The Enemies Within and Without?

Day 1,575, 18:22 • Published in Canada Canada • by SaraDroz
What Makes an Enemy?


One method of defining

The word derives from Latin. In Latin 'amicus' is friend and inimicus, from which enemy derives, means literaly 'un-friend'. Of course as soon as you declare someone/thing to be an 'enemy' you are yourself creating a state of de facto war. It has often been suggested recently in rl that NATO should call Pakistan (particularly the ISI) an enemy as we know sections of their establishment support the Taliban etc... This has been rehected (wisely in my opinion) as it forces them to become de facto enemies, which is precisely what we do not wish them to be.

This is why I objected to the CPs reference on day 1572 to the exiles as "terrorists". The implication is that they are not only enemies but should they return would have to face some form of legal sanction. The phrase he uses on day 1573 "ill judged patriots" (which he 'borrowed' from me) is a welcome return to a more moderate stance on the devisive issues which our Government grapples with.

Also it sometimes appears to me as if the CP regards me as an 'enemy'. In ANY democracy, even within a single Party, there are competing views. My position differs from that of the exiles, I did not leave, but I do not regard them as 'enemies', nor do I regard those who are still here but disagree with me (such as Acacia) as 'enemies'. If any rl Government were to declare an opposition Party to be an 'enemy' civil war would follow. It was be wise for our current Government to recognise the loyalty of those who have stayed but who disagree with their policy or they will create more exiles.

This MAY seem like semantics but we are trying to heal a divided community. If we call one side or the other 'enemies', 'terrorists' or 'traitors' we are increasing the divide and only creating trouble for the future. I do NOT agree with those who have left; you do not leave your community when they most need you. Nor do I agree with the CPs policy and would class him as an "ill judged patriot" but NOT an enemy. We are trying to heal a division; let us not create new ones.

So on day 1574 we get "The second half of this Executive order was that the definition of Treason in our criminal code shall be extended to include any military attacks made against our nation in an open battle without regard to citizenship if such attacks are originated from a nation which shares a common alliance with us. (e.g. tanking against eCanada from another member nation of TEDEN). Should an individual commit such an act, and later be granted citizenship in our country, they will be immediately charged with Treason and tried in accordance with whatever judicial system we are employing at the time the charges are laid." This is precisely WRONG. You are creating more enemies; creating division when we should be trying to unite.

Allied Enemies? Facts


Blue on blue?

Like many others I was very confused by the CPs statement on Day 1572; "our alliance is concerned about us...very concerned. It has been suggested that if we do not get our act together, our alliance will wipe us until we get our house in order. I have spent the better part of the last 2 days fighting off this position." Many people I spoke to simply didn't believe this... Which ally/allies? Presumably NOT eCroatia, eRomania etc... Realisticly there would be 3 possible 'allies' who could attempt such an action; eUSA, eRussia and eFrance.

Presumably eFrance would not do this as it would endanger their grip on eUK, which is why the CP also tells us they opposed a Peace Treaty with. eRussia are deeply involved in Sandanavia at present as well as helping facilitate an eBulgarian move into eIran to solve the recent Eden divisions. So that leaves us with our Bro's; eUSA... They of course are helping hold down eSpain but I suppose it's conceivable they may contemplate such a stupid action. So I went to the Whitehouse IRC channel and asked about this and was told "realy unlikely". Hmm... So I asked the President of eUSA:

SaraDroz: "Mr President, we are informed by our CP here that our allies consider attacking us: "It has been suggested that if we do not get our act together, our alliance will wipe us until we get our house in order." Perhaps you could inform me of the precise situation?"

Oblige to SaraDroz | yesterday: "SaraDroz, Every day my in box is flooded with PMs asking me to wipe Canada, sent by your own citizens. The USA doesn't have much of an interest in the internal affairs of other nations, but we will go to bat for our allies, and when Canada is facing a PTO type situation, we have to do what we can. Presidentially, - Oblige"

I said " Thankyou for clearing this up." and received this response: Oblige to SaraDroz | 12 hours ago: "You're welcome. Obviously we're on stand by to assist the Canadien (sic) Government in anyway we can."

