Atlasian Star

[fhtagn]

Also should be noted that the Dept. of Internal Affairs has already acted to aid affected areas in the path of the storm.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=269064.msg5794061#msg5794061

[fhtagn]

I don't see a refusal to pay the China-imposed fine as a rejection of what the GM says. China can of course demand money but there is no face-saving way that Atlasia with its claim to be the strongest global superpower can yield to such demands.

It has been stressed numerous times that there was a time limit to getting the deal ratified. Refusal to get it done on time has it's consequences. It's much better to just pay the fine than to outright refuse and test to see how far China will go.

Also keep in mind, the whole conflict that this is revolving around, was completely our fault. We don't get to cause trouble, then make demands because we don't like what happens as a result.

[fhtagn]

Senators Siren, Scott and ZuWo are right, it is unacceptable to be forced by China to pay a fine and capitulate to their demands. This is a provocative and absurd move from Beijing.

(I applaud the GM and Deputy GM for their work on the storyline thus far, though)

I guess that means you haven't bothered to pay attention to the fact that there was a deadline to get the deal ratified (not that it wasn't already obvious how little you pay attention to Atlasia to begin with).

Paying a fine is significantly better than them pulling out of the deal and ending up at war with us. The Senate knew this was a deal that needed to be ratified quickly, and they chose to drag their feet anyway, even after numerous explanations that if this does not get done in time, there would be consequences.

I get that no one wanted this war, and as I've made clear, I did not want it either. But this is a case where a peaceful, non-military resolution does not exist, and a situation that was 100% our fault. We are in no position to be making demands when we are the cause of the problem in the first place.

But I guess it's better to put our egos above the lives of innocent people who would be affected by an even bigger war with a more powerful enemy than the one we were dealing with before.

[fhtagn]

This idea that we dragged our feet is totally whack a doodle. The treaty was introduced in the Senate on September 25th and now the vote is finishing up on October 1. And like half of that time was literally the Senate's standard procedure for voting on things. If we didn't have debate, there wouldn't even be a timetable on the war resolution, which is an idea that seems to be pretty popular among literally everyone in congress. Seriously.

It should also be noted that you made an issue about advancing this because of the Draft Restriction Amendment, which wasn't even relevant to the deal anyway. China asked for 30k troops, not enough to trigger us to reinstate the draft.

(This is not to say I disagree with the Draft Resolution Amendment, because I completely support it. I'm simply stating it had nothing to do with the deal)

[fhtagn]

Senators Siren, Scott and ZuWo are right, it is unacceptable to be forced by China to pay a fine and capitulate to their demands. This is a provocative and absurd move from Beijing.

(I applaud the GM and Deputy GM for their work on the storyline thus far, though)

I guess that means you haven't bothered to pay attention to the fact that there was a deadline to get the deal ratified (not that it wasn't already obvious how little you pay attention to Atlasia to begin with).

Stay classy, Madam President.

I'm well aware of the situation surrounding the deal, and I don't think the dissenting voices (which include both people who oppose the war and people who support it) are acting out of their egos, so I'm not sure what you intend to do with personal attacks on half the Senate.

It's a godawful deal. We're told it was the best the Administration could do, but considering the proposition is to cripple our nuclear arsenal and economy and abandon our allies in Asia to hang on future conflicts, I think the Senate had a right to debate its merits and the evident problems its ratification would bring to Atlasia.

And furthermore, the Senate has a right to stand strong against an arbitrary, unfair fine when we're already being extorted by China in such a degree. As a realist I would have given an Aye vote to the treaty (a very reluctant Aye, but an Aye nonetheless), but what we're ceding to China is already too much, and we're asked to go even further in a most unreasonable manner.

(Future suggestion: I've seen people doubting info which has been assured is real before of intelligence the Administration or the NSC has. Much info needs to remain secret, of course, but perhaps the Administration could consider briefing the Senators in private of relevant info for discussions such as this?)

A 35% reduction would not "cripple" our arsenal, nor would it even come close, and to suggest that is incredibly ill-informed. We would still have plenty of nukes to destroy the world many times over, not that it is even remotely a good idea.

