ireland should be quite weary though, as they very well may be invaded by a coalition of forces. Currently, several thousand troops are being mobilized in England, as well as the RAF has upped their air patrols, which they are doing over the Irish sea. As well as German military forces and those from the Athenian Federation are moving into England as well. The Empire of Pravous Ingruo has even gotten involved, supporting their imperialist allies by giving "supplies to the European countries in their fight against the Kingdom of Ireland" and saying that they will not send any military personnel "unless it is requested." It is noteworthy that so many European nations are against Ireland and ready to free J Andres POWs and yet there is absolutely not the tiniest bit of evidence that the POWs are being mistreated in any way, shape or form. Yet these nations are willing to go to war and send their brave men and women in uniform to die over a matter that does not even concern them. They may not know it, but what they are doing is supporting J Andres imperialism. Currently, almost all of Ireland's immediate neighbors are against it, one can only pray that someone with sense comes in to help solve the situation. [b]Endnotes[/b] 1: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93969&view=findpost&p=2494640 2: Ibid [/font] Edited January 19, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Once again the Global Research Institute proves its knowledge is pedantic at best and reflects an extremely biased view of the world in an attempt to mask its complete lack of insight. As one of those who has actual contacts with the high level officials of both the actual anti-Imperialists of Europe and the J. Andrean Government allow me to enlighten you. The Global Research Institute should have known that the Irish are a highly opportunist power. Ireland was essentially an offshoot of the Louisiana Empire, who were the ideological driving force to invade the British Isles. The Irish are not victims of Imperialism but merely those trying to co-opt anti-Imperial forces which were truly represented by the anti-Imperial Forces lead by France and Athens who were closing the noose around the cajun neck. After the fall of Louisiana, it was in fact true that the J. Andreans were ready to withdraw. It was in fact the Irish who war mongered and sought a military conflict with the J. Andreans. This caused disgust among Martens the single most prolific pan-European Patriot and a man who has an unimpeachable record in defending European sovereignty. The Irish have chosen to continue the war when beyond a shadow of a doubt it is proven that the J. Andreans have no intention of returning to the British Isles. The other powers of the British Isles clearly support this belief. The J. Andreans have not called in their global treaties which would bring in powerful allies. This is not the behavior of a power seeking re-conquest. I suggest you check your facts if you wish to have any bit of credibility before engaging in slander. I also suggest you fire whomever you hire to inform you about J. Andres and its intentions, clearly they have something up their rear. - A Letter from Dr. Mao Fucao, Professor of International Relations at Peking University and President and CEO of Mao and Partners Global Security Management LLC, Professor Mao served as a Foreign Service Officer in Germany for the USC before starting GSM and acting as a paid consultant for the Chinese, J. Andrean, Athenian, and Slavic Governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted November 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Interview with General Varma, Commander of the Royal Cochin Defense Force by [/b][/font][font="Times New Roman"][b]Elizabeth Kinnes[/b][/font][font="Times New Roman"] EK: Hello General Varma, my name is Elizabeth Kinnes. I'm a research associate from Global Research. How are you today? General Varma: I am good, Thank you, Ms. Kinnes EK: I'm here to talk about the history of the Cochin military. Let's begin when the state was first formed. How was the military organized? General Varma: The Kingdom of Cochin as a historical entity is more than 900 years old, but the Kingdom in its present form has been in existence for around 18 years. During the course of its existence there has been several evolutions in the structure of Royal Cochin Defense Forces. Following the senior services of Royal Cochin Army and Royal Cochin Air Force, Royal Cochin Navy came into existence, the Royal Cochin Special Forces, the Border Guards and the Royal Cochin Coast Guards are the entities that came in subsequent evolutions. Our various reserve formations have evolved under various time periods due to various political considerations EK: At the beginning of the Kingdom, besides the need for the country to defend itself, was there any other factor or factors that played into the creation of the RCDF? General Varma: The Kingdom of Cochin came into prominence shortly after the fall of a pan Asiatic empire, the Altin Urda. Our arrival onto global stage was also concurrent with increased threats from Altin Urdan rebels towards our national stability. The support offered by other regional powers like Beijing Corporation and Dragonisia helped a lot in mitigating the threats. The Royal Cochin Army had been deployed quite very early on in deterring such insurgencies, which provided vital experience EK: What was the RCDF's first major military campaign? General Varma: The first major military campaign of Royal Cochin Defense Forces had been the Khmer War, when assassination of our diplomatic delegation caused commencement of war against the Khmer Empire. This was when Cochin had been a part of Dragon Empire. It had mostly been of amphibious nature, with two Marine Divisions supported by a multi carrier naval task force attacking along multiple beacheads. The principal combat theater had been in the city of Hue which was attacked by both the V and VI Marine Divisions as part of Marine Task Forces 21 and 22. The rapid encirclement and heavy engagement delivered a swift victory which accelerated the fall