We, the People -- A USA Interactive FTM AAR

As leader of the Democratic Party, I, Senator Mary Phillips of California hereby fillibuster the Pacifc-Asia Defence Act due to the fact it is incompatible with international law, and it is too specific in mentioning French Indochina. It is not our right to revoke a nation's colonial territory -- If France decides to create a free nation, then let France create a free nation. It's not our responsibility or right to do that. Elsewise, the terms "colonial" war thrown around in PADA are too... 19th century for my tastes. Colonial war is an intolerable justification for war. Japan attacked us, this isn't colonial war. This is World War.

Otherwise... I vote AYE on AWFA completely.

Signed,
Senator Mary Phillips [D-CA]

On behalf of the people of Colorado and in the interests of the freedom of all Americans and the rapid end to the war I vote Aye on the AWFA.

Senator John Andersen [D-CO]

Dear Mr. President,

Let me start off with a question. As Senator Phillips filibustered ((Or filibusted, or filibusterered... As a European, this word is unknown to me.)) the PADA, do we still vote for the act? Or do we vote to overturn the filibuster?

Anyway, I vote Aye on the American Wartime Freedoms Act. In the democratic United States of America, it is unheard of to impose censorship on the press. Even if we might not agree with everything they say, the freedom of speech is guaranteed in our Constituton. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall described it in her biography of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Regards,

Senator Marshall

Sakura_F said:

As leader of the Democratic Party, I, Senator Mary Phillips of California hereby fillibuster the Pacifc-Asia Defence Act due to the fact it is incompatible with international law, and it is too specific in mentioning French Indochina. It is not our right to revoke a nation's colonial territory -- If France decides to create a free nation, then let France create a free nation. It's not our responsibility or right to do that.

Click to expand...

Thank you Senator Phillips. I am glad that we can overcome partisan differences to comply with international law. I hope we can come to some form of agreement on my own bill that will earn your party's support.

Senator Osborn I did not have time to address your response by the time these bills were brought to a vote. I will gladly amend the language to specify that we support and guarantee the Republic of China on the condition that free elections are held upon the cessations of hostilities against Japan.(as this is what I intended anyway) I hope this will satisfy you enough to earn your co-sponsorship.

Senator Anderson If you will support the Pacific Control Act with the exception of Section V I am willing to let an Anderson Amendment be voted on with the bill. Please tell me what you think of this idea.

I appreciate all feedback from my fellow senators and as I have vehemently proclaimed, I believe that the Pacific Control Act is vital to our security.

I comply with Senator Phillips' decision to filibuster the PADA. To go straight to the point, we have questionable authority over French Indochina. It is under French control and it should remain so until the French decide to release it. Therefore I have to object to Section 7. I will not hide that I would like to see an independent nation there, as I feel the colonial era is nearing an end. This goes as well for the islands in the Pacific. All Japanese holdings in the Pacific, with the exception of Formosa, which China aquires, and the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands (Iwo-Jima), who have a clear Japanese majority, should be granted independence at some point. The United States should then help these nations to prosperity in a Pacific economic benefit zone. This goes for Palau, Marianas, Marshall Islands, Samoa and Micronesia at first as they are under our authority. Those further south I would also like to see, but at the moment, we do not have the right to. Therefore I also object to Section 4b and 5 of the PADA. All other points in question are acceptable.

In the matter of the AWFA, I vote AYE on behalf of the good citizens of Massachusetts. As Senator Marshall has stated, it is unheard that censorship should be implemented in a free society like ours.

Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA

((The releases of the Pacific nations might be a bit early, but I am a freak on Historical accuracy more or less. I seriously don't want to see Phillippines and Australia owning loads of islands. ))

I vote Aye on the AWFA of course! What kind of damn nonsense is American censorship anyway! It's an oxymoron!

And I vote Nay on the PADA.

- Senator Elexis Sinclaire (R - MA)

Staf_De_Clercq said:

Thank you Senator Phillips. I am glad that we can overcome partisan differences to comply with international law. I hope we can come to some form of agreement on my own bill that will earn your party's support.

Senator Osborn I did not have time to address your response by the time these bills were brought to a vote. I will gladly amend the language to specify that we support and guarantee the Republic of China on the condition that free elections are held upon the cessations of hostilities against Japan.(as this is what I intended anyway) I hope this will satisfy you enough to earn your co-sponsorship.

