27
India, Indonesia, and Thailand: an explanation of administration reasoning
There has been a call for a clear, blunt statement about how this went down; Jack is currently occupied with organizational matters in the military, so I'll give you one instead of him. I happen to hold a fairly trivial position in the cabinet, but when the crisis arose, hmm, 5 days ago, he grabbed what officials were online and I was one of them. I was party to a lot of the negotiations, so I can give a moderately detailed explanation.
The day the "war games" balloon got floated, Jack had been approached by the Indonesians with a statement of their intent to annex Karnataka. This intent was not secret. This intent had been publicly stated in December. I'd been waiting unhappily for the Indonesians to broach this subject (or just up and declare war) since then. I expressed concern about it on the forums and to the Thai presidents; no external response came, even when the Presidents stated they tried to contact their Indonesian counterparts. Also noteworthy was that the Indians, who expressed a great deal of concern at Karnataka being annexed, failed to express the least bit of concern with the fact that we'd have to lose a region for that to happen. Despite the common security concern in this event, they stayed fixed on their own regions and never approached our government until the day before Indonesia declared war on them. But I digress.
The portion of the administration available met and tried to hash out what we could do to avoid being overrun. That Indonesia had chosen to speak with us rather than invade us at least gave us some small degree of choice in where to proceed. The cabinet members (minus Jack, who had RL obligations calling him away) entered into direct talks with the Indonesians. The Indonesians affirmed their intent to take Karnataka, and expressed a preference to traverse rather than conquer Southern Thailand. Our countries had, after all, always enjoyed good relations, and they'd rather keep it that way. The terms were agreed to: they'd pay for the war and the RW. They'd provide a Q3 DS to replace the Q3 Hospital in Southern Thailand. In exchange, we'd declare the war and retreat in the first battle. This would expedite their traversal to India (at the time still Pakistan), which would allow less time for Atlantis to interfere with their conquest. We would also not publicize the actual intent, but would give a stark, objective account of what was to happen without the explanation of why.
This last bit deserves some attention. Setting aside that Indonesia saved probably around 100g and hoped to maintain good relations with us (and not push us straight into the arms of Atlantis, all but assuring the necessity of our total conquest to ensure we weren't forever a dagger pointed at their breast) by having us declare war instead of invading us, what did they stand to gain from it? Time. If they had attacked us, their intent would have been plainly broadcast 48h before they started to invaded Tamil Nadu. Instead, they agreed that we would announce the "training exercise" the day before we declared war, in accordance with the Congressional traditions that are trying to be instilled. They agreed that we'd take 24h to discuss it in advance (using that time to get contracts signed). Then 24h for the vote to go through (using that time to flip Tamil Nadu back to India via RW). Then 24h before they could attack us since they were defender. Only then were they able to declare war on India. They in fact lost time; 72h instead of 48h. Did they make up for it in terms of stealth, though?
Surprisingly, nay, appallingly, yes. India failed to notice what was happening until 24-36h before war was declared on them... and even then, they had people arguing it could never happen right up until (and even AFTER) war was declared on them. This was frankly something of a shock to me. One thing that reassured me in agreeing to the arrangement with Indonesia was how blatant and transparent it seemed. Indonesia and Thailand conduct joint military maneuvers in Southern Thailand, the only land route for them to access a territory they'd publicly announced their intent to annex? Indonesia agrees to pay all expenses? Seriously, why would they possibly have done that? When the contract went up, it was in fact immediately seen through by at least one observer, though that observer being the excitable Vaclav, and his observation being peppered with errors and misunderstandings, he wasn't taken all that seriously. Once war was declared between Indonesia and Thailand, the Indonesian Minister of War personally started the RW in Tamil Nadu. The battle was fought and won primarily by Indonesians. As an aside, this personally caught me off guard. I'd forgotten this was possible as a time-and-money saving measure to Indonesia, and had expected they'd need to declare war of Pakistan before reaching India. I don't think being aware of this in advance would have changed my concurrence, but it would have given me pause. Still, even a RW started by Indonesian officials when they were on the verge of bordering Tamil Nadu would serve as almost as good a warning, right? Wrong. Well, mostly wrong. This action, by the bleeding Indonesian MoW, was dismissed as medal-seekers. I suppose it helped that portions of China went into RW at the same time... but still, it as a good 12h into the RW that anyone even expressed concern that this fairly transparent chain of events pointed towards an Indonesian governor being installed in Bangalore. Even then, there was doubt upon doubt expressed that the intent, laid out back in December, could possibly be what it blatantly appeared to be. The Indians finally took it seriously enough to contact us, the Indonesians, and start looking for MPPs, but even then they didn't propose their first until 5m after Indonesia declared war.