of Khmer Empire. The Khmer War validated our expertise in amphibious warfare, urban combat and combat logistics. The experiences derived in joint services combat operations had also been invaluable. EK: During this time, did the government produce the weapons that the military made? General Varma: Yes, during these periods most of our military hardware had been state produced, primarily the Cochin State Armory and Cochin Shipyards with the principal domestic corporates being Gosree Aeronautics Limited and Metalstorm Inc. EK: Why exactly did the Cochin military rely on some defense companies? General Varma: It had been principally an issue of defense self sufficience and the lack of international defense trade offers being made to the Kingdom. We had been a comparatively new nation into international arena and us being a part of the Dragon Empire may have counted against much cooperation being accorded to us in realm of defense sales. EK: What was the next war that the Koc was in? General Varma: The next conflict that the Kingdom had been involved in was the First Pacific War in support of Greater Pacifica against the First Tahoe Republic. The Kingdom had sent a substantial force as part of our treaty commitments to assist Greater Pacifica in liberating the Hawaiian Islands from Tahoe. EK: Before this war, were there any major changes in the RCDF and if so, what caused them? General Varma: The Royal Cochin Defense Forces has been involved in very few shooting wars, to tell the truth. However we have always been a nation under threat from various quarters. This requirement to be at constant alertness has caused several changes to be made in the evolution of Royal Cochin Defense Forces. The cold war between the First People's Republic of China caused the establishment of the Border Guards, a dedicated defense force for the patrol and protection of our territorial borders EK: Were there any doctrines that were established from the beginning of the country to the war with the first Tahoe Republic? General Varma: The annexation of India and the acquisition of the vast coastline of Indian Subcontinent caused the establishment of Royal Cochin Coast Guard. Even apart from them, there has been several reorganizations within the structure of RCDF. One of the earliest doctrines of the Kingdom has been our National Defense Doctrine As part of which we have the Nuclear Defense Doctrine, Scorched Earth Policy and the Freedom of the Seas doctrine EK: Is it possible I could be told what the National Defense Doctrine entailed? General Varma: The National Defense Doctrine listed the various casus belli as recognized by the Kingdom, namely offensive military action against any of our sovereign territories, military assets, diplomatic personnel, cabinet officials, Flag officers of military or any member of Cochin Royal Family and any act of blockade or espionage or attack against vital industrial assets. EK: After the war with the First Tahoe Republic, was the military increased and if so, by how much? General Varma: The military expansion of the Kingdom has not followed success or failure in any conflicts, but it is a product of constant appraisal of our national defense requirements and capabilities. Royal Cochin Defense Forces has annual audits and reviews conducted to determine increase or decrease in our strengths commissurate with annual changes in national capacity. EK: How much do factors such as internal stability, foreign policy, regional stability and the economy play into the adjustment of forces? General Varma: One of the largest Reductions in Force came about around 8 years ago with the secession of our Kazakhstani Provinces, a reduction in force brought on by loss of industrial capacity and population reserves. The loss of strength from that apex of 750,000 has never been breached so far, The Kingdom has been thankfully blessed with tremendous internal stability due to our Meritocratic Monarchical system and the efficiency of the Cochin Civil Service and Royal Cochin Police Forces. Internal stability does not play much role in the capabilities of RCDF, however foreign policy, regional stability and economy are vital factors Regional Instability and clear and present threats to national security cause doctrinal appraisal of RCDF is not its numerical strengths. Numerical strength of RCDF is determined solely by the economy of the nation. EK: Thus, if the economy is growing, there will be a growth in the RCDF? General Varma: Of course if there is a growth in Cochin's economy, there would be growth in RCDF, numerically. EK: Currently, is the UFE playing a major factor in the defense policies that the Kingdom makes? General Varma: The United Federation of the East plays a very definite factor in the current defense policies of the Kingdom. Despite the Non Aggression Pact in existence between our nations, the diplomatic history between our nations is replete with mutual mistrust and outright hostility. As a nation with Pan Sinic expansionist tendencies, we rightly have the need to be alert regarding UFE. EK: Looking into the future, do you think that conflict between the Kingdom and the UFE is possible? General Varma: Ms. EK, there are several contingencies that the Royal Cochin Defense Forces prepares for, from a war with Idaho to a war with the rest of the world, a war with UFE is one of the contingencies we prepare for. As regards the probability of such a war breaking out, I would argue to the contrary, especially in light of the recent cooling down of regional volatilities. EK: So, in a way, you are like the original United States, which was well known to have contingency plans for all current possible conflicts as well as you are planning for future conflicts General Varma: Definitely. Doctrine and tactic wise we are one of the world's foremost militaries, and as the defenders of a state with no shortage of enemies and possessor of valuable assets begeting a lot of envy, yes, Royal Cochin Defense Forces believes in being ready for all eventualities. Defense of the realm, is something that we can not afford to compromise upon. EK: Who exactly, do you