Senator Anderson If you will support the Pacific Control Act with the exception of Section V I am willing to let an Anderson Amendment be voted on with the bill. Please tell me what you think of this idea.

I appreciate all feedback from my fellow senators and as I have vehemently proclaimed, I believe that the Pacific Control Act is vital to our security.

Click to expand...

Yes that is fair then I will co sponser the bill.

Staf_De_Clercq said:

Thank you Senator Phillips. I am glad that we can overcome partisan differences to comply with international law. I hope we can come to some form of agreement on my own bill that will earn your party's support.

Senator Osborn I did not have time to address your response by the time these bills were brought to a vote. I will gladly amend the language to specify that we support and guarantee the Republic of China on the condition that free elections are held upon the cessations of hostilities against Japan.(as this is what I intended anyway) I hope this will satisfy you enough to earn your co-sponsorship.

Senator Anderson If you will support the Pacific Control Act with the exception of Section V I am willing to let an Anderson Amendment be voted on with the bill. Please tell me what you think of this idea.

I appreciate all feedback from my fellow senators and as I have vehemently proclaimed, I believe that the Pacific Control Act is vital to our security.

Click to expand...

Yes that is fair then I will co sponser the bill.

I propose a compromise for the PADA, that will leave a more vague answer to the Indo-China question, so that it can be re visited once the war is over and the true french government re-installed

Change Section 7 to the following
These United States will work with the French Government, once it is liberated, to negotiate a democratic, self governed and truly free Indo-China that will be suppoerted by both These United States and the Third French Republic.

as of Senator Philips opposition that this is not a colonial war, I will point out that Japan did not attack one of These United States, but a colony that we hold, so to term the war anything but a colonial war would be to blow the war way out of proportion, as the Empire of Japan has never, and will never, be a threat to the Continent of North America.

I would also be willing to add the following amendment that will answer the question of elections in China
Section 3 f) These United States will work with The Republic of China to hold free and fair elections, with in 5 years of peace with Japan

as to Bekendorfs objections of Section 4b and 5, I very much disagree, how can you expect such small, remote islands with almost no populace to rule themselves. I would support that eventually the Pacific Islands be granted a Unified Statehood, with Hawaii as the states capital . I must also disagree with your stance on not giving territory to Australia and the Philippines, as they are both under heavy threat from japan, and will most likely take heavy damages in the war, should our close allies in the pacific also make gains as we do. I will however make the following changes
Section 4 b) The Philippines will be granted the provinces of North and South Palau, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of the Philippines
Section 5 These United States recognize Australian claim on the following territories. Satawan, Truk, Ulul, Woleai, Pulusuk, Wolelai, Ulithi, Yap and Ngulu, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of Australia

I hope these compromises are significant enough that the Democratic and Republican Partys will not filibuster it when it goes to vote again. I do also hope that the for mentioned partys are not filibustering my bill simply due to the fact that I am a member of the Socialist Party of America, as that would truly be an abuse of power.

Signed,
Senator Steven Hyde, Wisconsin

It is. It requires that you have FTM, although frankly, you won't have much to do until the next budget discussion, so it's sensible to make a Senator too.






well i have collenctions for hearts of iron 3 the collections have for the motherland in there.

A Response to PADA

I vote Nay to the AWFA PADA. I believe lifting our current restrictions on broadcasting and print is premature, and - primarily due to the constriction of the draft duration - would prove detrimental to the war effort. Once the war is over, however, I will happily join my fellow Senators in repealing these restrictions.

I also vote Nay to the Pacific-Asia Defense Act, though I expect that the filibuster will hold. In addition to the points raised by Senators Philipps and Beckendorf, I would ask Senator Hyde to answer the following questions:

PADA said:

These United States of America Consider themselves at a colonial state of war with the Empire of Japan, and do not seek to harm the Japanese Civilian Populace, These United States do however seek to have the Military and Government of the Empire of Japan Surrender to the terms outlined in this Act

Click to expand...