As for your further suggestion, Senator Siren was informed of the possibility of what would happen should the Senate not ratify this deal, including the deadline, when her (as well as other members of Congress) were invited to an NSC meeting to brief them on what the situation was. So for her to suggest that we didn't give her that information when logs prove otherwise is either an outright lie, or she simply wasn't paying attention.

I am working with the NSC and the GM currently to work out a deal on the penalty for not ratifying the deal within the time frame, and once that is reached, that information will be readily available for those who want to continue questioning what is going on. Whether or not they choose to pay attention is up to them.

[fhtagn]

At the risk of this getting reported and removed (not really sure if this crosses the line or not, but in case anyone wants to doubt what I'm saying that Siren was indeed informed):

Note: Some stuff omitted due to not being relevant to the purpose of this post, as well as not relevant to the China deal in general, but the full logs from this exchange can be made available upon request should anyone wish to see them. This has also been posted with the GM's knowledge and verification that none of the information being shared is classified

02:06:59: <Sirena> hi
02:07:19: <NCY1689> Hey sirena
02:07:28: <NCY1689> Fhtagn, again from the top
02:07:58: <NCY1689> Also if Scott could wake up that would be a big help
02:08:07: <fhtagn> 20:48   NCY1689   Anyway 20:49   NCY1689   The deal before the SEnate is with China was a last offer before WW3 type situation 20:49   NCY1689   it isn't perfect but it got China as an ally instead of an enemy 20:49   NCY1689   The War declaration is suppose to be aimed at fulfilling that deal
02:08:25: <NCY1689> The deal was suppose to be introduced first
02:08:35: <fhtagn> oh whoooops
02:08:35: <NCY1689> but in the rush to get everything on the floor
02:08:39: <NCY1689> it didn't happen
02:08:45: <NCY1689> The war declaration came down first
02:08:52: <fhtagn> sorry I thought you meant mention the deal again here
02:09:01: <NCY1689> the war declaration is limited explicility only to the mission as outlined in the deal
02:11:20: <fhtagn> we explored all other peaceful options, numerous times offering deals that RL China would easily take because they can't afford to go to war with us 20:57   fhtagn   if RL logic applied, this deal wouldn't have happened 20:57   fhtagn   but this isn't RL
02:11:32: <Sirena> I'm not saying I would never support the resolution, although I'd have to think about it. I'm just saying that I want the draft restriction amendment passed first.
02:11:44: <NCY1689> The Draft Restriction amendment will be up soon
02:11:51: <NCY1689> once PiT gets on
02:12:19: <NCY1689> There are about 7 bills that need to be dealt with from prior Senates (2 from 6th and 5 from 7th)
02:12:28: <NCY1689> The Draft Restriction is the first from the 7th
02:12:36: <NCY1689> and will be move up
02:12:59: <Sirena> That's good to hear