see as enemies? General Varma: Currently the Kingdom does not perveive any clear and present enemies. EK: What is the relationship between the Minister of Defense, the military , the King of Cochin and the Parliament? General Varma: There is no Minister of Defense per se, as Commander of Royal Cochin Defense Forces, I am the Cabinet ranked official answering for defense related issues. There is no Parliament in our monarchy, instead we have a Durbar, aka Cabinet of Ministers who are appointed by the King according to their proven proficiency in the portfolio assigned to them. Ultimately, the Kingdom is a Meritocratic Monarchy. As a loyal subject of the Crown, I am beholden to him. Of course it helps that the current King of Cochin is also by relation a nephew of mine. EK: What, if any, influence do defense companies have on what the military does? General Varma: Some defense companies do have quite a lot of interaction with Royal Cochin Defense Forces, however they are primarily limited to the procurement side. Quarter Master Command is in charge of all defense procurement and the defense companies mainly liaise through the Defense Procurement Directorate, the Defense Industries Consortium and other divisions of QMC. As far as Quarter Master Command is concerned, it interacts with the defense companies on a customer-client basis or equal partners basis. At the end of the day, it is the combat units that determine what they need and QMC works to procure the same for them. The defense companies do not dictate what RCDF must use. EK: Please describe the relationship between yourself and the King of Cochin, if you would. General Varma: We are both members of the Cochin Royal Family and Vikram Kerala Varma, the current King of Cochin is the son of a distant relative of mine. During his service in Royal Cochin Army and then Royal Cochin Special Forces we had quite some professional interactions and then of course since his service as Crown Prince of the Kingdom, there had been regular interactions between us. Considering our family and professional ties, we could be described as being close. EK: And does this closeness effect the relationship between the RCDF and the decrees that the King makes concerning the RCDF? General Varma: The personal relationships between me and the King has no reflection on our professional relationship. That would be going against the very ethos of our meritocratic system. The King always issues policies through sound judgment and thorough appraisal of ground realities regarding the issues. Even though I am the Commander of RCDF, the King as per his duties as the Supreme Commander has to ensure that I do my work properly too. EK: Currently, how is the RCDF composed? General Varma: The Royal Cochin Army is composed of 4 Shock Army Divisions, 9 Armored Cavalry Regiments, 8 Mechanized Divisions, 6 Airborne Divisions, 6 Marine Divisions and 14 Infantry Regiments. The Royal Cochin Air Force is composed of 22 fighter regiments, 10 bomber squadrons and 6 Special Warfare Squadrons. Royal Cochin Navy is composed of 6 Aircraft carriers, 7 destroyers, 6 frigates, 7 cruisers, 8 battleships, 8 corvettes, 8 Helicopter carriers and 24 submarines The Border Guard is composed of nearlt 50 Border Guard Brigades which are effectively infantry reinforced heavy artillery Brigades covering the entire terrestrial frontier of the nation. EK: In the future, how do you think that the RCDF is going to be composed? General Varma: The future reorganization of Royal Cochin Defense Forces would have to depend on the changes to our defensive posture and national security requirements. As you may know just recently we relinquished our territory in Antarctica. This would cause further reorganization of our assets for equitable distribution. EK: It was good interviewing you General Varma General Varma: You too, Ms. Kinnes. Take Care [/font][font="Times New Roman"][i][b]Elizabeth Kinnes[/b] is a Research Associate and is currently an undergraduate at the University of York[/i][/font] Edited February 25, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 [b]Treatise on the advantages to Empire by The Holy American University at Foundation[/b] From the dawn of times states have exhibited an eventual tendency towards the autocratic, the embodiment of the state and delegation of responsibilities to an absolute ruler through the approval of the people and more importantly the portion of the population which holds the reigns of power. Through a process of delegation this sovereign grants rights and responsibilities in descending order from National to Sectional to Regional. Some nations have even gone so far as to impose strict local rule through the use of heavy-handed representatives. It is not mere coincidence that those states in particular do not last. A proper Empire is courteous to its' citizens through all actions. The absolute power of the sovereign provides a continuance of government and legitimacy which Democratic governments with elected officials find nigh-on impossible to replicate unless becoming, in effect, Empires in their own right. Term limits and the natural swings in public opinion conspire to rob Democratic nations of experienced political leadership. Indeed one can see that come election time the will of politicians to actually do anything is severely curtailed, likely on the premise that unless an action increases their popularity it won't come to pass. [b]Regardless[/b] of the well-being of the nation as a whole. Imperialism for the sake of Imperialism is always a losing proposition. Successful Empires only move to claim additional territory when most, or all, of the following conditions have been met. - The mainland is secure, content, and stable. - Annexing the territory is necessary for national security. - Maintaining standards of living equivalent to other Imperial citizens is possible. - Maintaining military security is possible. - The resources to be found are significant. - The local populace is at least indifferent to your claims, preferably in favor of them. - The world will see your move as legitimate. Under these conditions we