Wanted: New Ideas on the end of the world.

[TKalbfus]

Right at 100 years ago, we were cementing our position in the Philippines. We had just "freed" them from those meanies, the Spanish and told them we would give them self rule when we thought they were ready...

We held the Philippines as a protectorate until Dec. 8, 1941 (check the dateline before you holler at me ), considering them as "little brown children" and protecting them from themselves and the bad influence of the Moro Islamic insurgents. After WWII, we continued to hold the islands for a few years and eventually gave them control, as long as they kept the communists in check...

I wonder who will take Iraq from us in 2041...

So a Communist takeover of the Phillipeans is acceptable to you? The Phillipeans weren't ready to govern themselves, they should have chose statehood, that way there would have been no Ferdinand Marcos. The Phillipean Constitution is modeled after our own, they have a president, a vice president, a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Supreame Court all with a balance of powers, yet still this guy was able to make himself dictator.
But still, would it have been any less of a dictatorship if some cookie-cutter Lenin type figure were to take power and proclaim himself the Dictatorship of the Prolitariate. the Phillipeans would then have a People's Army that would then proceed to brutalize them. The Proto-Lenin would then put up statues and posters of himself everywhere, collectivized all forms of employment and place them under the control of the Government, so he can pushish those people he doesn't like by denying them employment, or perhaps by transfering them to a Gulag. Everyone would be drafted into the Phillipean Army and Navy. The People's Government would then go about their duties of exporting thier franchise to neighboring countries by destabilizing them with revolutionary activities. Are you saying that the above outcome is a better alternative to the takeover by Ferdinand Marcos?

 

[Whipsnade]

Mr. Kalbfus wrote:

"...of the Phillipeans..."

"... is Phillipean Constitution..."


Mr. Kalbfus,

It is Filipino. Filipinos live in the Phillipines under government set forth in the Phillipine Constitution.
If you're going to reference a foreign people in a debate at least try and get their NAME correct. That way we all look less like a bunch of stereotypical, know-nothing, 'furriner' hating, Ugly American, idiots.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

Larsen Whipsnade,
It is rather confusing that their Nationality is spelled differently from their nation alternating from 'ph' to 'f'. As for ugly Americanism, it seems at that at times that the filipinos behaved in a ugly fashion toward Americans. The above was a simple misspelling not intended to offend, but many third world countries make political hay out of their anti-Americanism and much of the World excuses them for this, including many Americans of the Left persuasion. I think Anti-Americanism is no better than Anti-semitism, or racism. The more Anti-American the world is perceived by Americans, the more xenophobic Americans will in turn become in reaction to antiAmericanism. That is my premise for a new Twilight 2000 scenario! This is a very real danger if carried too far. The 9/11 disaster is an outgrowth of Anti-Americanism, it is of the hardcore variety. The softcore variety is just to call us a bunch of Imperialists and telling the Yankees to go home. I've seen the US government do alot of good things in the world only to be reviled by those people we've benefitted, most notibly the French during World War II. Thousands of Americans died liberating that Nation, and the French spit in our face in return. We saved the Bosnian Muslims from Mass Slaughter and in return we are hated by the Serbs, and much of the Muslim World as well. If I didn't know any better, and perhaps I don't, I'd swear that the World in General has a bias against us. This bias can lead to World War III, since we obviously have the capability to wage it.

 

[Whipsnade]

"It is rather confusing that their Nationality is spelled differently from their nation alternating from 'ph' to 'f'."


Mr. Kalbfus,

Do you also get confused because the Dutch live in Holland?

If you're going to debate issues, draw comparisons, and make points, trying to get the basic facts *right* will help your case. Trying to use the political history of the Phillipines to make a point while also revealing that you have no idea of how to spell that peoples' NAME does not help your case. It does the opposite.

If you can't be bothered to get something as simple as a name correct, why should anyone listen to anything else you say? Getting the name wrong would suggest that you know nothing about the topic. It would be like using the Nazis in an analogy and continually referring to Adolf 'Hister'. It does not matter how good an analogy you made, no one will pay attention to someone who can't be bothered to get a simple fact right.

You tried to made some good points in your previous post, your posts usually do have a good point or two. Sadly, those points are always overshadowed by the continual mistakes you make with the basic facts. If you paid more attention to the basic facts in your posts, the people here might pay more attention to you and your ideas.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

"It is rather confusing that their Nationality is spelled differently from their nation alternating from 'ph' to 'f'."


Mr. Kalbfus,

Do you also get confused because the Dutch live in Holland?

