Crisis of the New World Order - Page 2

POTUS · October 21, 2003, 01:18

The Security Council should have the powers that member nations grant to it. I move that the Security Council should elect a General to command peacke-keeping operations.

academia · October 21, 2003, 02:14

Quote:

I move that the Security Council should elect a General to command peacke-keeping operations

Ok. I like the idea.

I propose that in our first election, 2 countries should run for the presidency of the Security Council; and the rest of the members will have to vote and choose one of them.
I think that we must establish the length of the term (like 10 turns) and the chance of re-election should not be allowed.

In my opinion, the Security Council should work as a mechanism to prevent unilateral first strikes and find a solution to political/territorial disputes all over the world.

For instance, in the case of my country (India) i have the capacity to attack pakistan and capture it on my own. The problem is that those actions may weaken the stability of the area, and maybe the US, Russia or other countries will send troops to the zone and adopt a hostile position.
Additionaly, those countries could begin to patrol indian air space, seas, impose a blockade against my freights, don´t share techs, etc.

Of course, if you don´t want to pay attention to the security council decisions and go on your own, you can do it. But there might be unpleasant consequences...

What do you guys think?

jim panse · October 21, 2003, 05:14

As the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, has been replaced by the charismatic General Ivan Nikolayev, Russia has the following things to say:

(1) Russia is willing to participate in that UN Security Council but we want the right to reject ALL decisions as Russia is a sovereign nation among other sovereign nations (Veto).

(2) As the Soviet Union collapsed I want to point out that certain territories are Russian 'Sphere of Influence', meaning that Russia will not allow nor tolerate foreign interventions. This includes the following territories and states: Transcaucasia, the former central asian Soviet Republics. There is always the issue of a land link between Kaliningrad and the Rodina.

(3) 'I, Gen. Ivan P. Nikolayev, as the new appointed leader of the Russian People want to declare that Mother Russia will be great again. The seeds of greatness are each single heart of the Russian People and I will not let my compatriots down!'

jim panse · October 21, 2003, 05:35

ITAR/TASS (Moscow) - Today the new President of the Russian Federation held a speech at the Duma.

'Yesterday I ordered the attack of some terrorist strongholds in the mountains aroudn Groznyy. Russia will not tolerate Terrorism and Islamism (...) We have the privilege and the God-given right to be the guardian of security of our former Soviet Republics in these days of Americanism. We have the possibilities to keep peace in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus Region. Therefore I ask the constituting Security Council in New York to allow Peace-keeping missions next year (...) I am going to ask only once. Russia requests free-hands in Central Asia (Aktyubinsk, Karaganda) and the Caucasian States (Tblisi, Baku) in order to prevent Terrorism - which is the enemy of all of us - from spreading.'

FiGu · October 21, 2003, 08:26

NevaH!! We'll fight to the bitter end!!

Help us... US!

Panda · October 21, 2003, 18:15

I'm going to have to jump in at this point to inform you all that some of the modified events will not trigger correctly. You have two choices: wash the current save game through the delevent.exe program and reload using the "official" multiplayer events, and then do the same after I've had a chance to review and incorporate the modifications; or skip using the official events and jump straight into the corrected events (which I can post on thursday, but no sooner because of real-life events).

I welcome all comments on what modifications should be included, that are posted before 8am GMT 23/10/03.

Attached: official multiplayer events.

And I might even have the official 3.1 patch ready by then (updated graphics, and some minor tweaks, since you ask)

POTUS · October 21, 2003, 18:50

Panda, are you sure the events don't work?

I vote we use the official mutiplayer events.

POTUS · October 21, 2003, 19:01

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
ITAR/TASS (Moscow) - Today the new President of the Russian Federation held a speech at the Duma.