How did this happen? I very much failed to anticipate it. Did I think no one would find out? Did I think no one was paying attention? Of course not! The chain of events we laid out was utterly incredible, and the the cover story equally so. How could I possibly think no one would see through it? And yet, by and large everyone DID fail to see through it. An annexation announced two months in advance. A bizarre narrative of a country not in dire need of military training (recall that Indonesians wanting to fight had the occasion to stave off Atlantis invasions of Portugal at this exact moment) agreeing to foot the entire bill for joint military maneuvers with their tiny neighbor. The Indonesian MoW bleeding personally starts a RW between their soon-to-be territory and the territory they announced they considered to be theirs for the taking. How could I POSSIBLY believe no one would see through this, that no one was paying so little attention as to notice?
Am I really that much more cynical and suspicious than the average eCitizen?
/sigh
Look. We in the administration took the course of action we did based on cold, hard realpolitik considerations. Not noble idealism, not glorious vain sacrifice, but a cold hard decision to do what it took to keep Thailand free. Our failure to accede to Indonesian overtures in this would have in all probability resulted in the total conquest of eThailand. If we resisted, we'd have run straight into the arms of Atlantis, assuming they would have actually had us (past experience DOES suggest otherwise). Indonesia would not have left us forever looming as a knife to their throat. We'd have been conquered. And we had no reason Atlantis would have made more than a token effort to stop it. Look to Argentina. Look to our history of reaching out to Atlantis only to be coldly brushed off. We had no reason to assume they'd have suddenly agreed to protect us FOREVER from our next-door neighbor. We would have died to buy India 48h of glaringly obvious notice of their immanent conquest... notice they very well should have already had from the transparent charade of "wargames". Given this, we did what we felt was necessary to preserve Thailand as a sovereign state. Was it romantic and gloriously noble? No. It was dirty and gritty and cold and hard. But at the end of the day, I expect the only thing this will change in terms of international borders is that Thailand is free rather than conquered. I expect Karnataka (and only Karnataka) will fall in India. India will be left with only two regions, and Indonesia will claim their High Iron. The only difference I foresee is the disposition of Thailand's sovereignty. Had we proudly stood up and sacrificed our country to try to buy India an extra 48h of warning, we'd have been conquered. If not now, soon; I expect Indonesia would have still rolled straight to India rather than first wiping us out. That could wait... but not forever. We would have fallen. Period, full stop. To what end? I suggest NONE. We would have fallen to preen our egos, so we could pat ourselves on the back for being noble instead of cynical, idealistic martyrs instead of political realists. EThailand would have been conquered, just as I expect Karnataka to be. And for no reason but to give them a slightly clearer warning than the one our 72h farcical preparations for "war games" should have given them in any case.
As to the matter of transparency... Were administration actions opaque? Yes. However, they needed to be. Silence was implicit in the bargain with Indonesia. We could not both agree to the decision and also inform the public that we had done so. This was an executive decision; Jack used his judgment. That was his responsibility. For which he is being called to account, as is good and just and right. We knew very well that this decision would have grave political ramifications, and could very well bring down the government. Should we have been more transparent within the bounds of silence obliged by the agreement? I think we should have, personally. I think as soon as Indonesia declared war on India we should have had a statement much like the above issued to make very clear what had passed. I think that we did not was to some degree because we'd had all the rationales laid out in Thai and foreign media and on the forums, lacking only the specific explicit statement that we knew what we were doing rather than being duped. Our words and actions seemed clear enough, so we did not, alas, make a specific declaration explicitly declaring that yes, things were indeed what they seemed. Still, the lack of candor after the declaration is a fault that I can, must, and do concede.