can see that the vast majority of Empires which have risen and fallen have all done so by grossly breaking the Course of Empire, and so by ignoring their principles effectively destroyed themselves. Pure circumstance and malicious designs on the part of other Empires cannot be ignored; however should a nation be acting in a manner responsible to its' citizenry, the world community will see that an invasion is horrific and stop it, as per the Diberian Intervention which ended the Rainforest Wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted November 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Interview with Empress Akhatova of the Athenian Federation and Stephen Blackburn of England by DDB[/b] DDB: Hello Empress Akhatova. My name is DDB, Director of the Global Research Center. How are you today? Empress Akhatova: I am very well, how about you? DDB: I am doing good as well. Currently, the Athenian Federation, England, Scotland, the Germanic Union and the USR are currently invading Ireland. Exactly what is the reasoning behind this? Empress Akhatova: Well I have to make a correction there. At this point only Athens, England and Scotland have undertaken military action As for our motivations, the Irish have declared war upon J Andres when they were still occupying European land, as this happened we had almost concluded negotiations for a peaceful withdrawal. At that point Athens would have let it rest. However instead of letting the J Andreans withdraw the Irish captured their forces and forced the J Andreans to stop other conflicts in turn for their citizens. This is something we could not agree to. DDB: Who exactly was involved in the negotiations for the peaceful withdrawal? Empress Akhatova: The peaceful withdrawal before France, Ireland and Slavorussia attacked were conducted between myself, the J Andreans and the United Federation of the East as a mediator. The French were informed of this impending peace before the attack. ([i]Stephen Blackburn of England comes into the room and sits down at the table)[/i] DDB: Hello Stephen Blackburn. Glad that you could join us. Stephen Blackburn: Thank you DDB, glad to be here. DDB: The Empress and I were just talking about the Ireland situation. Do either of you have any detailed information about what led up to the J Andres-Ireland war initially? Empress Akhatova: The occupation of European land by American forces. DDB: This led to an uprising in Ireland to free themselves of imperialist yoke, am I correct? Stephen Blackburn: The war against J Andres was fueled by the illegal colonisation by American states. Empress Akhatova: False. Stephen Blackburn: No, Empress Akhatova: Ireland was given independence in a plebiscite at the fall of the Louisianan state. Stephen Blackburn: Ireland freed it self from Louisiana. DDB: Did J Andres get involved to help its ally retain its colonies? Empress Akhatova: No. Only the Portuguese base which was handed over. DDB: Then how did this situation between J Andres and Ireland start? Empress Akhatova: For the in depth situation you would need the Irish government but from our point of view it was the occupation of European land by Americans. However it developed into a war of morals which would require European nations to police the American continents. DDB: How so? What exactly did the Irish government demand as to end the J Andres-Ireland war? Empress Akhatova: The J Andres to peace out from their American front against the USA. DDB: And what interests did the Irish have in seeing the J Andres government end their conflict with the Americans? Stephen Blackburn: In my opinion, and not of my Governments, I would say they had no interests specific to Ireland itself. Empress Akhatova: I would love to know myself. Stephen Blackburn: Other than of course, the noble cause of being responsible for ending the North American wars. Empress Akhatova: The lack of a good reason is one that convinced my government to make this move. DDB: I see and since the J Andres government would not comply with Irish demands, the Irish decided to keep J Andres POWs? Empress Akhatova: Actually the Irish took the J Andrean citizens prisoner after the peace talks when they were withdrawing. DDB: In these peace talks was even an armistice bought up? Stephen Blackburn: Ireland continued firing on surrendered J Andrean shipping as they fled back to America. Their POW's are would have been survivors from the ships they sunk. DDB: Disturbing. Empress Akhatova: In these peace talks the J Andreans offered a full withdrawal at a white peace with Ireland only gaining what they wanted in their opening statement for the war. DDB: Did the Irish accept? Empress Akhatova: No the Irish refused and then continued a war that should have ended right there and then. Stephen Blackburn: Obviously not. DDB: Even more disturbing. Empress Akhatova: Indeed. Stephen Blackburn: Do you mind If I smoke? DDB: I see that the AF, England and Scotland are undertaking military action against Ireland. Was diplomacy used before military force was considered? No Mr. Blackburn, I do not mind your smoking at all. Stephen Blackburn: Yes it was, it was made clear in the Coaltion ultimatum. Empress Akhatova: Well as you have noted yourself we have made an offer. Stephen Blackburn: However, I must say, J Andres is also to blame for this war. Empress Akhatova: And between the date it was issued and the DoW followed the Irish had the chance to approach us, however they decided to threaten the coalition with nuclear force Stephen Blackburn: J Andres made no attempt at asking the Irish to negotiate the terms of peace, just as the Irish rejected it. Neither Ireland or J Andres made attempts to prevent this war, and as the Empress just stated, Ireland has threatened nuclear attacks on Coalition Nations. DDB: What exactly is the overall objective of this war with Ireland, is it regime change, the freeing of J Andres POWs, or what? Empress Akhatova: A regime change and the freeing of J Andrean prisoners of war yes. Terms will be proportional to the conduct of the Irish in war DDB: Will you force reparations for the entire war upon the