AUTHORIAL PREAMBLE
"SquidRiffs" is a caustic review series created by E350tb, wherein Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants provides cynical commentary on bad fanfiction. With TB's permission I created this pilot to see whether I have what it takes to write for the series. The subject of review is... well, let's hand it over to our critic.

Hello, deviantART, I'm Squidward Tentacles. You may remember me from such abominations as Halloween Unspectacular IV and that comic thing E350tb never finishes. I'd rather be making musical art myself, but the twitchy Viking promised me this wasn't a badfic so I figure I'll give it a shot.

OK, introduction: This is the transcript of an interview that occurred in the geo-political role-playing game Imperium Offtopicum XIV, hosted at the Civilization Fanatics Center, between Thorvald of Lym (as a journalist from the United Arab Republic) ...ri-i-ight, because who knows the Muslim world better than the whitest of the white race... and christos200 (as the chancellor of Thailand) oh sweet Neptune, he's the guy that wrote that Star Wars badfic! Ugh, I had the misfortune of playing in one of these games with him a couple years ago. Brace yourselves, readers, we're in for a nasty ride...

Salaamu 'alaykum, good evening, and welcome to Diplomatic Immunity. I'm pretty sure this was an actual show. I am Bahija Adelakeem, sitting in for Noor Ali Saddam. Commence inevitable Hussein comparisons... now. On tonight's programme, I speak with Polish economist Mirsozlaw Krakowski on rising public furor over alleged profiteering by BulkProd Food, and the round table discusses why the Pan-American Union continues to refuse negotiating an end to the war. I'm thinking 'manifest destiny'.

But first: we received a special invitation for a teleconference with Thai chancellor Yingjang Shinawatra 'Yingjang' doesn't sound like a Thai name. Is this gonna be one of those game where Christos crams in Chinese people because he's too lazy to learn the culture?, who joins me now from Bangkok. Commence inevitable blue jokes... now.

BA: Good evening, Chancellor, and welcome to the programme.

YS: Good evening, Mr. Adelakeem.

(Mrs. Adelakeem sits in stunned silence for a moment.) Oh Neptune, we're off to a gre-e-eat start!

BA: Yes, um... To begin, if you will forgive a rather personal question regarding your name: 'Yingjang' does not strike me as Thai. See, I was right. Do you, or your family, originally hail from abroad?

YS: My great-grandfather from my father's side was Chinese. ...yep, he's doing it. That's why my surname is Chinese. Your surname is Shinawatra.

BA: You mean to say you have two surnames?

YS: In Thailand people have first the personal name and then the surname. However, in China people have their surname first and their personal name second. Because of family tradition, I use the Chinese method of naming. So Yingjang is my surname and Shinawatra my personal name. You could of course ask why I have not changed my naming to the Thai one. Well, it is because my grandfather did not change it and neither did my father. And frankly, I never felt the need to do so. Wait, hold on, this guy's one step down from the God-Emperor of Thailand and he sees himself as more Chinese than Thai? Are you sure you want him running the country? And about the whole name issue, really, would you judge your politician on whether he has a name of an other ethnic group because he is descended of an immigrant or because of his political program? When your country's basing its identity on ethnic nationalism, I'm thinking it would be important, yes.

I hope that I do not sound impolite, but I'll be rude anyway would like to refrain from further personal questions or questions on my name. It's drawing too much suspicion. I believe that politicians should be judged on their public life only and I do not like telling the entire world about my family and private life. I hope you can forgive me about this, but I believe that politicians who spend hours on TV shows talking about their private lives and virtues actually try to hide the fact that they do not have a political program. How many politicians actually like flaunting their personal lives, unless it helps their policies?

I have a political agenda and program well we sure hope so, Mr. Chancellor and that's on what I would prefer to talk about. Please excuse me if you find my words impolite. Were not meant to offend anyone. Mark docked for sentence fragment. Just talking about my position on the issue of the private lives' of politicians.

BA: Of course, and I do have many questions on government policy, hopefully not too many for a single session. Nonetheless, thank you for indulging in my idle curiosity. You're being far too polite.

First off, I wish to ask you about your role within the Thai government. Today the idea of an absolute monarchy exercising power through a court system seems woefully anachronistic, not to mention inefficient. Do you really serve only as an intermediary between the Emperor and his officers?