The day the "war games" balloon got floated, Jack had been approached by the Indonesians with a statement of their intent to annex Karnataka. This intent was not secret. This intent had been publicly stated in December. I'd been waiting unhappily for the Indonesians to broach this subject (or just up and declare war) since then. I expressed concern about it on the forums and to the Thai presidents; no external response came, even when the Presidents stated they tried to contact their Indonesian counterparts. Also noteworthy was that the Indians, who expressed a great deal of concern at Karnataka being annexed, failed to express the least bit of concern with the fact that we'd have to lose a region for that to happen. Despite the common security concern in this event, they stayed fixed on their own regions and never approached our government until the day before Indonesia declared war on them. But I digress.
The portion of the administration available met and tried to hash out what we could do to avoid being overrun. That Indonesia had chosen to speak with us rather than invade us at least gave us some small degree of choice in where to proceed. The cabinet members (minus Jack, who had RL obligations calling him away) entered into direct talks with the Indonesians. The Indonesians affirmed their intent to take Karnataka, and expressed a preference to traverse rather than conquer Southern Thailand. Our countries had, after all, always enjoyed good relations, and they'd rather keep it that way. The terms were agreed to: they'd pay for the war and the RW. They'd provide a Q3 DS to replace the Q3 Hospital in Southern Thailand. In exchange, we'd declare the war and retreat in the first battle. This would expedite their traversal to India (at the time still Pakistan), which would allow less time for Atlantis to interfere with their conquest. We would also not publicize the actual intent, but would give a stark, objective account of what was to happen without the explanation of why.
This last bit deserves some attention. Setting aside that Indonesia saved probably around 100g and hoped to maintain good relations with us (and not push us straight into the arms of Atlantis, all but assuring the necessity of our total conquest to ensure we weren't forever a dagger pointed at their breast) by having us declare war instead of invading us, what did they stand to gain from it? Time. If they had attacked us, their intent would have been plainly broadcast 48h before they started to invaded Tamil Nadu. Instead, they agreed that we would announce the "training exercise" the day before we declared war, in accordance with the Congressional traditions that are trying to be instilled. They agreed that we'd take 24h to discuss it in advance (using that time to get contracts signed). Then 24h for the vote to go through (using that time to flip Tamil Nadu back to India via RW). Then 24h before they could attack us since they were defender. Only then were they able to declare war on India. They in fact lost time; 72h instead of 48h. Did they make up for it in terms of stealth, though?
Surprisingly, nay, appallingly, yes. India failed to notice what was happening until 24-36h before war was declared on them... and even then, they had people arguing it could never happen right up until (and even AFTER) war was declared on them. This was frankly something of a shock to me. One thing that reassured me in agreeing to the arrangement with Indonesia was how blatant and transparent it seemed. Indonesia and Thailand conduct joint military maneuvers in Southern Thailand, the only land route for them to access a territory they'd publicly announced their intent to annex? Indonesia agrees to pay all expenses? Seriously, why would they possibly have done that? When the contract went up, it was in fact immediately seen through by at least one observer, though that observer being the excitable Vaclav, and his observation being peppered with errors and misunderstandings, he wasn't taken all that seriously. Once war was declared between Indonesia and Thailand, the Indonesian Minister of War personally started the RW in Tamil Nadu. The battle was fought and won primarily by Indonesians. As an aside, this personally caught me off guard. I'd forgotten this was possible as a time-and-money saving measure to Indonesia, and had expected they'd need to declare war of Pakistan before reaching India. I don't think being aware of this in advance would have changed my concurrence, but it would have given me pause. Still, even a RW started by Indonesian officials when they were on the verge of bordering Tamil Nadu would serve as almost as good a warning, right? Wrong. Well, mostly wrong. This action, by the bleeding Indonesian MoW, was dismissed as medal-seekers. I suppose it helped that portions of China went into RW at the same time... but still, it as a good 12h into the RW that anyone even expressed concern that this fairly transparent chain of events pointed towards an Indonesian governor being installed in Bangalore. Even then, there was doubt upon doubt expressed that the intent, laid out back in December, could possibly be what it blatantly appeared to be. The Indians finally took it seriously enough to contact us, the Indonesians, and start looking for MPPs, but even then they didn't propose their first until 5m after Indonesia declared war.