new Irish government that is formed? Empress Akhatova: As said that depends on the conduct of Irish forces and diplomats. In addition no terms will be provided as long as a single Irish soldier continues to fight or civilian for that matter. DDB: Well, I have been quite enlightened today. It has been good talking to you Empress and you to, Mr. Blackburn. Empress Akhatova: This conversation was enlightening indeed. Thank you for hearing us. Stephen Blackburn: Quite, thank you for having us today. [/font] Edited November 17, 2010 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1288483013' post='2497595'] Once again the Global Research Institute proves its knowledge is pedantic at best and reflects an extremely biased view of the world in an attempt to mask its complete lack of insight. As one of those who has actual contacts with the high level officials of both the actual anti-Imperialists of Europe and the J. Andrean Government allow me to enlighten you. The Global Research Institute should have known that the Irish are a highly opportunist power. Ireland was essentially an offshoot of the Louisiana Empire, who were the ideological driving force to invade the British Isles. The Irish are not victims of Imperialism but merely those trying to co-opt anti-Imperial forces which were truly represented by the anti-Imperial Forces lead by France and Athens who were closing the noose around the cajun neck. After the fall of Louisiana, it was in fact true that the J. Andreans were ready to withdraw. It was in fact the Irish who war mongered and sought a military conflict with the J. Andreans. This caused disgust among Martens the single most prolific pan-European Patriot and a man who has an unimpeachable record in defending European sovereignty. The Irish have chosen to continue the war when beyond a shadow of a doubt it is proven that the J. Andreans have no intention of returning to the British Isles. The other powers of the British Isles clearly support this belief. The J. Andreans have not called in their global treaties which would bring in powerful allies. This is not the behavior of a power seeking re-conquest. I suggest you check your facts if you wish to have any bit of credibility before engaging in slander. I also suggest you fire whomever you hire to inform you about J. Andres and its intentions, clearly they have something up their rear. - A Letter from Dr. Mao Fucao, Professor of International Relations at Peking University and President and CEO of Mao and Partners Global Security Management LLC, Professor Mao served as a Foreign Service Officer in Germany for the USC before starting GSM and acting as a paid consultant for the Chinese, J. Andrean, Athenian, and Slavic Governments. [/quote] it should be noted that it was not the Irish who sought the conflict...but the French. Should any nation be called warmongering from the war that liberated Europe, they are the first nation one should look at. or rather they would be if that government was still in power. ~note from Professor Harley, of Brisbane University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 "You are wrong because you ignore the heart of the issue. The critique is not removing the J. Andres from the continent but rather who started and has continued the war. While France and Ireland are both responsible for the first part, it is Ireland which continued to attack when J. Andres was peacefully withdrawing and it is Ireland which had continued to prosecute the war." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 [b]Whose Fault Is This? Ireland.[/b] [i]J. Thomas Christopher, Professor of Harvard University, believes in so.[/i] In his dissertation, J. Thomas Christopher, a prominent Professor of History in Harvard University, argues that the fault for prolonging, if not launching the war, lies in the Kingdom of Ireland. He argues that for some time following the successful takeover of England and Scotland in 2030-1, the European Continent did little to rectify the situation. Save for a diplomatic protest from the Athenian Federation and other European nations, the J Andrean position in Europe was surprisingly accepted by the European community. That is, until France - a former ally of J Andres - chose to launch a campaign against J Andrean England and Scotland in conjunction with the Kingdom of Ireland, formed in the aftermath of the collapse of the Louisiana empire. The reasons for this 'anti-colonialist' war was not because of European displeasure at the J Andrean position in Europe, but simply because J Andres attacked the United States of America in a war that was entirely outside of Europe's business. By launching an invasion of the British Isles, the French and its allies consciously chose to link it to an American war in an American continent in a hemisphere that was right on the other side of the world. However, as much as France is blamed for starting the war, another nation has been responsible for launching the crisis that led to the current war taking place in Europe: the Kingdom of Ireland. It has been commonly accepted that Ireland had provoked the crisis by kidnapping hundreds of thousands of J Andrean troops as prisoners of war. However, Christopher argues that the Irish proceeded to do this despite the fact that J Andres offered to withdraw from Europe peacefully. J Andres made no demands that infringed upon any nation's sovereignty or independence. They made no demands that stipulated that European nation pay indemnities. In short, they attached no strings in their offer for a peaceful withdrawal from Europe. The Irish rejected such an offer and imposed their own terms, ones that they dictated. The Irish basically tried to intervene in the North American war by demanding that J Andres cease its operations against the United States. Why did they demand this? Was their independence at stake in North America? Was the United States absolutely vital to Ireland's survival? Why would Ireland, an European nation, want J Andres, an American nation, to cease its action against the United States, another American nation, in a war that was taking place on the