02:42:32: <NCY1689> Fhtagn did you get my PM
02:43:00: <Sirena> But then I couldn't make a glorious speech in whcih I got to use the phrase "deeply disturbing"
02:43:28: <fhtagn> yes yankee
02:44:12: <fhtagn> Sirena, I truly do understand your concerns. but what you are not understanding is the fact that if we do not do this, China will absolutely make sure we regret this
02:44:33: <fhtagn> we can't use what would happen in real life to judge how this plays out
02:45:01: <fhtagn> our people's safety gets put in serious jeopardy if we shut it down
02:45:13: <NCY1689> Our agreement doesn't provide for occupation, just the defeat of the NK leadership
02:45:29: <NCY1689> China will handle that and will insist we leave
02:45:59: <NCY1689> I highly doubt they want us poking their noses into the situation
02:47:00: <pit1> Public Service Act has passed
02:47:05: <Sirena> I don't know the transitioning part sounds a lot like occupation
02:47:23: <fhtagn> it's China we are talking about
02:47:28: <fhtagn> they will not want us to stay in NK
02:47:44: <fhtagn> 02:09:54: <fhtagn> so just out of curiosity 02:10:04: <fhtagn> what happens if we try to get congressional approval for the China deal 02:10:07: <fhtagn> and it fails 02:12:40: <AZ> well then we go back to the drawing board 02:12:56: <AZ> China may make other demands 02:13:19: <AZ> but remember if you relent on anything then the deal is off
02:47:54: <LouisvilleThunder> China might want us to stay in NK
02:48:03: <fhtagn> no, they will not
02:48:06: <LouisvilleThunder> Because it will weaken our country
02:48:19: <fhtagn> China doesn't want us that close to their border
02:48:30: <LouisvilleThunder> And give china more power amd prosperity compared to us
02:48:46: <NCY1689> The best out for for this agreement
02:48:50: <NCY1689> is the trade portion
02:48:59: <NCY1689> If we can start exporting a ton of crap to China
02:49:03: <NCY1689> they will reneg
02:49:12: <Sirena> I feel like I'm not sure if I'm operating with all the info. Like I see that China said they would support NK but I don't see them saying that they would declare war on us if we leave
02:49:32: <LouisvilleThunder> But our own goods are too expensive to compete with theirs
02:49:39: <fhtagn> 02:14:12: <AZ> such as push new sanctions and possible war
02:49:55: <NCY1689> At the very least we lose little in the arrangement trade wise
02:49:59: <NCY1689> We are already flooded
02:50:04: <NCY1689> with chinese products
02:50:11: <NCY1689> they have the run of our markets
02:50:20: <LouisvilleThunder> For many years
02:50:20: <NCY1689> there are competive industries that are shut out of China thoguh
02:50:30: <Sirena> I mean. if you have Scott and Henry on board, it will probably pass anyway
02:50:33: <NCY1689> So there are not barriers from us
02:50:45: <NCY1689> The barriers are on our entry
02:50:54: <fhtagn> "China also would like sit dead an iron out a deadline on getting the treaty passed. Ideally the treaty would be ratified by the end of the month.China has stated that it will consider withdrawing from the current deal if Atlasia does not start acting on their end of the treaty. "
02:52:15: <LouisvilleThunder> Why should we kiss up and appease china
02:52:34: <LouisvilleThunder> Why cant we find some leverage to use against china for once
02:52:48: <pit1> we had leverage over China
02:52:55: <pit1> when they tried to muscle us
02:53:05: <pit1> and we clearly stood to suffer less
02:53:24: <LouisvilleThunder> ?
02:53:53: <fhtagn> We had more to work with before Goldwater decided to strike NK
02:54:01: <pit1> when the story first broke, China adopted an aggressive stance with us
02:54:17: <fhtagn> we are now at the point where we don't get to act like we call the shots


03:12:12: <Sirena> Whether or not its part of the deal is besides the point. I'm saying that if we're commiting to a potentially large scale war (and it always could end up like that even we say we want it to be limited) that Atlasians should be able to have their say on the draft amendment. That's why its relevant
03:12:24: <LouisvilleThunder> ^
03:12:55: <scott> Oh, all right
03:13:02: <LouisvilleThunder> Yeah the GM might decide to cause an insurgency
03:13:11: <LouisvilleThunder> Iraq style
03:13:15: <LouisvilleThunder> In NK
03:13:44: <fhtagn> 21:49   fhtagn   can you please confirm for me what sort of situation we would be looking at if we cannot get the Senate to ratify the agreement with China? 22:04   AZ   Well then China is expected to withdraw from their deal which means sanctions on Atlas 22:05   AZ   at the very least a withdrawal from the Korean war
03:13:58: <fhtagn> 22:05   AZ   and possibly China supplying weapons to North Korea radical groups 22:06   AZ   Fhtagn 22:06   fhtagn   thank you 22:06   fhtagn   would it be okay if I shared this information in #NSC 22:06   fhtagn   which currently also includes leaders from the Senate?
03:14:12: <fhtagn> 22:09   AZ   Yes and China also would likely become uncooperative and potentially hostile towards Atlasia and the west in the future which may increase the chances of future conflicts
03:14:13: <NCY1689> PiT1, Scott, Fhtagn, move to #AtlasianCongress so we can fix the backlog issue separate from the war sh**t
03:16:44: <Sirena> Jbrase asked me to do this draft thing for him ages ago and I won't rest until I see it actually go to a vote



It was made very clear both publicly and privately, by myself and others present in the NSC meetings, that inaction on this had consequences. To say that the Senate was not informed of what stalling on the deal would mean is completely false.