How did this happen? I very much failed to anticipate it. Did I think no one would find out? Did I think no one was paying attention? Of course not! The chain of events we laid out was utterly incredible, and the the cover story equally so. How could I possibly think no one would see through it? And yet, by and large everyone DID fail to see through it. An annexation announced two months in advance. A bizarre narrative of a country not in dire need of military training (recall that Indonesians wanting to fight had the occasion to stave off Atlantis invasions of Portugal at this exact moment) agreeing to foot the entire bill for joint military maneuvers with their tiny neighbor. The Indonesian MoW bleeding personally starts a RW between their soon-to-be territory and the territory they announced they considered to be theirs for the taking. How could I POSSIBLY believe no one would see through this, that no one was paying so little attention as to notice?
Am I really that much more cynical and suspicious than the average eCitizen?
/sigh
Look. We in the administration took the course of action we did based on cold, hard realpolitik considerations. Not noble idealism, not glorious vain sacrifice, but a cold hard decision to do what it took to keep Thailand free. Our failure to accede to Indonesian overtures in this would have in all probability resulted in the total conquest of eThailand. If we resisted, we'd have run straight into the arms of Atlantis, assuming they would have actually had us (past experience DOES suggest otherwise). Indonesia would not have left us forever looming as a knife to their throat. We'd have been conquered. And we had no reason Atlantis would have made more than a token effort to stop it. Look to Argentina. Look to our history of reaching out to Atlantis only to be coldly brushed off. We had no reason to assume they'd have suddenly agreed to protect us FOREVER from our next-door neighbor. We would have died to buy India 48h of glaringly obvious notice of their immanent conquest... notice they very well should have already had from the transparent charade of "wargames". Given this, we did what we felt was necessary to preserve Thailand as a sovereign state. Was it romantic and gloriously noble? No. It was dirty and gritty and cold and hard. But at the end of the day, I expect the only thing this will change in terms of international borders is that Thailand is free rather than conquered. I expect Karnataka (and only Karnataka) will fall in India. India will be left with only two regions, and Indonesia will claim their High Iron. The only difference I foresee is the disposition of Thailand's sovereignty. Had we proudly stood up and sacrificed our country to try to buy India an extra 48h of warning, we'd have been conquered. If not now, soon; I expect Indonesia would have still rolled straight to India rather than first wiping us out. That could wait... but not forever. We would have fallen. Period, full stop. To what end? I suggest NONE. We would have fallen to preen our egos, so we could pat ourselves on the back for being noble instead of cynical, idealistic martyrs instead of political realists. EThailand would have been conquered, just as I expect Karnataka to be. And for no reason but to give them a slightly clearer warning than the one our 72h farcical preparations for "war games" should have given them in any case.
As to the matter of transparency... Were administration actions opaque? Yes. However, they needed to be. Silence was implicit in the bargain with Indonesia. We could not both agree to the decision and also inform the public that we had done so. This was an executive decision; Jack used his judgment. That was his responsibility. For which he is being called to account, as is good and just and right. We knew very well that this decision would have grave political ramifications, and could very well bring down the government. Should we have been more transparent within the bounds of silence obliged by the agreement? I think we should have, personally. I think as soon as Indonesia declared war on India we should have had a statement much like the above issued to make very clear what had passed. I think that we did not was to some degree because we'd had all the rationales laid out in Thai and foreign media and on the forums, lacking only the specific explicit statement that we knew what we were doing rather than being duped. Our words and actions seemed clear enough, so we did not, alas, make a specific declaration explicitly declaring that yes, things were indeed what they seemed. Still, the lack of candor after the declaration is a fault that I can, must, and do concede.
Facebook
Twitter
I agree 100% with Ealb.
I would like to add just one more thing for all of those "moralists":
You ask for a discussion of all the matters, you ask that the congress and the people be informed. That's fine with me and I am the first to agree with it. But there are occasions where discussion with the public is impossible. Does anyone honestly expects that the government discuss', what as to be at least considered, a highest level foreign military secret with all of the population? Or even the congress, now that I mention it? Does anyone thinks that secret would be kept for more than 2 minutes?