other side of the world? The answer is simple: the Irish were irrational. The only rational explanation that can be derived from all this is that Ireland did not want to let J Andres off easily. They constantly sought for trouble, to look for something that would provide some rationale to their actions. Because of their uncompromising stance, the Irish forced the J Andreans into a position that they had no choice but to withdraw their troops from Europe - and that led to the imprisonment of J Andrean soldiers. Because of Ireland, whose leaders' personas are surprisingly similiar to the former Louisiana's leaders (perhaps a result of the Louisiana takeover of Ireland and Wales?), these troops are now rotting in prisons or concentration camps or some other place across Ireland. Yes, the Irish have claimed that the J Andrean troops are being treated well, but how do we truly know of this? As of right now, we can only accept their words at face value. For all we know, the prisoners-of-war are probably being tortured and killed in the secrecy of Irish prisons in the same fashion the Federated States of America did to its own citizens in the years before 2025. The irony of this is, that, the Irish attacked the J Andreans first, along with France and other nations, in their bid to throw them out of Europe. The Irish attacked the J Andrean first, but they want J Andres to begin negiotations first. In essential, they want J Andres to begin negiotations for a war that J Andres never provoked. In this, Ireland is holding the J Andrean prisoners-of-war hostage to try to force J Andres to bend to their will. Ireland wanted J Andres out of Europe, correct? Then why are they keeping J Andrean troops - the source of European contrition - there? That is like telling a person to get out of the house, only to barricade the front door from the inside before that person could leave. This simply has no rationality whatsover. Because of their irrational actions, as well as their resolute refusal to release the prisoners-of-wars or even to begin negiotations, the Irish have singlehandedly become responsible for starting what has the potential to become one of the most devastating wars in history. In conclusion, Ireland attacked J Andres to force it out of Europe, only to seize hundreds of thousands of troops and hold them hostage. The Irish wanted the J Andreans out of Europe, and still they kept the prisoners-of-war in Europe. In a way, the mere presence of J Andreans - albeit in concentration camps across Ireland - shows, in a way, that J Andres is still in Europe and illustrates clearly to the world the hypocrisy of Ireland's actions. Because of all that, Ireland incurred the wrath of Europe and plunged the Continent in a war that could potentially devastate the world. If they had simply released the prisoners-of-war back home - all they had to do was unlock the gates and let the J Andreans go home - then the war would not have happened. Millions of people in Europe and indeed the world would not have to be threatened with nuclear extinction. To add insult to injury, Ireland attempted to portray itself as a victim when in fact they were the aggressors. J Andres was perfectly willing to leave Europe peacefully, with no strings attached, and yet Ireland directly endangered the lives of millions of Europeans, along with the J Andrean prisoners-of-war, simply because they did not want to let J Andres leave Europe easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 [i]This is a speech that was originally published in China by Chairman Jia:[/i] [color=#5D5D5D][font=tahoma, arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2][size=2]In Defense of Revolutionary People’s War: [i]A Letter from Chairman Jia to the Peoples of the United Federation of the East[/i] Much has been made about Imperialism these days, but few look at what Imperialism is. What constitutes it and what constitutes its antithesis Anti-Imperialism. In fact outside of Zeonism there is no ideology today, which articulates a clear view of the world’s true Imperialist Menace and the role, which continues to play in it. This is surprising for all the cries of Imperialism in the world today. We see wars in North America, Europe, and even China’s own civil war characterized as Imperialist, but does anyone ask what this means? Zeonism acknowledges the permanence of class struggle as the foundation for the international system. Nations which are run by the exploitative classes: royalty, nobility, and bourgeois are beneficiaries of the status quo, and are quick to cry imperialism at a moments notice. But this ignores the fundamental truth, which is that they are the principle beneficiaries of the imperialist structure, which exists in the world today. They seek to characterize the emancipatory changes brought on by revolutionary struggle as imperialist, because the ruling classes know they cannot survive in their present form under a more equitable socialist system. Imperialism is the manifestation of class struggle in the global system. It is the manifestation of a ruling class’s desire to exploit value out of not just its own peoples but others as well. The natural tendency for Imperialism is to seek to colonize weak nations and divide strong nations so that sections can be colonized. This has been the constant theme of the 200 year war waged by the forces of Imperialism against the Chinese and South East Asian peoples. Its continued existence forms the basis for which the Zeon Party is necessary for the reemergence and continued existence of the Chinese Nation. It has been nearly two hundred years since the foreign merchants brought war and imperialism to China. While China was feudal at the time, it was basically a peaceful nation. China had gunpowder for centuries yet it was the Europeans who took this invention and molded it into truly destructive weapons. This was not because China lacked the technical expertise, China’s technology was superior to Europe’s. It is because China naturally seeks a harmonious society, whereas the West’s culture has been notably warlike for all but a short time after the