Given that Japan has struck directly at our homeland - and yes, Senator Hyde, Hawaii is as much a fundamental part of America as Wisconsin is - why, exactly, is this a "colonial war," rather than a war of survival? The Empire of Japan attacked us, and seeks our destruction; accordingly, we should seek its destruction, and then rebuild Japan so that it never threatens us again.

PADA said:

4b) The Philippines will be granted the provinces of North and South Palau, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of the Philippines
5) These United States recognize Australian claim on the following territories. Satawan, Truk, Ulul, Woleai, Pulusuk, Wolelai, Ulithi, Yap and Ngulu, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of Australia

Click to expand...

Has anyone consulted our Filipino and Australian allies about their supposed claims? I know I've spent the last month or two in the isolated confines of a hospital, but this is the first I've heard of Australia laying claim to these Pacific territories.

For that matter, has anyone asked the locals what they think about being traded and bargained about between nations? I've no problem with liberating these people from Japanese misrule, but immediately handing them over to another counter seems irresponsible to me.

PADA said:

6) These United States recognize the independence of Korea, and we will do all we can to help the region create a free and democratic nation

Click to expand...

I support Korean independence in principle, but taking such a drastic, unilateral step without consulting our Chinese allies would be diplomatic folly. We face enough threats from our enemies; the last thing we need is dissent and rivalry among our friends.

Furthermore, how exactly would we enforce such a claim? Until we destroy the IJN, we can't land troops to liberate Korea; without those troops, our declaration of Korea's independence will be as empty as the guarantee given to Poland at the start of this war.

PADA said:

7) These United States will work with the French Government, once it is liberated, to negotiate a democratic, self governed and truly free Indo-China that will be suppoerted by both These United States and the Third French Republic.

Click to expand...

Given how much France has suffered in recent years, I cannot support Indochinese independence at the present time; without Hanoi's rich farmland, France's armies will be even more thinly manned than they are at present. Once France has been liberated and stabilized, I'll be happy to examine limited decolonization on a case-by-case basis, but we can't just kick out the colonial overlords and expect stable democracies to just spring up like dandelions - especially when we have exactly no men in place to ensure a transition.

Senator Hyde, though I approve of the overall sentiment behind your efforts, I cannot support such a bill in its current form. I urge you to consider the objections raised by myself and my colleagues in any future bills that you propose on this subject.

With my sincerest apologies,

Senator Stephen McCarthy (D-TX)

In response to McCarthys Questions
1. I must disagree, and I will remind you of the definition of colony, any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power., under that definition, Hawaii is a colony. Hawaiians get no vote, no say in american law, you may have even noticed that there is no Hawaiian Senator among us now. I am all for giving Hawaii and any other Pacific Islands under US control a statehood once the war is over, and am strongly considering adding that to this bill, as well as giving Alaska a Statehood as well.
2. I have been unable to discuss this with our allies in Australia and The Philippines, due to the fact that the Pacific is a rather dangerous place at the moment, but the bill only states we support these claims, not force our allies to take them. and no we did not ask the Islanders, but I will point out that a majority of Hawaiians opposed our annexation, but we didn't ask them, did we. and their was one other people we took territory from, who where they again, oh yes the Native Americans, and how much of their territory did we take, oh yes, all of it.
3. as far as I see it, China should in no way be offended by this declaration, as we are also recognizing their legitimacy and independence, and I do hope you realize I am not so naive to hope to install a Korean government before the war is won, this section is simply there to ensure the freedom of Korea is involved in the eventual peace talks.
4. as with Korea, this will only be after the war is over, and will be negotiated with France, as to find a satisfactory compromise.
I hope this helps you understand the bill more fully, and that it might change your mind as to your objection of the bill.

Signed,
Senator Steven Hyde, Wisconsin

AnnexTheWeb said:

1. I must disagree, and I will remind you of the definition of colony, any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power., under that definition, Hawaii is a colony. Hawaiians get no vote, no say in american law, you may have even noticed that there is no Hawaiian Senator among us now. I am all for giving Hawaii and any other Pacific Islands under US control a statehood once the war is over, and am strongly considering adding that to this bill, as well as giving Alaska a Statehood as well.

Click to expand...