YS: It is far more effective than democracies, I can inform you. For democracies are ruled by the will of the mobs. Not if they're actual democ—oh, right, this is Christos. And most people do not have special knowledge on the issues of foreign policy, domestic policy, economy and other governmental subjects. We like to call them, 'politicians'. So, mobs usually elect demagogic governments, which are incapable and ineffective. Mobs don't 'elect' anyone.

On other other hand, in an absolute monarchy, the Emperor is educated since his earlier years on how to rule the state and all officials do their business according to the interests of the nation but the nation-state is the mortal enemy of monarchy, that's why 1848 happened, not according to the current fashion that the mob supports. Just the current fashion of the court. Which is usually fashion. So, an absolute monarchy is far more effective than a democracy. Louis XVI and Nicholas II can testify.

About my role, it is to follow the orders of the Emperor on the domestic and foreign policies and make sure that the officials implement them. Also, I make sure that all officials of the Thai government are coordinated and do their best to follow His Imperial Majesty's orders. ...You're management. That's practically the definition of inefficiency. I also advise the Emperor on important matters, but the final decisions lie with his Imperial Majesty.

So, in a few words, I am an inspector and coordinator.

BA: Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'inspector'? Do you mean to suggest that the government is regularly purged if it fails to perform 'up to par'?

YS: I mean that I inspect the performance of all officials and those who under-perform are, of course, either fired by a squad or moved to an other sector of the government. I gather the castle basement is especially popular.

BA: Observers claim that in recent years, actual exercise of executive power has been your prerogative, and that you have taken the initiative in legislation largely by yourself. How much actual authority do you wield within the government?

YS: How much authority I wield? Yes, that's what she asked. As much as the Emperor trusts me to. I am just a mere servant of His Imperial Majesty and I do not dare to do anything against His Imperial Majesty's wishes. That's a helpfully vague answer.

BA: But you would agree that you have been granted allowances to dictate your country's policy on the Crown's behalf?

YS: No. Everything that I do is dictated by His Imperial Majesty's wishes. As I have already said, I only implement the wishes of the Emperor. I have not said that I'm free to interpret what those wishes are.

BA: Last year, Emperor Rama abdicated in favour of Crown Prince Sayammak. You should see a picture of the guy. Had the game lasted long enough, the Thai court would have turned into a boy band. How has the government's policy changed since his son took power? More legislation against raving fangirls, to start.

YS: Not much, since I run everything. His Imperial Majesty follows his father's footsteps and supports the same policies as his father, the ones I advised him to make. That is, economic development of Thailand by development of it's infrastructure, peaceful and cordial relationships with all other nations and overthrowing of extremist regimes, if needed for world peace. I thought you were Chancellor, not a Miss Thailand contestant?

BA: Before Emperor Sayammak received the Crown, he was your student. Some might suggest that your special relationship if you know what I mean... sorry would grant you considerable influence in Imperial policy. Has his ascension provided you with any new administrative privileges? Seniority, for one.

YS: Indeed, His Imperial Majesty was my student. And he was the best student I ever had. This is not said to flatter the Emperor, but because he was a really intelligent kid. If you're calling your master a 'kid', you're definitely not trying to flatter him. Especially in history, mathematics and physics. And indeed, as the Emperor was my student, we are able to communicate better and have a more personal relationship I'm really starting to regret that joke now which makes the handling of political cases even easier and faster.

BA: Do you think that this mutual trust means he gives preference to your advice over that of other ministers?

YS: Considering that I am the one who orders the Ministers and supervises their work, yes. The office of Chancellor means that you are below one man but above all others. I'm definitely not the power behind the throne, no-sir-ee!

BA: Earlier you spoke at length about what you describe as the folly of representative government. Pro-democracy protests in Thailand have been routinely and violently suppressed—

YS: This is foreign instigated propaganda reported by our own news agencies. Of course, there are some pro-democracy protests in Thailand, but those are small in number and happen only once every few years because we suppress them. And they are violently suppressed because those people are anarchists who threaten the stability and security of the nation, so sayeth Palpatine. Actually, knowing Christos, that's probably where he got it; they are enemies of the nation. But they're part of the nation. Enemies of the court, maybe. Demagogues who want to create an anarchic state. Mark docked for sentence fragment. The number of protests and it's support have been significantly magnified by foreign media. Or maybe they're minimized by state media, and the world is just bringing them back up to size? If the situation was as bad as they (the foreign media) portray it, wouldn't there have been a major revolt or any very bloody incident? We wouldn't know, since you suppress the data. None of this have ever happened, so it is easy to realize that Monarchy is supported by the majority of the Thais. As we all know, the majority is always politically well-informed and voices its opinion at every opportunity.