Second World War. China’s contributions to the world were mostly peaceful and culturally productive. Because Europeans could not match Chinese goods in attractiveness, a massive imbalance of trade occurred. Europe was only advanced in military power, and China being a peaceful nation had little interest in purchasing these weapons. Europeans on the other hand desired fine Chinese silks and teas. As a result the merchants of Britain used addictive opium to extract wealth from China, and then subsequently used war to keep China’s government from curtailing this public health epidemic. It took nearly a century and China first discarding its ruling class before the country was able to stand up for itself and its people. We must never forget how it did this: military power through a Revolutionary People’s War. It was only through the barrel of a gun that the People’s Liberation Army was able to drive out foreign influences and make China strong again. At this point in history, after fighting an anti-imperialist war, China was called an imperialist aggressor. China was accused of expansionism for fighting back against imperialist invasions in South East Asia and Korea. This was as duplicitous double speak and it continues to this day. It goes to the heart of the issue in contemporary political speech: the hegemonic power of the prevailing imperialist narrative that purports the status quo is legitimate. This narrative is that the status quo powers should be free to continue to exploit, and that anti-imperialist forces which resist and mobilize force to counter imperialism are themselves imperialist. We of course know that this is the most heinous of lies. We are not fooled by such non-sense. It is important to recognize that the predecessors of the contemporary liberal imperialists carved up peaceful powers ranging from China to the Inca Empire. The idea of passive resistance is a cruel joke at best. Gradualist diplomacy and temporary compromise are not solutions. It is only when the revolutionary masses organize like they did in China’s Communist Revolution that we produce a counterweight which will best the Imperialist menace at its own game. After the collapse of the first People’s Republic after June 4th, China again fell under the grips of foreign imperial powers till the Francoist Revolution. It was only through a Second People’s War and the triumph of the Chinese Body Republic and equitable Meritocracy that the gains of this revolution were secure. The founding documents of Zeonism have given our critique of Francoism so we shan’t revisit it a second time, but after its collapse Imperialism reemerged with a vengeance for a final war on China. The Dragon Cult which amounted to a full scale war on China’s national identity, the faux People’s Republic, the division of China, and ethnic cleansing of Dongbei, all had their ideological and spiritual origins in the Century of Humiliation and subsequent imperialist wars to create a weak and divided China. History has shown that China is inherently peaceful, and that it is the imperialists who are aggressive against China. But the Imperialist narrative is one in which China is the aggressor for simply trying to exist as China. They portray China as a sleeping dragon which will shake the world, not because of China’s tremendous potential strength but because they assume a strong China has the same goals that [i]they have.[/i] This is the historical narrative and one repeated elsewhere in the world, one that necessitates Zeonism and its adherence to Revolutionary People’s War. Revolutionary People’s War to restore and preserve national unity is a reaction to Imperialism, and is by nature anti-Imperialistic. It does not seek to impose will on the Imperialist Country, but rather it seeks to deny such the Imperialist the ability to exploit others. Revolutionary People’s War is waged with class-consciousness; as a result it is quite different from wars of Imperial Aggression because it does not seek to exploit those it opposes. If Imperialists were defeated in every country there would be no People’s Liberation Army because the People’s Liberation Army only exists to defend against Imperialism. Whilst the Imperialist ideology cloaks exploitation in lofty rhetoric about democracy and high minded ideals, we have seen their true goal is to use other nations resources to get rich and try to divide and conquer the strong nations which present alternative models of existence such as China. This means that war under the system of Imperialism is perpetual and unending till absolute exploitation is achieved. However, the Revolutionary People’s War ends when the objectives of the revolution are met. Therefore war as an institution of the state can and should end when the revolutionary masses are victorious in class struggle. This is because the system of government will have shifted from an exploitative one to an emancipatory one. The world today is gripped with a false narrative about what is Imperialist and what is Anti-Imperialist. When asking which side is, we must always look at the world through the prism of class struggle manifested on a world stage. We have seen through history that under the ruling classes of Imperialism war is inevitable. It is the nature of the beast. Whether a nation is peaceful like China, or warlike like the European Nations, Imperialism will bring wars to every shore. It is through the principle of Revolutionary People’s War that nations can defend themselves against exploitation. All war is brutal and a revolutionary people’s war is certainly not the exception, but Imperialist Wars cannot end except when one group is completely exploiting all others, Revolutionary People’s Wars will end when the People are free. While both are inhumane in process, only one has a humane outcome: Revolutionary People’s War. Such a difference is incredibly important to the understanding of the international system. [/size][/size][/font][/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 4, 2010 Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1288657184' post='2499407'] "You are wrong because you