I do not care if some, or all of of you, take this the wrong way but I got to say it:
Are you honestly that dumb or are you just playing dumb?
All reasoning aside, all rationale aside, and all the "this was so obvious we shouldn't have had to tell you" statements aside, all of the eThai citizens were forced to stand by and allow our soil to be the springboard for an imperialistic invasion. FORCED! Maybe we would have decided to allow Indonesia to do just as it has done, but this should not have been carried out with a lie. It does not good to propose everything according to our new rules (the 24 hr discussion) if we are not going to be truthful in our discussions. What was voted on, and discussed, was a lie.
Further, it is the "cold hard facts" and "cynics" that allow this kind of imperialism to spread. This is the reason why we have to fear indonesia, because the cynics have allowed indonesia to gain this much power. Why don't we just let them burn a few Jew why we're at it. I'm sure that will keep them happy.
Butidigress: I refer you to my previous comment to answer your comment.
Just one question why should we fear Indonesia? They have shown us nothing but friendship and honesty.
Face it, you have an agenda against Indonesia, or PEACE, and no matter what we say you will say the same thing everytime. "Indonesia is bad", "they are imperialists", etc...
B.i.d., I accept your points. However, I must argue under our system of government, this was not a Congressional decision. This was an executive decision. Jack exercised the judgment he was elected to exercise. If you have a problem with this, impeach him. I'd also suggest you push for the adoption of a Constitution explicitly forbidding such executive secrecy under any and all circumstances. Until that's in place, however, we have only the system of government we have. Impeach Jack if you feel it's the right course (and also if you feel that Defenestration will do a better job finishing out Jack's term), but don't complain that Jack didn't follow guidelines that didn't exist.
Also, if you wish to compare flipping bits on the eRepublik servers to RL genocide (which I dare say I would not), it would have been decidedly more apropos for you to invoke East Timor rather than the Shoah.
Again Ealb put things better than I could ever put them. This was a time-sensitive military issue where we did not have the privilege of offering "debate or discussion". In fact to do so wouldn't have helped or changed anything.
@ Butidigress
Your comment lacks tact and reason of any sort. The fact you compare this with Nazi Germany is appalling. I think Ealb's answer more than covers your comment on it. This was an issue that did not provide us the opportunity to hold an open forum. As elected officials it came down to making the decision that was best for the Country as a whole to survive. It wasn't something to be proud of but something that needed to be done.
To Bl1nd3ss,
I have no specific agenda against indonesia or PEACE. If we want to join PEACE, I can't say I know enough about the organization to debate that one way or another. As far as Indonesia goes, I don't harbor any ill will against the country, only thier desire to conquer the best regions of certain countries rather than trade on a free market.
Obviously we do fear indonesia as everyone keeps saying "what else could we do?" and "they would have just taken southern Thailand" and "this is the only way we could stay free". That is fear my friends. Plain and simple.
To Ealb,
I appreciate your reserved tone on the whole. First off, I withdraw my comments about killing Jews. I got a bit heated and it was wholly unnecessary.
Second, I appreciate the situation Jack Roberts was in, but he declared quite openly that he wanted complete transparency in government and should have stuck to it. Even if that meant that he had to PM every congress member, he should have. My anger is directed at the fact that I was made complicit (as were other congress members) in this charade. Had I known the truth, I would never have voted for the war. And yes, Thailand may have suffered, but I think we would have more pride as a nation had we stood up and said we were not going to aid in the conquest.
As I've simply restated myself again and again, I am done with the topic for a while. Until more action can be taken, I will resign myself to watching.
Apologies I didn't mean to post under my Org.
@Butidigress
May I ask what nation would we have left to be proud of if we stood up to Indo to save India? It would not be around for long. This all to pat yourself on the back and say to your friends how you threw a wrench into a hurricane on its way through? I know I am saying IOW what Ealb said but you missed it above I think.
I had opened the vote for the war and was there for the talks. In the aftermath I still stand behind my decisions and decisions of our Government. Unfortunately, as a Leader you have to make unpopular decisions to benefit the overall welfare of your Country. Like Ealb had mentioned it was an Executive decision that relied on lack mass knowledge although it was a published intent months back.