No I don't English Teacher! Are insults really necessary? I don't suppose you've ever misspelled a single word in your entire life. Well I type these messages on line and I typed them as fast as I can, so some words are bound to get misspelled. There is no spell checker and if I spend too much time looking in the dictionary to get each word spelled correctly, I might get kicked off the Internet, lose the message and have to start all over again.

If you're going to debate issues, draw comparisons, and make points, trying to get the basic facts *right* will help your case. Trying to use the political history of the Phillipines to make a point while also revealing that you have no idea of how to spell that peoples' NAME does not help your case. It does the opposite.

I assumed that Filipino was the Filipino spelling of Philipean in their own language. I don't speak Filipino, so I assumed Philipean was the english spelling. Just like Poland is the English spelling for Polska in Polish. To me Filipino looks like its spelled wrong. Anyway your side trscking the conversation by focusing on such trivia. Phoenetically it doesn't make any difference since when both spellings are pronounced, they make the same sound.

I don't think people are really interested in hearing you lecture me about English. There are nice ways to point out mistakes without jumping all over me like your some sort of English Drill Sergent! Is it that you are especially fond of attacking people? It seems like you are a disagreeable naysayer with every post, what is the deal with you anyway?

If you can't be bothered to get something as simple as a name correct, why should anyone listen to anything else you say? Getting the name wrong would suggest that you know nothing about the topic.

No it would suggest that I didn't edit my spelling before sending my post. Sometimes a misspelling can be as simple as a typo that I didn't catch on time. Now is all this ranting because you can't find a more significant flaw with my arguments?

It would be like using the Nazis in an analogy and continually referring to Adolf 'Hister'. It does not matter how good an analogy you made, no one will pay attention to someone who can't be bothered to get a simple fact right.

Well a lot of people did pay attention to Nostrodamus. Why don't you speak just for yourself rather than claiming to represent the vox populi, and trying to drag my name through the mud with your insults. It was not a significant mistake and it does not presage the end of the world. These are just single draft posts, not newspaper or magazine articles. I don't get paid for writing these and I have other things to do with my time, so I write them as quickly as possible and mistakes do get by.

You tried to made some good points in your previous post, your posts usually do have a good point or two. Sadly, those points are always overshadowed by the continual mistakes you make with the basic facts. If you paid more attention to the basic facts in your posts, the people here might pay more attention to you and your ideas.


Sincerely,
Larsen

If you are an English Teacher it may be important for you to lecture me in front of a crowd and make an example of my mistake in front of your other students, but in case you haven't noticed, I'm not one of your students, its not your job to teach me English and you could be nice about it too, instead of suggesting that I know nothing because I misspelled a single word.

 

[TKalbfus]

It is curious that Professor Whipsnade would suddenly find fault with my English at the point when I'm talking about Anti-Americanism in the world and its potential for generating conflict. Notice how he cleverly diverts the discussion and forces me to devote an entire post to defending my English. I guess he disagrees with my assertion, but can't find a good counter argument, so he nitpicks my spelling.

 

[Jame]

The thing is, if someone does something to America, then America does something back, and then says "This Is Why" the world (or at least whoever the someone is) will say that it's all and only America's fault, and that they need to NOT be punished for doing whatever it is to America, while America must be dissolved totally for responding (i.e. America's the only one at fault).

 

[Whipsnade]

"No I don't English Teacher! I don't suppose you've ever misspelled a single word in your entire life."


Mr. Kalbfus,

You are a treasure! This isn't about you misspelling words, we all do that. This isn't about your utterly wretched composition skills; try paragraphs for a change, they work wonders. What this is about is your complete disregard towards and ignorance of the basic facts.

You were illustrating a point by using examples from Phillipine history, yet you didn't even know the name that the people of the Phillipines use to refer to themselves. If you can't be bothered to get a simple name right, why should anyone pay attention to rest of what you are trying to say?

What's more, you don't even know what languages they speak. Filipino may be the 'official' language, but only ~50% of the popualtion can actually speak it. It is a creole, a pidgin mixture of Tagalog, English, and some Spanish. Most Filipinos in the Phillipines speak either Tagalog, English, or one of +100 other dialects. Again, if you can't be bothered to get that right, why should we pay attention to rest of your argument?

"Anyway your side trscking the conversation by focusing on such trivia."

No, I am not. Your blatant disregard or ignorance of the facts is destroying your argument. I happen to AGREE with some of your ideas concerning anti-Americanism. The manner in which you present these ideas does them no justice. The way in which you present ideas is just as important as the ideas themselves. Having a fool argue the case for the presence of endemic and irrational anti-American sentiment does not help, it very much makes matters worse.