'Yesterday I ordered the attack of some terrorist strongholds in the mountains aroudn Groznyy. Russia will not tolerate Terrorism and Islamism (...) We have the privilege and the God-given right to be the guardian of security of our former Soviet Republics in these days of Americanism. We have the possibilities to keep peace in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus Region. Therefore I ask the constituting Security Council in New York to allow Peace-keeping missions next year (...) I am going to ask only once. Russia requests free-hands in Central Asia (Aktyubinsk, Karaganda) and the Caucasian States (Tblisi, Baku) in order to prevent Terrorism - which is the enemy of all of us - from spreading.'

I will support the decision of FiGu in regards to this statement. However, be warned, that the US WILL DEFEND ALL OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION if requested. I will support joint-peace-keeping missions ONLY.

Panda · October 21, 2003, 19:05

Well, I haven't gone through them all, but this one stuck out:

@IF
RANDOMTURN
denominator=8
@THEN
CREATEUNIT
unit=Terrorist
owner=TRIGGERATTACKER
veteran=no
homecity=None
locations
127,57
130,54
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
endlocations
@ENDIF

and the other's are similar.

You said you added these via the in-game editor, right? They won't create an owner properly, but the event debugger would accept each as legitimate. I think that the modifications are fair, they just need a couple of corrections (and I'll adjust the lower case/upper case for the texts that are a bit muddled).

POTUS (and anyone else), please just tell me what you wanted added to the scenario and I'll give each suggestion fair consideration. I have never played this PBEM so other people are better qualified to say what amendments are needed. I'm just really pissed because in all the PBEM games no-one has ever bothered to contact me to say "your graphics suck" and "do this, do that; don't do that". Feedback is good; criticism is good, so how come I never hear it?

But please do this in the creation forum so the threads aren't duplicated.

academia · October 21, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

I will support the decision of FiGu in regards to this statement. However, be warned, that the US WILL DEFEND ALL OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION if requested. I will support joint-peace-keeping missions ONLY.

I think we still need to hear China´s position...
Before doing these "peace-keeping" missions, India insists on determing the powers of the UN Security Council.

jim panse · October 22, 2003, 03:50

Quote:

Originally posted by POTUS

I will support the decision of FiGu in regards to this statement. However, be warned, that the US WILL DEFEND ALL OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION if requested. I will support joint-peace-keeping missions ONLY.

Quote:

I think we still need to hear China´s position... Before doing these "peace-keeping" missions, India insists on determing the powers of the UN Security Council.

Message from the Kremlin: Be advised my friends: I haven´t attacked anyone yet. I was only telling you that I am willing to achieve my goals by peaceful negotiations, not by war. If you should intervene in a place where you all do not belong, I will do whatever is the best for Mother Russia. The chance and choice is up to you ...

POTUS · October 22, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
If you should intervene in a place where you all do not belong, I will do whatever is the best for Mother Russia. The chance and choice is up to you ...

You seem to have forgotten that the Soviet Union no longer exists. However, the US is willing to offer a way out for both of us. You, General will have free reign inside the territory of Russia. We will not intervene. However, you will not intervene in the affairs of your neighbors unless the owner of the territory requests help.

Prometheus · October 22, 2003, 21:28

The People’s Republic of China

1.)The beloved Chinese people of will not strike first.
2.)The Chinese support the UN security council to add legitimacy to operations, though the council members do have veto power. (sorry India)
3.)The Security Council can also make decisions such as the negotiations for the reunification of India and Pakistan, which China fully supports, and the reunification of the Province of Taiwan with China.
4.)10 turn terms for Chair of Council.

Also the PRC would like to enter into negotiations with the EU over the return of Hong Kong near the end of the century as is specified by treaty with the UK.

Turn,

academia · October 22, 2003, 22:12

Ok. Let´s recapitulate...
First of all, i think that before talking about specific situations and conflicts in the world; we must establish the powers/limits of the Security Council.

So far, this is the situation:

INDIAN PROPOSAL
1) Creation of a permanent United Nations Security Council

YES: India - US - EU - Russia - China
NO:
Neutrals?