Ok lets explore this a bit more: Would eRussia or eFrance (or indeed any 'ally') invade us without consulting eUSA? It seems highly unlikely as militarily it would be unwise but yet the Government of eUSA is 'on stand by' to assist OUR Government? Unless our own Government is also asking that our allies 'wipe us' I am quite at a loss to understand which of our allies has "suggested that if we do not get our act together, our alliance will wipe us until we get our house in order." In other words the CP appears to be labouring under a misapprehension regarding this threat... OR... he has simply invented it.

I would suggest that those eCanadians who have or are sending messages to the CP of eUSA urging him to 'wipe eCanada' cease immeadiately and that our Government request the names of any eCanadians who make such a suggestion in future. To suggest that our allies fight us is singularly dangerous as it will divide alliances; from this only ONE benefits. IF you wish eCanada to join One say so; if you wish to fight for One do so. I do not believe these people wish either of these things; come home and fight with your votes. This is a political division; not an alliance one.

Of the Latest Events



Referendums!?!??: So lemme get this straight (is getting hard)... FIRST a referendum was 'always planned'. Presumably this means before and as soon as the CP elections were concluded. Then "It took a back burner spot when the military portfolio went haywire on me." prior to day 1572. Then later on day 1572 it was NOT RIGHT to hold a referendum as "It was a democratically reached decision by a congress elected by the people. It would be dishonest to fool with it. To do so is to fool with the very fabric of democracy and that is a line I am not willing to cross." One might ask if it wasn't right why was planned in the first place? Nvm... such questions are perhaps less relevant than outcomes at present. Then on day 1573, quite astonishingly, we return again... Having listened to the exiles and in a most welcome effort of reconciliation the CP himself publishes the referendum. Apparently this is a DIFFERENT referendum that doesn't break the 'promises' which the CP may or may not have made on day 1572. Well since he said completely contradictory things on day 1572 he both cannot and must break one plan/pledge. A truly remarkable performance! It is worthy of 'Yes Minister'.



I NOTE that since the 'opinion poll' was posted it has change😛 When I voted there were 3 options, now it appears it was later limited to 2. It appears that the critical difference between this and 'Position A of day 1572' (where a referendum was 'always planned') is that this is an "opinion poll". Presumably (I am taking a guess here) this means that it will NOT be binding and thus acts only as a guide to Congress should they chose to reconsider their earlier vote for a pardon. Thus the CP is not contradicting his (ever changing) 'principles'.

Of course it is a matter of principle for the CP NOT to veto a pardon that he himself voted for? Look IF the vote had been decisive 29;2 or some such fine, Congress is lost and we are essentialy PTOed; I wouldn't say a word and would probably leave for eRomania. But the CP himself voted and the vote was 16:15. It is as if the President has cast the deciding vote. I respect the CP's views on the pardon although I disagree with him, but this 'opinion poll', even if referred back to Congress, is NOT going to heal the division. We will see a re-run and the same result. Acacia you are digging yourself further into a hole of your own making...

Conclusion

I am getting seriously tired of this; the CPs pledge in his podcast to run 'again and again until our former glory is restored' is fundamentaly flawed. He himself has become an obstacle in that quest. 'Ill judged partiots' of one day may be judged for 'treason' the next if they return. Our allies, who we were told are considering wiping us, are standing by to help us, so a delusion or a deception has occured here. Referendums become 'opinion polls' and the questions change after being presented.

I have this suggestion: I am SURE Acacia that you, as I, wish the best for eCanada. However at present far from helping cure our problems you are hindering a cure. Why not resign in favour of your excellent VP and let him form a 'Government of National Unity' that can include any exiles who may wish to return home. The pardon will temporarily be vetoed to alow the exiles time to come home and take part in a binding referendum. The result of that referendum to be binding ad infinitum. You can continue to 'Acacia' the button and advise as a Minister without Portfolio. Sir you have at the very least distorted the truth concerning our allies and helped create the situation in which you currently find yourself. Do what is best for eCanada and resign.