"I don't think people are really interested in hearing you lecture me about English."

Again, this isn't about spelling or composition. You didn't misspell 'Phillipean', there isn't any such word, so it can't be misspelled. This about your presuming to lecture us about Phillipine history without even knowing what that people calls themselves or even bothering to find out.

"It seems like you are a disagreeable naysayer with every post, what is the deal with you anyway?"

I have many, many faults. One is that I do not suffer fools gladly and you, sir, are a fool of the highest order.

As for my being a naysayer, may I suggest you read over the threads in which you participate? Everyone responding to you is a 'naysayer'. In the 2300AD thread, it took days to patiently explain to you that adding brown dwarfs would wreck the 200 years of history, economics, and politics found in the setting. In the XP thread, it took days to patiently explain to you that the original Traveller setting had no use for XP harvesting adventures and thus they were of limited utility in T20. In the Robots thread, it took days to patiently explain to you that you had both Asimov's FOUR Laws of Robotics and their application wrong. Nearly every time you post something, someone has to correct a factual error, assumption, or other mistake that you have made. Do you see any trend there?

Or is the problem that everyone else is wrong and a naysayer and you're the only one who is right? If you believe that, you are even more of a fool than I give you credit for.


"...and trying to drag my name through the mud with your insults."

Until this post, I never insulted you. As for dragging your name through the mud, you sported that 2-star rating well before I showed up. It also seems that a 2-star rating is more than you deserve.

This board boasts experts in nearly every field of human endeavor. There are professional historians, working physicists, doctors of every stripe, economists, authors, engineers, even fencing masters and award winning martial arts instructers. If you make an factual error in any of these fields, those individuals will correct you. They will correct anyone anytime they make any mistake. If you act like a fool, people will treat you like one.

This is not some chat room or instant message buddy list full of giggling school kids, the people here are serious adults with varied careers and interests who take great pains to get things right. If you want to post mono-block ravings full of contrafactual gibberish and lazy mistakes, that is your perogative. Just don't whine when someone pulls you up short and corrects you. That is our perogative.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

Jame said,

The thing is, if someone does something to America, then America does something back, and then says "This Is Why" the world (or at least whoever the someone is) will say that it's all and only America's fault, and that they need to NOT be punished for doing whatever it is to America, while America must be dissolved totally for responding (i.e. America's the only one at fault).

At least you didn't critique my spelling, for which I thank you. As for culpability, the first terrorist nuke destroys Washington, killing the President, and most of Congress. The line of succession to the presidency goes down to one congressman who was out of town at the time, he was not elected by the American people, only by his district, he is a bit of a right winger and he is pissed off by the terrorist attack. He receives the "Football" and orders a nuclear strike against his suspected enemies. The American people don't have any say in what he does as it is a national emergency and there was no time for elections. The President and Congress never suspected that there was an atomic bomb in Washington and never considered such an attack likely. The power vacuum caused by the destruction of Washington caused chaos, and in times of chaos, sometimes terrible men come to power. The chaos was caused by the terrorists, so in a way they were responsible for putting this madman in charge of the United States. The soldiers of the armed forces just saluted according to their chain of command and said , "Yes Sir." The ensuing nuclear chaos causes the collapse of the United States Government and the right-wing facist dictatorship disappears by the time this is over. The situation ends up to be similar to the original Twilight 2000 scenario except different countries are effected. Instead of Poland, the PCs might find themselves in a devastated France, or Germany trying to escape a vengeful population. Poland and England were neutrals and stayed out of the war and are structurally uneffected although their economies are a mess compared to the prewar.

 

[Ran Targas]

What amazes me is the history of Anti-Americanism in the 20th century.

With the shift of power away from Europe and Russia at the beginning of the century, winning of the Cold War, and now in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has shown its willingness to lead; unfortunately the rest don't want to follow, they just want to bitch!

Someone will lead the world into the rest of the 21st century, if you'd rather it be the French, Russians, or Germans then so be it. But first, look at their "glowing" records in the 20th.

Maybe you'd rather have a hand full of totally irresponsible nations debate the fate of the world at the U.N., all the while their people starve, commit ethnic cleansing, or destroy massive tracts of environmentally significant ecosystem. OT: Why are we responsible for preventing deforestation when the South American, African, and Southeast Asian nations that do it aren't?

Not me, I'd rather put my stock with time tested heroes vice the villians.