BA: Of course, one can argue that the reason such democratic movements have failed to gain traction is because your government has been so proactive in stamping them out.

YS: You uh-oh, personal pronoun, and the Western Media, view things by the Western worldview. And that is your mistake. You should be viewing it from a Martian perspective. Also, the Middle East is now Western? Well, I guess given the Thai view of the globe... You believe that all people want democracy and that non democratic governments are oppressive and rule against the will of the people, who live under a tyranny. That is a myth. The people actually want tyranny. Every philosopher got it wrong.

As there are many religions and races on this planet this is technically true since this game had mutants, but as far as I know there's only one human race, there are and what? different political ideologies and some people prefer an other political system than our own, something that the West does not realize. No, no, I'm pretty sure the West knows that. The West, being influenced by Ancient Greece and the French Revolution look at me, I know history!, and because of it's democratic tradition, views democracy as the natural political system. But this is wrong, for other nations have other traditions and have been influenced by other historical events, which all led to the ousting of absolute monarchy.

Thailand has always been a monarchy. But it hasn't always been absolute. It has a tradition of monarchy and it's historical events where shaped by monarchies. Tradition: Just because you've always done it doesn't mean it's not stupid. The people believe in a philosophy where there should be order and an hierarchy, something that the monarchy provides. The people in Thailand view monarchy as their natural political system, in the same way Western people view democracy as their natural political system. Am I the only one that finds it weird he's appealing to 'the people' to explain why he shouldn't listen to the people?

The West believes that because of it's economic and military superiority for much of the Modern era, it's government is the best and it has the right to enforce it to other people. Here he has a point. That is wrong. Here he needs a citation. You should realize that there are different people with different traditions, different philosophies and different political systems. The Thai people do not think of democracy as liberty, but as anarchy.^{<citation needed>} They do not view the monarchy as an oppression, but as an orderly system that provides with stability the country.^{<citation needed>}

Frankly, the West should realize that it's political philosophies may not be the best for all people and that every people have poor grammar their own philosophies and political systems. That is the reason why there is no democratic movement in Thailand; because we tell the Thais: "do not view democracy as something Thai, but as something foreign," in the same way you Western people do not view our Monarchy as something Western but as an Orient foreign political system. I'm sorry, where did she say that? Let's come back in from the straw fields, OK?

In the same way you view our Monarchy as oppressive, we Thais view your democracy as anarchical. It's hilarious because the United Arab Republic is led by a Nasser expy and Bashar al-Assad.

BA: Chancellor, I'm going to stop you right there: You're a nincompoop. Without getting into the myriad ways you have just misconstrued Middle Eastern political culture, I would like to make a few corrections to your own, very brief, history of Thailand. Ooh, this should be good. You are right in saying that Thailand has been a monarchy since at least the 12th century BCE; but from 1932 until fairly recently, it was not absolute, and even under the military dictatorships of the latter twentieth century there remained grounds for public participation. So much for absolutism. Moreover—no, Chancellor, let me finish—moreover, from 1997 to 2006, Thailand operated under a constitutional bicameral legislature. The instability you speak of has not been engendered by the democratic process; if anything, it was the military coups and ensuing juntas that have destabilized the country, something that the sitting monarch had no power to control. So you cannot claim that there is no democratic tradition in Thailand, because the historical record proves there is. Well, there goes everything he just said.

I would also like to address—Chancellor, please let me finish; I let you speak at length, now please grant me the same courtesy—If Islam had saints, this woman would have the patience of one. I would also like to address your point concerning Western imperialism. You say that European powers have imposed their political structure on foreign peoples, and that I do not dispute. But how can you pretend that Thailand is blameless in this respect, when nearly six years ago its army annexed Cambodia and installed a Thai king as ruler? Gasp!