Also the fact that you "lob a grenade" by publishing two articles to then say you will resign to sit back and watch shows you are only trying to stir up an argument of an underlying agenda.
I'd like to ask what action you are waiting to be taken for you to further speak up?
In fairness, Gentyle, there are other explanations for B.i.d.'s decision to temporarily withdraw from the discussion. As he said, he's staked out his position fairly clearly, and has been growing somewhat heated in his arguments. I'm willing to take his backing off as being done in good faith.
Ok, I can understand. Sadly, I cannot keep a calm head as you, Ealb. It's the Irish ferocity in me
It is a heated argument and I'll respect his wishes to back off for the time being. My apologies.
@B.i.d.:
>Second, I appreciate the situation Jack Roberts was in, but he
>declared quite openly that he wanted complete transparency in
>government and should have stuck to it. Even if that meant that
>he had to PM every congress member, he should have.
He did offer to explain via PM the reasoning behind the "wargames" to any Congress member who had doubts about it, but I will concede that was a passive rather than active measure. Again, however, I would argue that while the administration's actions were not transparent, pro-actively sending all Congress members an explanation of the negotiations would have in all likelihood resulted in at least one public disclosure, either through inadvertent indiscretion, political opportunism, or idealistic refusal to let Indonesia near India except over Thailand's dead body. If the decision was to be made, it had to be kept to as few people as possible. It's not something I liked, nor do I like it now, but the only way it could have been widely (even if not publicly) announced would have been if the administration had chosen to reject the Indonesian proposal out of hand.
(I'm aware you're sitting out for the moment, but I did feel that fairly small clarification needed added.)
First of all; Thank you Ealb for making an article upon the subject and explaining.
Second: I would like to publicly apologize to Jack Roberts for my comments previously and must concede that he made a hard call that (from just this one article) was probably the right one.
However, I will not apologize for the fact that this was carried out in totally the wrong manner. 1st (as mentioned by Ealb) a clear article and press release should have been fully prepared for as soon as Indonesia had taken southern Thailand / Declared was on India. 2nd I still believe that more people should have been in the know than the few that have come forward to say they were in the know. Despite this being a Time sensitive matter there is still the system of PMing and even a simple "over the next few days some things will happen that will be explained AFTER the event not before, so please hold your horses" (probably a little better worded than that.
3rd; I am still slightly annoyed that it wasn't Jack himself to come forward and make an article of this magnitude and instead it has been left to someone else who by his own admission has a "fairly trivial" position in the administration.
Finally: If I was in Jack's position I still wouldn't have let Indonesia simply walk in and dictate the outcome of this, despite their "power" or friendship towards us and would have carried things out a lot differently. Either way, I was not in the position and Jack was and, did what he thought was best (not what we thought was best, or what anyone else thought; I guess that is why he's the president.)
Bl1nd3ss:
"Just one question why should we fear Indonesia? They have shown us nothing but friendship and honesty."
Friendship? Honesty? Here we are being told that we had pretty much no choice but to accept their terms, and you call that friendship? I call that oppression.
I keep hearing people use the argument "What would you have done?". Why bother asking? We were never given the choice, we were never asked. We were blatantly misled, and then we are accused of being naive because we believed what our trusted, elected official who based his campaign on transparency told us? Is Thailand to become a "Father knows best" state? Now we have Jack putting forth a Bush-like false dichotomy of "you're either with Thailand or against Thailand". Is it wrong for us to question the Government? Should we just dance the puppet master's dance as we are kept in the dark?
Wiles Mac Giolla Ruadh:
You say all those pretty words but given an choice what would you have done? Because a lot people keep saying that this was wrong, this could have been done differently but I have yet to see one single person come forward with a reasonable option besides the one that was taken...
What would I have done? I would not have lied to my Congressmen nor to my countrymen. We are presented the argument that there was no time, that Jack contacted a few congressmen to discuss this. I have a hard time believing this as I am more inclined to believe he just contacted those who were more likely to take his side on this matter. This was the single most important decision that Thailand has had to make, and it was made in the dark. I believe many have held the ideal of Thailand remaining a neutral nation, and our involvement in this fiasco is diametrically opposed to that ideal. Perhaps it is impossible to remain neutral in the tumultuous eworld, but we weren't given the choice. Now, for better or for worse we have chosen a side and stand to reap the repercussions. We were complicit in Indonesia's invasion, and I don't think other nations will be quick to forget that. Let us just hope our new masters do not get bored of their plaything.