While your point is valid, Senator Hyde, I'm afraid that the question of Hawaii's legal status is not the focus of this discussion. Stating that we are waging a colonial war implies that we are attempting to acquire colonies; the only such war we have fought in our history was the Spanish-American War, which we conducted to liberate the Filipinos from the grip of Spain.

Our goal in the present war against Japan is not to acquire land, or to enslave the Japanese people, but to defend ourselves and our allies from their imperial ambitions; thus, our war is a war of self-defense, not a colonial war. Indeed, given their vision of a "Co-Prosperity Sphere" led and dominated by Japan, I'd that Japan is waging a colonial war upon us.

AnnexTheWeb said:

2. I have been unable to discuss this with our allies in Australia and The Philippines, due to the fact that the Pacific is a rather dangerous place at the moment, but the bill only states we support these claims, not force our allies to take them. and no we did not ask the Islanders, but I will point out that a majority of Hawaiians opposed our annexation, but we didn't ask them, did we. and their was one other people we took territory from, who where they again, oh yes the Native Americans, and how much of their territory did we take, oh yes, all of it.

Click to expand...

Given that, as far as I am aware, Australia has yet to be attacked in this war, I believe you can easily travel to Australia on our next supply convoy and discuss the matter with their government directly. May I ask the Honorable Secretary of State to weigh in on the feasibility of these potential claims?

As for the Hawaiians, I would point out that the Kingdom of Hawaii was hardly a representative government; the island lacked any semblance of democratic governance until 1887, when the threat of a popular revolt forced King Kalakaua to grant his people their fundamental human rights. Indeed, the entire reason for our invasion was to protect the people of Hawaii from the tyrannical Queen Lili'uokalani, who wanted to overthrow the Hawaiian Constitution and proclaim herself an absolute ruler.

As for the independence of Korea and Indochina, given China's cultural and historical presence in these regions, I believe that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek might take offense to our noble-minded efforts towards the independence of those nations. Given China's demonstrated military prowess - and the necessity for a strong American ally against the Soviet Union in the Far East - I feel that such efforts would be unwise at the present time.

Though I laud the spirit that animates such proposals, as well as your willingness to engage in a frank discussion of these issues, I have yet to see strong enough evidence in favor of your proposed course of action to change my convictions.

Sincerely,

Senator Stephen McCarthy (D-TX)

I have revised The Pacific - Asia Defence Act as follows

The Pacific - Asia Defense Act​

​

I hope these changes have addressed the oppositions worrys to a point where they will no longer fell the need to Filibuster the bill. I will assume Senator Anikin is still Co-Sponsoring the bill, if he has objections with the changes I have made, he may revoke his Co-Sponsorship if he likes

I have a few questions on the current state of PADA -- Why should the United States annex Dailan, isn't that technically part of the "integral regions of China"? What of Okinawa, a more suitable airfield, naval base and more strategically placed in the Pacific Ocean.

Aswell, I do not believe Alaska is properly prepared for statehood as of this time.

- Senator Phillips
(D-CA)

I do agree, for once, with Ms. Phillips on the matter of Dalian and Okinawa. However, I'm content with Alaska and the Pacific Islands gaining statehood.

- Sen. Elexis Sinclaire (R - MA)

My reasoning for annexation of Dalian would be to use it as a trading post with The Republic of China, but secretly it would be a province we could use to keep an eye on them from, as well as helpful to keep an eye on Japan, I do fell that Okinawa would do a decent job of this as well, but there is a Japanese majority in the region, and I fell this would make peace negotiations much more difficult. As of Alaska, I disagree, Alaska would be our first line of defense against Stalin if he where to attack these United States, I do believe that building infrastructure and military facilitys in the Alaska Region will be of the utmost importance in the coming years. I would however be willing to compromise on both these issues if it means having the filibuster lifted. Compromise is the very definition of american politics, yes.

Signed,
Senator Steven Hyde, Wisconsin

What restricts us from constructing improvements in Alaska without admitting it to statehood? For example, Arizona and New Mexico flourished greatly, and only gained statehood some 20 years ago! (1912)

Dailan was taken from the Chinese during the Open Door Policy, which we failed to uphold to keep China territorially sound. As for Okinawa, it allows us an easy place to strike if Japan chooses to... get uppity after their defeat at our hands which is soon to come.

Signed,
Senator Mary Phillips, California