YS: Firstly, in the 20th century Thailand was indeed a constitutional monarchy. But that constitutional monarchy was unstable and that was the reason the army took action and established military dictatorships. Ri-i-ight, because everyone was getting along so well that the army felt the country was in imminent danger. Now that Thailand is once again an absolute monarchy, the army cannot establish a military dictatorship and there has been stability since I make sure the army gets its way.

Moreover, constitutional monarchy and democracy was imported to Thailand by the West. Ah, yes, the good ol' "we didn't make it so it can't be good" argument. It was not born in Thailand. It was not the result of the Thais themselves. It was the result of Western educated Thais who should absolutely not be confused with real Thais and the West imposing this unstable political system. Can you tell us what, precisely, the West did, because given the way you keep saying 'us-versus-them' I'd really like to know. And the 1997 to 2006 period was the exception that proves the rule. Do you even know what this phrase means? The fact that you point such a short period of time to demonstrate that Thai democracy worked, when Thailand was a (mostly) constitutional monarchy since 1932, proves how unstable that democracy was as in all other periods the army established dictatorships. It might've lasted longer if the army hadn't, you know, overthrown the government.

Also, I do not see how a short period starting from the early 20th century makes democracy a Thai tradition when, as you yourself said, Thailand had been a monarchy since 12th century BCE. Democracy was a foreign political system that had a history of only a few hundred years in Thailand, while monarchy was (and is) a system native in Thailand with thousands of years of history. My previous comment on tradition still stands.

About Cambodia, for a very long time in the history of South-East Asia, those lands were ruled by the same Empires/Kingdoms and had (and still have) the same culture and traditions. In the same way a European Union was created in 20th century and federalists tried to create a united Europe, we united two areas which were and are culturally and historically linked into one state. And look how well it works today. We do not see how this is different from UAR uniting Syrians and Egyptians. Let's see, you have two countries, their leaders meet, they sign a treaty making them equal partners in a union, whereas Thailand invades Cambodia and appoints its own viceroy. Yep, totally the same thing.

BA: For one, the United Arab Republic was not forged by the sword, neither was the European Union. Whoops. But as energetic as this topic has become, we unfortunately do not have time to discuss it further today. Thank Neptune.

I would like to turn now to Thailand's economic policy, with which you have been intimately involved and consider something of a particularly dear personal accomplishment. I'm really, really regretting that joke. First of all, have there been any significant changes to your strategy since 2106?

YS: Indeed, the economic development of Thailand those recent years has been one of the greatest achievements, not only for me, but for the whole of the nation. Our economic development can be seen in the increase of our economic power since 2106 and the deals we have with other nations, most notably the Bangkok-St. Louis Customs Union. It works because we did stuff.

Our main strategy for the economy has not changed: promote free trade and develop the nation's infrastructure. That's what we are doing. The largest part of our budget is spend on investing on the country's infrastructure and we want to promote free trade in the region. OK, but can we have some details?

It is unfortunate that UAR and some other nations disrupt the region's free trade with their embargo. We like money. But, this does not changes in any way our policies and will not have much effect on the economy, for our trade and economic ties are with PAU and other East Asian nations, and not with UAR, with which we had minimal economic ties even before the embargo. I'm retconning seven years of global economic activity out of spite. So, the Thai economy will not be affected and neither will our economic policies. We want money, we're losing money, we'll stay the course.

BA: A number of economists have criticized elements of Thailand's economic strategy for fostering short-term profits at the expense of long-term market stability. Well at least they're committed to free trade. I would like to take a moment to examine these charges in detail, and hear your response.

One of the most significant revisions in the '06 reform was the change to agricultural tax practice, from tax in cash to tax in kind. This interview occurs in 2113, by the way. First of all, what was the rationale for adopting a barter system for Thailand’s largest economic sector?

YS: The rationale for the farming reform was to gain a larger amount of money through indirect means than by the direct cash taxes. This already sounds needlessly confusing. The state gets 3/10 of the production of the farmers and 2/3 of them are sold in state owned supermarkets. The price of the products was increased by 5%, but by law the price of those products in private supermarkets also increased by 6%. O-kaaay, so you're running your economy like a game of Tropico and randomly changing numbers to see what works. This makes farming products sold by the state more attractive what are you talking about? Everything costs more! and the money of the customers who buy those products go to the state. Oh, so we're bringing back feudalism. So, the state wins.