 

[Eamon]

The Consitution list the order of succesion to include the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro Temp. When those leaders are not aviable, their positions are not automatically passed on to the next congressman. There would be the need for a qurom. This would not happen until the State Governors appointed their replacements or held special elections.
The military would not order a counter-strike until the National Command Authority was restablished.
FEMA was supposed to grab any surviving congressmen and move them to a secure location.
The new congressional members would join them there and if they have a qurom elect a new Speaker of the House. He would then assume the office of the President. Congress would then elect a new Speaker. The new President with the advise and consent of the new Senate would appoint his cabinet.
Only then would the military accept orders to fire the nukes.

 

[Jame]

As I said in another post, the Palestinians don't seem to want peace either (nor do some Israelis, but they don't commit homicide bombings). Perhaps another way the human world kills itself is that the those two decide to wipe each other out, which creates a widening conflict (WW3, here, people!).

 

[TKalbfus]

The way I see it, the United States may eventually lose patience and decide to end the conflict permanently. Perhaps it is on the receiving end of one too many terrorist attacks, and then says, "to hell with their culture, their politics, and their myriad excuses for violence, lets just call them evil and get rid of them!" and then lashes out with its full military might. An ancient example of this would be Carthage and the Roman Republic. Carthage attacks Rome multiple times, each time ends at a peace table except for the last time where the Romans just decide to get rid of the Carthagians, destroy their city and plow salt into their fields so nothing can grow in it. Maybe in the middle east their is some internal politics that is driving them to attack Americans, but the politics becomes so convoluted, that Americans no longer bother to understand them and simply come to the conclusion that they attack because they are evil. Perhaps some right-wing fundamentalist comes to power and uses the latest terrorist attack to "prove" that Islam is a form of Devil worship, and that terrorist attacks are proof that they are in "league with the Devil". The Europeans take exception to this and want to untie the Gordion knot instead of cleaving it, of course they aren't being targeted so they afford themselves some intellectual distance. The Russians, the French, and the Chinese want to curtail American influence in the world and they see an excellent opportunity, perhaps they gloat a little too much at American deaths in terrorist attacks, but a military confrontation develops between these 4 powers, someone miscalculates and it goes nuclear.

 

[montanakennedy]

Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
So a Communist takeover of the Phillipeans is acceptable to you?

While Stalinist or Maoist Communism are not my favorites, that wasn't my point... I was pointing out one of the sidelines of American foreign policy post-WWII. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Don't like communists - install a rabidly anti-communist leader into place... Don't like Muslim fanatics - install a psychotic despot in charge of a large oil-producing nation in the Mid-East...

The Phillipeans weren't ready to govern themselves, they should have chose statehood, that way there would have been no Ferdinand Marcos.

Uh, who do you think the biggest (political and financial) supporter of Marcos was? It was the good 'ol US of A.

Besides, there is a BIG difference between protectorate and possession/territory, much less State. Prior to us giving them free reign, they had no choice in the matter of Statehood. It was not an option.

The Phillipean Constitution is modeled after our own, they have a president, a vice president, a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Supreame Court all with a balance of powers, yet still this guy was able to make himself dictator.

See my previous comment...

But still, would it have been any less of a dictatorship if some cookie-cutter Lenin type figure were to take power and proclaim himself the Dictatorship of the Prolitariate. the Phillipeans would then have a People's Army that would then proceed to brutalize them.

I thought that one requirement for most dictators WAS an army that would brutalize the people...

The Proto-Lenin would then put up statues and posters of himself everywhere, collectivized all forms of employment and place them under the control of the Government, so he can pushish those people he doesn't like by denying them employment, or perhaps by transfering them to a Gulag. Everyone would be drafted into the Phillipean Army and Navy. The People's Government would then go about their duties of exporting thier franchise to neighboring countries by destabilizing them with revolutionary activities. Are you saying that the above outcome is a better alternative to the takeover by Ferdinand Marcos?

I don't even know where to go with this... but I'll try...

Modern communism really needs a pre-existing infrastructure to survive. Otherwise you end up with a blundering bureaucracy and occasional purges executed by 17-year-olds carrying Kalashnikovs.

Waiting for Flameage
- Dave

 

[montanakennedy]

Originally posted by William:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by montana kennedy:
I wonder who will take Iraq from us in 2041...
-Dave

Bingo. You do tobacco? If so, I owe you a cigar.Otherwise let me know your vice, as you got it on the first try with the best American example that exists. Pity our current leadership doesn't have the honesty of those administrations...