In my opinion, the creation of a Security Council is almost a fact.
However, we still need to specify the powers of this council.

Some proposals were made:

US PROPOSAL
1) I move that the Security Council should elect a General to command peace-keeping operations

YES: US - India
NO:
EU? - Russia? - China? - Neutrals?

INDIAN PROPOSAL
1) 10 turn terms for Chair of Council.

YES: India - China
NO:
EU? - Russia? - US? - Neutrals?

RUSSIAN PROPOSALS
1) we want the right to reject ALL decisions as Russia is a sovereign nation among other sovereign nations (Veto).

YES: Russia - China
NO:
EU? - India? - US? - Neutrals?

India has 2 question:
A) In your opinion, what should be the "special" powers that the Chair of Council will have?
B) For Russia and India: Everybody will have this veto?
If anyone can veto a decision, then what´s the point of creating a Security Council???
In my opinion, ONLY THE PRESIDENT of the Council should have this power. Or maybe, in case of a tie in the votaion, the Chair of the Council could use these "veto power" to make the final decision.

academia · October 22, 2003, 22:29

Another comment...
On second thoughts, i believe that Figu should take command of the Allies. All in all, many developed countries (and others relevant too) are included in this civ...
Japan, Australia or Canada should have a human leader.... they are way too important to let them be ruled by the AI

POTUS · October 22, 2003, 23:44

The US refuses to join the Security Council if Russia is treated differently. Russia has a veto, we all have a veto.

Also, the Security Council should govern the game.

POTUS · October 23, 2003, 00:02

In accordance with previous agreements dating back to 1828, the US promises to defend the territorial integrity of all nations and territories, especially the British Commonwealth.

I would advise China that in accordance with the 5th Fleet Relocation Act and Treaty, the 5th Fleet will dock in Hong Kong and, until July 1, 1997, when the 5th Fleet will be based, for the indefinite future at Clark in the Phillipines, Oninkiwa, Singapore, or a location to be determined by January 1, 1996.

asaz989 · October 23, 2003, 00:32

I am for the American proposal of a U.N. General, at least to the extent of a coordinator who sets goals and areas of control for different nation's armies during a Security Coucil sanctioned operation. I am also in agreement India's proposal for term limits on Security Council President. However, I do have questions about the Russian statement of veto power, mostly those that others have voiced: does everyone have this power, and, if they do, how does anything get done?

P.S. By the way potus, on your statement

Quote:

I would advise China that in accordance with the 5th Fleet Relocation Act and Treaty, the 5th Fleet will dock in Hong Kong and, until July 1, 1997, when the 5th Fleet will be based, for the indefinite future at Clark in the Phillipines, Oninkiwa, Singapore, or a location to be determined by January 1, 1996.

thanks

asaz989 · October 23, 2003, 00:43

and to the chinese: transfer of Hong Kong is good in July 97. any problems?

FiGu · October 23, 2003, 03:46

Okey, ill be Allies then.

jim panse · October 23, 2003, 07:09

(1)

Quote:

Creation of a permanent United Nations Security Council

Russia supprots that proposal and wishes the Security Council to be established.

(2)

Quote:

10 turn terms for Chair of Council.

Russia supports this suggestion of our fellow neighbours and friends in China and India and opposes a permanent chair by the US or the EU.

(3)

Quote:

Everybody will have this veto?

As the Security Council is for coordination between independent and sovereign nations I would say that everybody in this council shall have the right to oppose any decision (Veto).

Message to the US:

Quote:

You seem to have forgotten that the Soviet Union no longer exists. However, the US is willing to offer a way out for both of us. You, General will have free reign inside the territory of Russia. We will not intervene. However, you will not intervene in the affairs of your neighbors unless the owner of the territory requests help.