The other 1/3 of those products are exported and are sold with prices 10% lower than those of the lower prices of the products in the state where the food is being exported. So, Thai farming products are made more attractive and what is lost by the low price is overcompensated by the number of costumers. And those money go to state coffers. So, the state wins once again. Assuming other countries aren't paying attention and ramp up import tariffs to fight the dumping, otherwise those profits dry up faster than SpongeBob on his first visit to the Treedome. _{Heh. 'Puts on airs'. That never gets old.}

BA: But what of the farmers? A study penned by Dr. Peizhi Peng at the College of Economics in Canton suggests that the tax in kind is unfair to the farmers, noting that whereas a cash-based income tax will automatically scale to a farm's profitability per season, direct extraction of goods does not consider the farm's economic viability. Moreover, by taxing a set percentage of the farm's total yield, it is disproportionately punitive to smaller family farms, which if struck by drought or crop failure may not even be able to sustain themselves. Yeah, for all the talk of free markets, this sounds a lot more like a command economy.

YS: Whenever farmers have problems sustaining themselves, the state compensates them with cash of value 40% of the price that the products taken from them will be sold. Wow, hold on, let me think about this. Your family is starving so you can't meet quota, and the government gives you... three divided by ten, times point-four... That's a 12% rebate on the actual value of the farm, that they then use to buy food at a price 11% higher than it's actually worth. Merciful Neptune, and I thought Depression-era relief schemes were a sick joke! The state always comes first and the measure is totally fair as without an economic prosperous state, the country will decline and it's economy will take a considerable downhill. No, Thailand. Your economy is the downhill. _{Just like your grammar.}

BA: So if I understand you correctly, Thai agricultural produce is sold at an inflated price at home markets and the State retains all the profits, except for the aforementioned compensatory 'rebate', which is less than half the value of the goods at market?

YS: Yes, and this compensation is not given every year and not to everyone. Insult to injury. Only in years where agriculture faces problems and is given only to those who cannot support themselves. Which, looking at the numbers, apparently means everyone.

BA: What you say ties into Dr. Peng's second criticism, that this state-managed sale and distribution denies farmers direct profit; but from what you've just said it appears farmers cannot make any profit. Forgive me for being so frank, but the Thai agricultural sector sounds practically like serfdom. No, it sounds literally like serfdom.

YS: In the West, people consider their priority how to make personal profit. In Thailand, people consider their priority how to make national profit and how all the society can prosper. OK, this creepy utilitarianism might have actually worked if in this game most of Thailand wasn't farmers.

BA: But if produce is being sold at artificially high prices, does that not discourage domestic demand? And if farmers receive no revenue for their labour, they cannot participate in the economy at all, other than as a resource to be exploited. You claim the government is acting in the interest of social prosperity, but it sounds as though the government is abusing its monopoly over agricultural production to profiteer rather than foster a sustainable economy. I'm glad I'm not doing this at work. The last thing I need is this clown giving Mr. Krabs ideas.

YS: About domestic demand, the rise of the prices was not really that high and of course there is demand, as much of the Thai cuisine is based on farming products. Ugh, it's like he's skimmed an economics textbook and is just stringing together buzzwords.

About you other question, what you say would be true if the government kept those money for non economic projects. Instead, the government returns those money to the market by investing in the development of new industries and industrializing the country. So, we are industrializing the economy of Thailand and thus we are developing the economy. And by mass industrialization, we can compete with other East Asian economies. And this means, that there will be social prosperity. I understand part of the audience plays these games, so I propose a drinking game: Take a shot every time someone mentions industrialization without saying what, exactly, they plan to produce.

The economic rise of Thailand can be seen in economic reports created by various NGO's. To quote Mark Twain: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

BA: Perhaps, but we must distinguish between gross aggregate calculations of national wealth and how that translates into everyday life. No, let's not, that might mean facts! For instance, since the institution of the '06 reforms, the government has repeatedly slashed wages of public-sector workers. Yes, you say the government is attempting to offset this by direct state investment, but is not the backbone of a functioning economy a financially-empowered citizenry? How does suppressing wages encourage popular investment?

YS: You are overstating. The decrease of the wages was only 6%. It is not like they lost half of their wages. But food prices are 11% higher, so it's like a net cut of 17%. Really, the majority of citizens have either seen their income remaining the same, decreasing by a bit or even increasing by a bit. I'd love to know how that works. There has not been any large scale change in wages. And farmers have enough products to feed themselves and whenever they lack those, the state, as I have already said, compensates them. And as I have already said, your compensation is garbage.