ignore the heart of the issue. The critique is not removing the J. Andres from the continent but rather who started and has continued the war. While France and Ireland are both responsible for the first part, it is Ireland which continued to attack when J. Andres was peacefully withdrawing and it is Ireland which had continued to prosecute the war." [/quote] "Only because J Andres rejected the surrender terms. That's what a nation does when their opponent refuses to surrender...continues to pursue the war. Unless of course you have a different definition of warmongering?" "So really, whose fault is this? Je Andres, for being there in the first place, for rejecting the surrender terms, and then refusing to negotiate for its captive soldiers." Edited November 4, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted November 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) [font="Times New Roman"][b]Interview with Richard Dinsmore, leader of Ireland by DDB[/b] [b] [/b]DDB: Hello Your Majesty, My name is DDB, Director of the Center on Global Research. How are you doing today? Richard Dinsmore: I've been better DDB, my Kingdom is under attack from foreign forces even at this moment. DDB: And I deeply sympathize with the Irish civilians in their plight. In your opinion how did this situation between J Andres and Ireland start Richard Dinsmore: Well, to find the root of the problem one must look towards the imperialist attitudes of North America's great nations. From there, we see a growing trend of these nations expanding past their own continent and seeking to expand into nearby continents - this happened when Louisiana and J. Andres attacked the Irish, English and Scottish peoples By the grace of God, Louisiana was unable to maintain their stranglehold over the Irish and Welsh people and as that empire fell, the Kingdom of Ireland rose into a position where it could more effectively help those still downtrodden by American imperialism. It seems, that the French were also in a position to help and soon Operation 1066 was started. I assume you are familiar with Operation 1066, correct? DDB: Yes, I am, but still, tell me of things from the Irish point of view. Richard Dinsmore: Of course, as Operation 1066 proceeded, the J. Andres found themselves trapped on the British Isles and unable to do much from that point. The isles were being invaded from two sides with a third front about to be opened by the Finns Andres wanted peace, but on their own terms. The Kingdom gave the J. Andrean imperialists a set of terms that had to be fulfilled in order for the war to cease. Naturally, the Kingdom did not trust J. Andres to go away and never come back based on their word... after all, they failed to up hold their word when it came to a military treaty with the USA and instead turned on their ally and attacked... how could Ireland not think that the J. Andreans would simply just re-ground, re-arm and then hit Ireland and the British isles again? The J. Andreans refused Irish terms, and started moving ships around presumably withdrawing, as J. Andres is still at war with Ireland, the Irish military proceeded to attack the J. Andrean ships DDB: About Irish terms, what interests did the Irish have in seeing the J Andres government end their conflict with the USA? Richard Dinsmore: We wanted assurance that the J. Andreans weren't trying to pull a similar USA backstab. By withdrawing from all aggressive actions, we'd have insurance on the matter DDB: But they did not have an MDP with Ireland, correct? Richard Dinsmore: Of course not. DDB: There was no former military cooperation with the Irish? Richard Dinsmore: None at all, nut, the world has seen how the J. Andreans treat agreements between their nation and others. DDB: Then how would it be similar? The correlation between Irish interests and ending the war againist the US does not seem to correlate. It doesn't add up Richard Dinsmore: No, no, no. You don't understand. The USA war never was Ireland's problem - it was an American problem that should be solved by Americans. However, considering J. Andres recently backstabbed a treaty partner of theirs and destroying the agreement they had with that treaty partner, Ireland wanted insurance that J. Andres wouldn't do the same with a peace treaty. Therefore, what better way to show Ireland that they are truly looking for peace than to cease all aggressive actions across the world? DDB: Ah. Ok. In a previous interview, Empress Akhatova said of the peace talks between Ireland and J Andres "the J Andreans offered a full withdrawal at a white peace with Ireland only gaining what they wanted in their opening statement for the war." Why did you not accept? Richard Dinsmore: As I said previously, how was Ireland to know that J. Andres wouldn't just re-group and re-arm themselves and then come back and invade? They already just recently backstabbed a close ally, and since Ireland wasn't one of those, it seemed even more likely it would happen DDB: Currently, Ireland has just launched nuclear weapons at the nations that it is at war with. What do you make of those nations refusing to launch nuclear weapons in retaliation? Richard Dinsmore: No comment DDB: It was said in Ireland's most recent statement "If a truly neutral location is fielded then the Kingdom would be willing to meet." Is the Irish government currently seeking out this "truly neutral" location as to end the war? Richard Dinsmore: The Kingdom has matters of defense to attend to - if the opposition wishes to find a different location then that is on them. DDB: I know this may seem like a naive question. but it must be asked. How long do you think this war is going to last? Richard Dinsmore: Until Ireland is assured of its freedom DDB: What are some of the things that you think will have to be mandatory in any peace treaty that ends this war? Richard Dinsmore: No comment DDB: Alright. I wish you and the Irish people good luck in this war. Hopefully it will end soon. Richard Dinsmore: Indeed, peace is always preferable to war [/font] Edited November 17, 2010 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.