United Front Coalition - Page 4

mtgillespie · July 5, 2002, 04:13

Trip should be more worried about what happened to the head of Austria-Hungary to start WWI

Papa Chubby · July 5, 2002, 09:16

The only reason that the Austrian-Hungary were intertwined was because the Austrian military was doing all the twining. Besides they were not popularly viewed as one country, they were one country known as the Habsburg monarchy.

Robber Baron · July 5, 2002, 10:39

More like an unstable, tottering empire.
The UFC, I'd like to think, rests on firmer ground. As long as we can present a compelling case for aggressive expansion, backed by sound planning, the UFC remains a vital political force and an invaluable way of focusing our effort.

That's a plug, people.

Jon Shafer · July 5, 2002, 13:29

The UFC isn't unstable or anything, I just used the comparison to Austria-Hungary to show the political situation that's similar to our own.

And what do you mean about what happened to the leader of Austria? Emperor Conrad was the leader of the empire, Archduke Francis Ferdinad was only the heir (who nobody liked anyways

).

Will 5001 · July 5, 2002, 16:19

Maybe comparing the UFC to Austria-Hungary wasn't such a good idea Trip

Captain · July 5, 2002, 16:23

it got his thread bumped a lot, didn't it?

Will 5001 · July 5, 2002, 16:24

Why aren't more people preparing to be candidates fro the up and coming elections, I would go myself if it wasn't for my incompetence, so why aren't the more able among us going for the positions, at least to oppose the DIA

Start applying

jdd2007 · July 5, 2002, 17:05

im running for FAM if that makes you feel any better...

Will 5001 · July 5, 2002, 17:12

A bit, we could do with a few more though!

ChaingKaiShek · July 6, 2002, 00:40

Greetings fellow warmongers...I mean Citizens! After much research I have decided that I wish to join the ranks of the UFC. I share many like-minded views with the party, and would feel it much better suits me than joining the DIA.

And on the bright side, with me in the party - one would not have to worry about me raising a milita to dispose of the current government and seize power for myself!

Chaing

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 00:43

Welcome Chaing! It's a pleasure to have you onboard with the UFC! Let our armies march to glory!

jdd2007 · July 6, 2002, 00:53

I would like to make a suggestion. The Hawk Party and Imperialists should offcially merge completely. The UFC has grown not farther apart, as some would have us believe, but closer together. It would be best to just have one party.

ChaingKaiShek · July 6, 2002, 01:21

One party, One Nation, One evil leader?

jdd2007 · July 6, 2002, 01:49

yes, but we need to ask trip

Panag · July 6, 2002, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaingKaiShek
One party, One Nation, One evil leader?

hi ,

, that could be the wrong words , .....

Trip is doing a great job , and if anyone wants a coup de etat , well , they have to get around the secret presidential guards first , .......

have a nice day

IceElement · July 6, 2002, 09:41

IMHO, I believe that the UFC is becoming ever more pacifist as a whole , and are bending to accomodate and attract some of the DIA members. Merging the UFC together in one group is a potential way to stop opposition between the 2 groups that make up the UFC, as long as the traditional, militaristic, expansionist, scientific policies are followed and nurtured.

(The downside, of course, is that there are less potential candidates in office, for example, the DIA would produce one candidate for an office election, wheras a 'split' group of Hawk and Imperialists could select two different candidates, therefore gaining more political platforms and attract more support for the UFC cause, for two nearly identical groups... the UFC in general will have a better chance in elections this way.)

IceElement
Hawk Party (Independence

) Activist

IceElement · July 6, 2002, 10:19

I'd appreciate to hear your views ont his matter... I'm up for a healthy political debate.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a fight or to provoke any UFC member, but I wish to make it clear the jdd2007 does not speak for all Hawk Party members, and thus I would like to air my own, personal views that may or may not be shared by other Hawk members.
I realise independance from the UFC would incur disaster regarding membership and the like, but I sometimes feel that the UFC and members are becoming increasingly left wing and neutral...
I realise some evidence would be valuable in supporting my claims, but as of yet, i cannot be @rsed to find any.

IceElement
Hawk Party Activist

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 10:35

The fragmenting of the UFC into the Imperalists and the Hawks would make the DIA firmly dominant, which was the reason that the UFC was formed in the first place. What you said about multiple platforms for each faction would hurt the UFC more than it would help it... splitting voters, even if more candidates did attract more of them. Overall, the two groups would get more, but overall, they would get less than the DIA would, making it more detrimental to our cause than beneficial.

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 10:39

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007
I would like to make a suggestion. The Hawk Party and Imperialists should offcially merge completely. The UFC has grown not farther apart, as some would have us believe, but closer together. It would be best to just have one party.

