Controversial coup causes commotion

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Issue
A coup in a neighbouring country has seen a mercenary force led by retired @@NAME@@ian general @@RANDOMNAME@@ take charge of the peaceful backwater, purging the opposition, and suppressing freedoms. Despite the new leader making a dubious promise to hold elections, the government in exile is demanding that @@NAME@@ takes action.

The Debate
1. "THIS IS A DISGRACE", bellows Brigadier General @@RANDOMNAME@@, scattering plastic soldiers over the floor. "This traitor must be overthrown! Gather together our forces and sweep the tyrant from power. While we're at it, @@NAME@@ could do with some more tanks - you never know when the next coup might be."

2. @@RANDOMNAME@@, a junior official, puts down "Diplomacy for Dummies" and pipes up. "The best method of solving problems is talking. Send the new regime a strongly worded letter of protest and encourage them to negotiate. On a similar note, perhaps you could take your spouse out for a meal tonight. You've been spending far too much time sorting out this nation's issues lately."

3. Noted realist and tabloid columnist @@RANDOMNAME@@ disagrees. "We should give this new regime a chance. After all, they now control a sizeable economy, and they need weapons - we could offer to recognise the new government if they agreed to buy arms from us. Also, I couldn't help but notice some protesters outside your office. We wouldn't want a coup happening here - everyone would feel safer it they were moved on."

4. "I don't see what the problem is", a voice strangely like your own whispers in your ear. Your twin, standing far too close for comfort, continues, "this has given me a great idea - why not just declare yourself supreme leader of @@NAME@@? After all, the people do love you so very much".

I didn't even notice this when I got the issue (or maybe I did but I didn't understand it because the sentence is so poorly constructed).

Why exactly are there two choices in one issue option? And what does suppressing protests have to do with international arms sales, anyway? If you needed to attach suppressed protests to an option, wouldn't #4 make far more sense?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Bumping this, since apparently no one has a good answer for this: why does option #3 contain that peculiar and unrelated suggestion to beat up protesters (when it has nothing to do with bribing foreign nations with arms sales), and is there any prospect to change it?

I love the first part of #3, and would love to pick it, except for that bizarre turn toward authoritarianism at the end there.

[Sanctaria]

This was modelled after events in the South Pacific. That bit at the end likely is referring to banjecting dissenters.

Unlikely to be removed/edited.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really? Is it common to start banjecting people when there's a coup in another region?

[Sanctaria]

In NS GCR's? Wouldn't put it past them.

You got your answer.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You got your answer.

This is not Moderation. Further discussion is allowed, isn't it?

And with all due respect, I didn't get a complete answer. Suppressing protests has nothing whatsoever to do with cozying up to a new regime with arms sales. Why isn't the protests thing included in another option - like #4, in which it would be much more pertinent?

[Zelan]

This was modelled after events in the South Pacific. That bit at the end likely is referring to banjecting dissenters.

Unlikely to be removed/edited.

BTW what happened in the South Pacific? I've seen people discussing it and mention it, but all I know is that there was a coup. But anyway, what happened exactly?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Given the date this was written, it was probably referencing the Devonitians coup of TSP in 2011. I think it lasted 12 hours. The author of this issue was the person behind it.

[Luna Amore]

I suppose it wasn't attached to the last option because option 4 goes much further than a little political censorship.

While it is an unusual add on, it does still make sense. A government willing to approve of another country's military coup if they buy weapons from them probably isn't the most honest government. It isn't much of a stretch to think that type of government would want to tighten down on its own people to keep things under control.

I also notice that each option leads into the next nicer that way. It goes:
1: Military campaign against new regime.
2: Diplomacy with new regime.
3: Diplomacy through arms and a little more control at home.
4: Total control at home.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That at least makes sense. Totally ruins the issue for me, and I'll probably be dismissing it from now on, but I can accept that.

[Sanctaria]

You got your answer.

This is not Moderation. Further discussion is allowed, isn't it?

You asked if it was going to be changed, and I said no, that wasn't on the cards. That answer hasn't changed, regardless of the further discussion.