Russia knows perfectly that the USSR no longer exists. As the speaker of Mother Russia I will inform you and all the other leaders of the world that I will restore Russia´s Glory - and I will not accept or tolerate anyone´s intervention in Russia´s affairs. If the world opposes Russia´s rightful claims as the protector of the weak nations of Transcaucasia and Central Asia I am willing to negotiate about the dates, not about the question if Russia shall be allowed to act so. You can contact me at MSN (steph_sander@hotmail.com) or ICQ (#201374165).

POTUS · October 23, 2003, 19:19

I do not question your nation's history of ruling land from Kallin to Svestapol. However, you must remeber that these countries rejected Russia and the Soviet Union. If they wanted to be protected and ruled over by Russians, they would have never seceded and declared independence.

Here is what I propose:
All land from Poland to the Ukraine, Russia will be allowed to control the security of, provided the nations there consent. From Moldova to Germany, the US and EU will control the security of, provided the people consent. After 5 years, elections will be held in all countries to choose whether to remain independent or to join Russia or the EU. Both Russia, and the EU will abide by the results of the elections. Also, during the five years before elections, no country may interfere in the autonomy of any of the nations, and may not station forces in urban areas (cities). The US will abide by the terms of the agreement and, with any other interested parties, will moniter that both sides are not violating provisions of the treaty.

Will Russia and the EU accept this?

academia · October 23, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

After 5 years, elections will be held in all countries to choose whether to remain independent or to join Russia or the EU. Both Russia, and the EU will abide by the results of the elections.

ELECTIONS????
Is that a joke??? those countries are in control of the AI!!!!!
Please, get out of your US president character this time

There aren´t "elections" in a civ2 game. Please, don´t use these "fictional" arguments...

I suggest you to propose something more "civ2-style"

My suggestion? Let´s make this votation in the context of the UN Security Council.

academia · October 23, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

As the Security Council is for coordination between independent and sovereign nations I would say that everybody in this council shall have the right to oppose any decision (Veto).

Mmm... then i see no point in creating a Security Council.. if everybody has the right to veto a decision, then the council IS USELESS.
No matter what the council decides, you use the veto power and screw them!!!

EU said:

Quote:

However, I do have questions about the Russian statement of veto power, mostly those that others have voiced: does everyone have this power, and, if they do, how does anything get done?

I couldn´t agree more. how does anything get done if everyone has this power??????

Please Russia, make up your mind and reconsider your position...

POTUS · October 23, 2003, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by academia

ELECTIONS????
Is that a joke??? those countries are in control of the AI!!!!!
Please, get out of your US president character this time

There aren´t "elections" in a civ2 game. Please, don´t use these "fictional" arguments...

I suggest you to propose something more "civ2-style"

My suggestion? Let´s make this votation in the context of the UN Security Council.

I kind of meant the EU and Russia would convince those cities to join them

POTUS · October 23, 2003, 20:22

Also, the Security Council could always be used as it is in real,, as a way to try and stop conflicts.

asaz989 · October 24, 2003, 00:54

Hold on a second, POTUS. What you mean is that Russia and the EU would have a "jurisdiction" of areas that they protect from attack, but they get to bribe those cities? correct me if i'm wrong.

POTUS · October 24, 2003, 01:18

Asa, the EU and Russia could station troops in those countries/ protect them, but for five years could not bribe them.

Asa, you can call me Michael

jim panse · October 24, 2003, 04:54

Quote:

Please Russia, make up your mind and reconsider your position...

Hehehe, I knew you would disagree with that Alejandro

Anyway, I am offering this to the world: As for a working Security Council you would need Russia as it would not be a 'real' Security Council I am willing to grant your positions an ear. I WILL participate in multilateral decision-making and peace-making/keeping AFTER Russia´s pride has been restored. I want to get the former Soviet Republics back and THEN we could talk about multilateralistic efforts.

The choice is now up to you, I am waiting for your responses.

Nilat · October 24, 2003, 08:25

Any open slots for me?