And the proof that our economic strategy is working is the increase seen in the Thai economy since the implementation of the reforms. This is a fact and you can see it no matter which NGO's report you read. After all, corporations are people so they must be an accurate reflection of everyday citizens, ri-i-ight?

BA: But how much of this new wealth is local? Corporate taxes were cut by 23%, and while such a move would undoubtedly attract foreign investment, it also drastically reduces the state's share in it. Thailand has been tight-lipped on its annual budgets so exact statistics are hard to come by, but virtually every market analyst predicted that such rapid tax cuts would lead to a massive drop in state revenue. What has your government done to counteract the corporate revenue shortfall?

YS: The farming sales, the decrease of wages and the stimulation given to national economy by foreign investment overcompensate any possible losses. BUT IT DOESN'T.

BA: Your government appears to be banking on international investment keeping the economy afloat. Are you concerned that the '06 reforms rely too heavily on foreign capital over domestic development?

YS: Nothing great happens without taking risks, and 2008 was a great year. So far, the risk has paid off. But we do not worry at all, for we have plan B in case anything goes wrong, although this seems a scenario far from reality as economic reports show.

BA: Deign to elaborate on this 'Plan B'?

YS: We cannot just reveal the plan, but we inform you that part of it has to do with taxation and some other reforms. Hmm. Tax hike combined with food shortages and an unaccountable government. Either he's never read world history, or he's doing this on purpose.

BA: Let us turn now to Thai foreign policy. Oh Neptune, there's more?! You were a proponent of the so-called Indochina Doctrine, which you describe as isolationist and focused only on Thailand's immediate neighbours. Is this still the government's strategy?

YS: Yes. Indonesia is an immediate neighbor of Thailand I checked the game map and it isn't and this is the reason we are intervening. Other than that, we are pretty isolationist and all those years we have never intervened in conflicts/disputes outside East Asia because the game took a five-year time-skip seconds after you rejoined. We have been fairly peaceful and isolationist compared to other nations, like Russia or UAR. When in doubt, refuge in ad-hominem.

BA: You deny that the military conquest of Cambodia was anything other than peaceful?

YS: You deny that the expansion of UAR, to use an example, in 2104 in Egypt and Arabia was anything other than peaceful? Doesn't "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" become discredited as a valid debating tactic after second grade?

BA: Chancellor, I am not here to bicker over partisan demagogy; the United Arab Republic's policy in the Gulf and the means by which it was accomplished is readily available to anyone with an Internet connection and five minutes of free time. Now, please answer the question. I feel for you, Madam, I really do.

YS: Indeed, the Thai army moved into Cambodia, but there was no civil or military resistance. It was a military walk and it could be said that in some parts of the country, the citizens even greeted excited the Thai army as liberators. Yeah, self-determination is so passé. And this is available to anyone with an internet connection. Chancellor Shinawatra, master debater, ladies and gentlemen.

BA: Earlier you made special mention of your economic partnership with the Pan-American Union. Does the fact that some say Thailand went out of its way to sign a deal with the Americans contradict your aforementioned isolationism?

YS: No. We implement isolationism on political disputes and military conflicts. In economy, we are ready to make economic deals with any nation that offers a good economic deal. We also believe "conscience" is a Western imposition.

BA: How do you respond to claims that by dealing with St. Louis, you are indirectly aiding its war of aggression against the Northwestern American Union? That was E350's nation, by the way. Get angry.

YS: We, frankly, do not care what is happening in North America. We are only interested in the economic profits of the deal. I really hope Mr. Krabs never finds out about this game. As we have said, we do not involve ourselves in political and military disputes outside our region said Pilate, wiping his hands.

BA: Surely you recognize that however much one can claim to be acting in 'purely' economic interests, they still carry political implications?

YS: Frankly, we do not care for the war in North America and if Germany or UAR were to offer us a similar deal, we might actually accept it. Human suffering means nothing. Trade with us.