And yet again you fail to answer to my question..
I'll ask again: What would you have done?
And btw, and this is by no means a retorical question:
How many of you think that, if we discussed this with all the congressman, that information wouldnt end up in the hands of the US or Atlantis? And remember that this was information kept secret in the highest levels of indonesian government...
Well, great. All the conspiracy theorists were right, the Thai government allowed it to happen and told noone, the wargames are a sham. What trust I had in the government that saved us from the Rockman era is now gone.
Well, I was in Southern Thailand when the Indos took it over and I'm stuck here. But if you want to see their reaction to this then read this:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/thai-s-upset-over-invasion-of-india-thai-s-marah-atas-perang-dengan-india--737005/1/20
I particularly like the part where they say they have the eThai President sufficiently afraid of them to lie to his people.
Sprout: You do realize that the author of that article not only is he not part of the government, he's not even indonesian..
That article was posted before Ealb's article.
You should read the comments.
Sad Biggots
@Vaclav:
Who exactly is displaying bigotry here? Serious question. I see none in evidence. Might you kindly point it out to me?
If you cannot provide an example thereof, might you so kindly contribute to the conversation or cease trolling?
You sir are a biggot to betray india! A Neutral nation!
or cease trolling?
That is what they all say when they dont want to discuss something. Nice.
I hope the indians rise up and one day invade Thailand for this treachery.
@Vaclav:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
I think you probably meant traitor.
As to the accusation of trolling, I'm curious what contribution you feel you're making to this conversation. If it is none, you ARE trolling. I think if you look through this thread you'll see I've been plenty willing to discuss matters. You, on the other hand, the citizen of a third-party nation, have come simply to fling insults and accusations. You have no stake in the matter; you merely wish to be disruptive. You are here to "stir the pot", not advance the conversation.
Admittedly, as a non-citizen, it'd be kind of hard for you to contribute to the conversation, as it's a discussion of whether or not the eThai cabinet betrayed the trust of the eThai body politic, and what if any punitive measures should be leveled against it. Not a lot of room there for you to contribute to the debate.
Brilliance
as far as i know Indonesian has stated about this plan back in December in my presidency, and from months we are together, we never have any intention to occupy or do anything harm to your country.
India on the other hand, whether you like it or not has falling to many ppl from various country. Its a matter of time till Iran or somebody else come to their country.
That's a fact that no one see India is a "Big" thing before Indonesia reach her.. that's a fact.
Do we ever threat Thailand? nope, we treat your as our great neighbor all the time, and we would like to keep it that way.
I understand Ealb's reasoning and mostly agree with him. I appreciate his efforts but still find this very disturbing. Of course, we may have no choice and this may be the best option due to the harsh, cold, ugly politicking or whatever BUT the matter should have been carried in a much more sensitive and sincere manner, like Adst said.
What is most disappointing is not exactly the action of some of the "executives" in power, but instead their attitudes that are reflected in the posts.
Jack Robert's in particular has failed me.
And it is definitely a shame that Jack did not issue this statement right away when he could.
EALB: IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME YOU ARE A TROLL ;.;
^ Angry little winged monkey from Wizard of Oz.
Are those winged monkeys like the ones in Wicked? I loved that musical.
Ealb sums up the administrative decisions perfectly. I'm actually one of the naive citizens, and I didn't see the India incident coming, but I don't feel as incensed as some of you seem to be. I understand that it might be a matter of feeling duped, or for the more idealistic, a feeling of responsibility for India. But some decisions have to be made with an eye on the whole picture, and this one is one such decision.
Granted, it is all too easy to excuse corruption or abuse of power with the "seeing the whole picture" bit, but Jack Roberts' decision was one made with the utmost thought and motivated by care and protectiveness for Thailand.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/impeachment-called-for-in-thailand-738087/1/20
Lonely biggot named Vaclav need a friend ? then Vaclav starts cursing people to biggot ^^
hahhaa