Command Nexus

[GeneralTacticus]

Please read my earlier SE speach to see how I explained this switch to Fundy. As you can see, it's not religious fundamentalism I propose here.

Irrelevant. Any kind of fundamentalist government will, by nature, suppress any dissenting opinion in the name of it's own dogma. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

[History Guy]

General Tacticus is entirely correct.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Re-read the effects. The -2 Morale penalty not only reduces Morale by two levels, it also halves any positive effects, e.g. Command Centers.

Meh. The CC benifit in defence makes up for it.

Irrelevant. Any kind of fundamentalist government will, by nature, suppress any dissenting opinion in the name of it's own dogma. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Obviously you haven't read my speach yet. Read it again. In any case, the survival of our people takes precidence over ideology. A switch for 10 years to a Fundamentalist government is a small price to pay for continuing freedom.

[GeneralTacticus]

Meh. The CC benifit in defence makes up for it.

I'm not even talking about base defence; if we get into a situation where our bases ar eunder serious threat, we're doing something wrong.

Obviously you haven't read my speach yet. Read it again.

I have read it. here is the relevant section:

On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.

You seem to be claiming that we can have fundamentalism without being fundamentalist, which is simply impossible. By nature, fundamentalist governments are repressive, intolerant of dissent and have no basis in morality or common sense.

In any case, the survival of our people takes precidence over ideology. A switch for 10 years to a Fundamentalist government is a small price to pay for continuing freedom.

Just how likely is it that our survival will depend on our implementing a fundamentalist government? If we have no other option, than yes, we will do as we must. However, such a situation is not only unlikely but is also avoidable.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


I'm not even talking about base defence; if we get into a situation where our bases ar eunder serious threat, we're doing something wrong.

And if we get in a situation where we're undertaking any military action besides defending bases, we're violating our ethos.

You seem to be claiming that we can have fundamentalism without being fundamentalist, which is simply impossible. By nature, fundamentalist governments are repressive, intolerant of dissent and have no basis in morality or common sense.

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

Just how likely is it that our survival will depend on our implementing a fundamentalist government? If we have no other option, than yes, we will do as we must. However, such a situation is not only unlikely but is also avoidable.

If it's an avoidable situation then this thread wouldn't exist. War, in one form or another, must occur someday.

[DeathByTheSword]

i dont believe that is we do something else then defending we are violating our ethos. I believe we must go all the way to defend this ethos, i to protect them would by definision (?) stated that nothing else then democracy is possible.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

AFAIK, Fundamentalims is a religious state, where religious laws are applied, and where government act in agreement of religious traditions. Therefore, I find a not-religious fundamentalit very unlikely to be applied.
Moreover, the philosophies you quoted are not only philosophies : Sun-Tzu, as Confucius, are not only led by a "way to think", a philosophy, but are also built on many rituals. Even Buddhist, back on old Earth, was quoted as a philosophy and not a religion, in the late 21st Century. But rituals remain, and the structure of time that these rituals make are the very basis of religion : I dont want our Commissionner to swear on the Bible, the Coran, Sun-Tzu or anything but our constitution.

[GeneralTacticus]

If it's an avoidable situation then this thread wouldn't exist. War, in one form or another, must occur someday.

The necessity to use fundamentlism is an avoidable situation.

And if we get in a situation where we're undertaking any military action besides defending bases, we're violating our ethos.

The UN Charter prohibits aggression, not offensive operations carried out in self-defense.

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

Where do you think the effects of fundy come from? The Morale and Probe bonuses come from brainwashing. The Research penalty comes from the intolerance of dissent. Both of these should be anathema to us.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok guys we are straying away from the point

[Method]

i can feel another "merchant exchange" coming on here...

[History Guy]

Vatican Fundamentalism? Someone needs to nerve staple this guy for talking when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm calling Baron von Klem...

Or maybe some Italian hit-man...

Now, back on topic, what General Tacticus says is correct in every way. The way to act is the way that he describes. I suggest that we do as he suggests. It is for the best of our government, and may help us come to take that lofty goal which we have now set ourselves to see...the unity of these splintered factions, and a new utopia, a better world, on Planet, where all men are equal...

[DeathByTheSword]

btw i dont think we will change our SE choises that much because of war............and i dnot think we will ever set foot on another continent because of the majority that is against agressive actions. so i think we have to find a way to let a military still be effective and needed. i think that one thing that is going to be importent is the navy. this because we will probably expand in the oceans of planet too. we or if we have control of our continent. I think the way to defend it is by building a defensive ring around this continent with ships.

DBTS

[Mellian]

I would like to join in the Command Nexus.

I am not going to bother which government or values is best until we get to a point where we may really need to consider it or not.

I will say thought that, from the nature of our bureaucracy and democracy, where many citizens is helping run this faction (OOC: U.N. Peacekeepers right?), will be chaos to switch from one gov/value and back. So Social Engineering changes should be limited.

As for any military opinions, i will wait until i can review the map and the current situation.

-Mellian

[DeathByTheSword]

mellian check the topped thread for links to maps and stuff

[Mellian]

I have and it seems to me we have a big arse lake. how do i know? because the water is fresh so perfect breeding waters for ships and then let them via our future panama base.

I agree with Death that we should build maintain a navy, and ring of sea defence bases a long the coasts. of course, before we can do that, we need to know how to build ships

-Mellian