William </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I do tobacco

I will also accept payment in Guinness

-Dave

 

[TKalbfus]

While Stalinist or Maoist Communism are not my favorites, that wasn't my point... I was pointing out one of the sidelines of American foreign policy post-WWII. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Don't like communists - install a rabidly anti-communist leader into place... Don't like Muslim fanatics - install a psychotic despot in charge of a large oil-producing nation in the Mid-East...

No you install US Army General So in So, who takes orders from Washington.

Uh, who do you think the biggest (political and financial) supporter of Marcos was? It was the good 'ol US of A.

The United States didn't elect him, the Philipean people did, it was only after he became President that he made himself dictator. The Philipean people made a bad choice as the people of many third world countries do. Do you think their would not be any Third World Dictators if it were not for the United States?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But still, would it have been any less of a dictatorship if some cookie-cutter Lenin type figure were to take power and proclaim himself the Dictatorship of the Prolitariate. the Phillipeans would then have a People's Army that would then proceed to brutalize them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that one requirement for most dictators WAS an army that would brutalize the people...

I said, would it be any less of a dictatorship if the Communists take over than if Marcos took over? My point was that ultimately it would not have made a difference to the Philipean people except that the Communists would have made them poorer and also they would have put their country into conflict with the United States. If there was one thing that the US learned from World War II, it was to preempt the enemy BEFORE he becomes a direct threat to the United States. What was Russia before Lenin rose to power? A backwards agricultural state with some promise, but not a direct threat to the United States. Germany before Hitler was a defeated power and should have remained that way, if the Allies were doing their job. A mere election should not have legitimized him, and the United States and the allies were well within their rights to remove him physically by Military Force, election or no, he was the people's choice only by our sufference. Because we left Germany's domestic politics alone and minded our own business, we lost thousands of servicemen to World War II.

 

[Ran Targas]

Okay, back on track, an almost new method of precipitating world wide collapse:

- Billions of humans, world wide, find themselves sterile due to some unknown reason (supernova 1000ly away, red dye #7, virus, rap music; pick one). Politics and economics as we know them collapse into a massive effort to find and control verile stock just to ensure survivability.

Give it 50-60years and the planet isn't so crowded anymore.

 

[TKalbfus]

The only problem with that is its not a war. I always conceived of Twilight 2000 as a World War III role playing Game. Everything in it is centered on the Military, the Player Characters are mostly soldiers. Twilight 2000 is not about some primitive Tribesmen exploring the ruins of a more advanced civilization that has fallen for whatever reason. There was even a version of Twilight 2000 where the setting was in an alternate universe where World War III didn't happen. This version of T2000 would still be viable today.

 

[Ran Targas]

Tom,

I didn't mean to imply a peaceful going into the night! After the initial shock and disbelief, all hell would break loose. Breeding stock would be a commodity to be fought over, especially if you want to keep them or get more. Any virile male with arms at his disposal would be trying to gather a harem and start his own nation. I imagine a lot of war going on, particularly since the actual combatants would be little more than sterile drones with limited time to act.

Then there's the weenies who think this is an act of divine vengeance and go about gun barrel converting the heathen non-believers, even the virile!

Fractured nations, bush wars, tac nuke terrorism, slavers, cultists; sounds like good T:2000 stuff to me. Now when the fighting did eventually die down, it would be an Aftermath style setting, but so was the original T:2000.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
I said, would it be any less of a dictatorship if the Communists take over than if Marcos took over? My point was that ultimately it would not have made a difference to the Philipean people except that the Communists would have made them poorer and also they would have put their country into conflict with the United States. If there was one thing that the US learned from World War II, it was to preempt the enemy BEFORE he becomes a direct threat to the United States. What was Russia before Lenin rose to power? A backwards agricultural state with some promise, but not a direct threat to the United States. Germany before Hitler was a defeated power and should have remained that way, if the Allies were doing their job. A mere election should not have legitimized him, and the United States and the allies were well within their rights to remove him physically by Military Force, election or no, he was the people's choice only by our sufference. Because we left Germany's domestic politics alone and minded our own business, we lost thousands of servicemen to World War II.

1) Russia was industrializing well before the rise of socializm in 1905. Yes, it was behind the "1st world" (US and Western Europe). But it was well ahead of the rest of the world.

2) Hitler was not popularly elected; he was elected to the reichstag, and from there appointed Chancellor, and granted war powers.

3) We (the US) tried to remove Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler from power by assassination. We failed. They tried to assassinate each other. And they failed to get each other, too. Assassinations are not easy. See also Iraq, 1992 and 2003.... Afganistan 2002...

4)off topic somewhat You relly should consider using paragraphs of shorter and more concise natures. It would make your arguments easier to follow AND easier to read.