The founding principles of the Imperialists and the Hawks are inherently different, which is why I would dissuade the two parties from merging. The political alliance as it stands now will provide for much more political power than we would have had seperated, but we may not always agree on issues, which would lead to more problems than it's worth if such a merger was to occur. For these reasons I feel that the two parties remaining primarily independent is a desideratum.

IceElement · July 6, 2002, 10:49

However, surely by operating under the guises of Imperialists and Hawk parties, we can broaden the policies to attract more members...

I see the point about different candidates polling overall less votes, so a UFC candidate representing the two would be more approproate. In effect, I'm proposing that the differences between the two are more noticeable and structured.... there are VERY few people who can honestly tell the difference between the two.

i do NOT suggest creating two seperate parties, and combining their votes to gain power, but instead take the two names, give them unique identities, one being more pacifistic, and one being a little more aggressive, yet retaining many of the same policies so they can still be classed as members of the UFC.

In this way, they operate as 'branches' of the same type of government, for want of a better word, and thus can attract more attention by splitting the efforts.

So, in conclusion, the UFC can have double the amount of political 'advertising', again, for want of a better word, can attract more members due to a few alterations of policy, and combine its power under the UFC title.

IceElement
Hawk Party Activist

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 10:56

That sounds reasonable. Though I must say, the Imperalists aren't at all pacifistic in any way, we simply believe in expansion: through peace when possible, through war when necassary.

We just don't focus on the 'war' aspect of it as much... more expansion as a whole, rather. That is the inherent difference between the Hawks and the Imperialists.

LordImpact · July 6, 2002, 11:03

I don't beleive unification is a good idea. Like it has been said above, the fundimentals of both parties a different. Just because we agree on the same platform now doesn't mean we will for the duration of the entire game. The Coalition has worked well so far. I don't see a need for change.

IceElement · July 6, 2002, 11:12

I realise this, and this is why the UFC can include both groups under its all incumbersome title.
However, if either the Imperialist or Hawk Groups can begin to negotiate compromises of political policies; at present, its is to flexible. I do not like the idea that the DIA are able to change and alter 'opininons' as a premise to conflict... and I would not like to see the UFC go down the same path for whatever reasons.
I believe that by laying down the basics of policies (instead of just saying peacefuil expansion) now will help any governments in the future to avoid crisis.
After all, what reputable government has to develop new policies everytime something new happens?
So, IMO, the UFC as a whole should decide on basic policies, and leave the doors open for each individual group to amend later on.
Dunno if all that made sense... but here's an example....

All UFC governments and ministers must take every measure to defend every citizen of the empire/ upgrade its military/ provide at least 4 military units per city.

(these are all crappy policies, im sure negotiation will provide much better ones)

But at the moment, there is literally no difference between ANY of the political parties and their policies.

IceElement
Hawk Party Activist

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 11:17

The purpose of political parties right now is less a particular agenda than their particular views on certain issues. For example, on the issue of which tech to research, the DIA may want Literature for the Great Library, the Imperialists may want Map Making to expand our influence, and the Hawks may want Iron Working for a powerful offensive. While these views aren't exactly particular 'doctrines', they are recognized within the groups as a particular aim because of the party's mission. This doesn't have to be spelled out letter by letter, it's just something that 'is'.

IceElement · July 6, 2002, 11:30

ok, all statements and ideas are immediately withdrawn

IceElement
Rambling Fool

Will 5001 · July 6, 2002, 12:23

To be an effective party we need to have unified policies and unified candidates to avoid voters from getting confused or disillusioned, we need one unified party. But a rather more obvious problem is that the voter needs some UFC candidates to vote for and at the moment we dont have many candidates so even if we win all the elections we are in for, we still wont have a majority, we need more candidates!!

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Will 5001
To be an effective party we need to have unified policies and unified candidates to avoid voters from getting confused or disillusioned, we need one unified party. But a rather more obvious problem is that the voter needs some UFC candidates to vote for and at the moment we dont have many candidates so even if we win all the elections we are in for, we still wont have a majority, we need more candidates!!

So run for something.

Will 5001 · July 6, 2002, 12:32

I have already said, it would be a disaster, my level of competeance is just about up to one of the military commanders, (those ones that will take care of a small area of the army, later in the game), I could never make a good minister!

Panag · July 6, 2002, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Will 5001
I have already said, it would be a disaster, my level of competeance is just about up to one of the military commanders, (those ones that will take care of a small area of the army, later in the game), I could never make a good minister!

hi ,

you can always learn , ......

you shall never learn if you dont go for it , who knows , the people might elect you for a job , ....

have a nice day

Duddha · July 6, 2002, 12:38

Unifying the coalition into one party isn't a bad idea. The only worry I have is that our size might dull the wacky tendencies of the Hawk party, but with people like Uber I'm sure it wouldn't happen.