[fhtagn]

I would like to note that before this "deadline" arrived, the deal already had enough votes for ratification in the Senate.  When bills have enough votes in the Senate, members are given 24 hours to change their vote.  This is how the Senate has operated for a long time.  The deal was complete and the necessary votes were already there, so for China to jeopardize its standing with the Republic by imposing arbitrary fines over a procedural issue would be extremely reckless of them.  (So reckless that I'd say it's downright unrealistic...)

As for donating to victims of the Korean War, while I am not against doing that in principle, Atlasia simply cannot allow itself to be blacklisted by other nations - China especially.  This would set a precedent from which we would never recover.  So while I am sympathetic to helping victims of this war as well as refugees, I would oppose any legislation in the Senate that further compromises our nation's sovereignty.

You had been approached about congressional action that needed to be taken (more than once) well before you brought it to the floor. There were numerous times where multiple messages had to be sent to even get a response, and I ended up having to draft the resolution myself well after the discussion we had on it privately had taken place because no action was taken. This was something that should have easily been taken care of well before the end of the month.

So this is absolutely an instance where the Senate (or at the very least you) had dropped the ball on not getting this ratified by the time China requested completion. It was made very clear (as seen in the logs) that China would make additional demands if this isn't taken care of, and the agreement on the donation rather than a fine is a very fair deal considering how much they've contributed to the war already, and the sacrifices being made while we are still waiting for approval to hold up our end of the agreement.

[fhtagn]

I would like to note that before this "deadline" arrived, the deal already had enough votes for ratification in the Senate.  When bills have enough votes in the Senate, members are given 24 hours to change their vote.  This is how the Senate has operated for a long time.  The deal was complete and the necessary votes were already there, so for China to jeopardize its standing with the Republic by imposing arbitrary fines over a procedural issue would be extremely reckless of them.  (So reckless that I'd say it's downright unrealistic...)

As for donating to victims of the Korean War, while I am not against doing that in principle, Atlasia simply cannot allow itself to be blacklisted by other nations - China especially.  This would set a precedent from which we would never recover.  So while I am sympathetic to helping victims of this war as well as refugees, I would oppose any legislation in the Senate that further compromises our nation's sovereignty.

You had been approached about congressional action that needed to be taken (more than once) well before you brought it to the floor. There were numerous times where multiple messages had to be sent to even get a response, and I ended up having to draft the resolution myself well after the discussion we had on it privately had taken place because no action was taken. This was something that should have easily been taken care of well before the end of the month.

So this is absolutely an instance where the Senate (or at the very least you) had dropped the ball on not getting this ratified by the time China requested completion. It was made very clear (as seen in the logs) that China would make additional demands if this isn't taken care of, and the agreement on the donation rather than a fine is a very fair deal considering how much they've contributed to the war already, and the sacrifices being made while we are still waiting for approval to hold up our end of the agreement.

That deal/resolution should have been written by the administration in the first place.  No one in the Senate was present for negotiations, so why would that be on us?  In fact, at one point I even asked (in the IRC) if the deal was already in text form.  That was never answered, but I figured that was in the administration's hands.

If you and the GM intend on using fake stories in a game to try to intimidate people, be my guest.  I don't think it will win you many favors.

I don't think someone who has no idea how the Game Moderator's role works really has any room to talk (and trust me, there's logs of that, too)

[fhtagn]

Excellent developments.

I assume the Senate will need to ratify this treaty for the agreement to be official?  We can also start the process of withdrawing our troops from the region.

Check your PM

[fhtagn]

For the sake of transparency and in case it wasn't seen elsewhere, I can't speak for what the Senate decides on while they vote on this, but this is my administration's stance on the issue:

I had been approached previously asking if my administration will be seeking to recognize Catalonia, however at this time and after long discussions with my advisers, this is not something we intend to do, and will be supporting our longtime friends and allies on this issue.