BA: The Indonesian crisis is at the forefront of both the international consciousness and Thai policy. Prior to the civil war, Thailand had pursued cordial relations with Yogyakarta, as evidenced by the numerous trade agreements. Despite the revolution, countries rarely break off their old contacts completely. Was there really no ground for pursuing a diplomatic solution? Asking Christos to be diplomatic is like asking SpongeBob to be anything other than a pain in the tailfin.

YS: It was precisely because of our past trade agreements with Indonesia that we felt the need to overthrow the rebels because they won't give us their money. Earlier, we could not directly help the Indonesian government because the game skipped five years we had to solve regional problems, we had to expand in Burma and north India, we were still modernizing our armies and we focused more on our industrialization so we could churn out soundbites faster. But now, we can both focus on Indonesia and we have the means to defeat the rebels who are now the de jure government.

Of course this is just one reason we are taking this police action; other reasons are the extremism of the Indonesian regime and it's threat to the stability of the region that we've helped exacerbate.

BA: The civil war ended in 2108. Critics contend that four years is too long to have waited to aid the former government, what you've just said notwithstanding, and that Thai intervention will only serve to destabilize the country and the South Pacific once again. If India and Burma were higher priorities when the insurgency was in its infancy, why are you now turning your attention to Indonesia after the present régime ooh, native accents; looks like Plankton wasn't the only one that went to college has solidified its legitimacy?

YS: In Thai eyes, the rebels never solidified their legitimacy. Oh, this goes back to that whole we-see-the-world-differently spiel, doesn't it? And as the saying goes , "It is never too late for a Gentleman to seek revenge". But a true gentleman doesn't seek revenge. In our case it could be, "It is never too late for a country to overthrow extremist regimes". And yet when Christos was playing as Japan earlier in this same game, he threw a fit that people were on his case from Turn 1.

BA: As you are well aware, there has been widespread international suspicion over the Thai army's 'mission creep'. You originally stated that the invasion was, and I quote: "not an offensive operation". In the spring of last year you stated there would be no ground forces involved; in the fall you said a marine landing would be considered; at the end of last year you pledged 20 000 Royal Marines to front-line duty. Why has Thailand opted to escalate the scope of the mission in such a short time span?

YS: It is because we had thought that a naval blockade and an areal bombardment which would destroy the entire army of Indonesia and ruins it's grammar and punctuation economy would be enough for the regime to collapse. It was not. We tried it for a full five seconds. So, we were forced to use Thai Marines to create an area in which an independent Indonesian government can be created and an Indonesian army can be trained by Thailand, so it's not really independent, is it?. The 20,000 Marines are our red line. We will not commit more troops. Check back one turn later. Instead, we shall train an Indonesian army, so that the newly established government can continue on it's own the civil war and takeover the areas still held by the regime.

BA: But if the blockade wasn't even in place for a full year, how could you tell it wasn't having the desired effect?

YS: A full year is too much to wait, especially when the blockade proved that it did not have the expected results and would most likely fail and even give enough time to Indonesia to prepare for a military conflict with Thailand. And here I thought you said it was "never too late"?

BA: Upon initiating hostile action against Indonesia, Yogyakarta responded by suspending all BulkProd food exports, jeopardizing the health and well-being of countless persons worldwide. Does your government take any responsibility for precipitating what is predicted to be the worst humanitarian catastrophe since the last world war?

YS: No. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen. Indonesia cannot be allowed to hold the world hostage and get away because of it's food exports. Actually, if one country is responsible for 90% of the world being able to eat, I'd say it has an advantage. But, there is no need to worry. Famous last words. The new Indonesian government will resume the food exports and in a few months, a year at most, everything will be back to normal. Apart from the wholesale chaos the war will have inflicted upon Indonesia and the vengeful sentiments of the defeated government...

BA: Given that your government was instituting a full blockade against Indonesia, food shipments would have been impossible anyway. Would you not agree that even if the embargo had not been instated, the food supply would still be disrupted?

YS: I would agree. ...Let this sink in for a minute. Thailand went to war, and in retaliation, Indonesia stopped its food exports. The Chancellor claims that it's Indonesia's fault the food stopped flowing. But he admits that the Thai naval blockade would have prevented any exports anyway. And he doesn't even care. So the risk of global mass starvation is entirely. Thailand's. fault. ... With this in mind, let's read on: But I ask you, should a state that promotes extremism, discriminates against half of it's population in a way not seen since Nazi Germany's discrimination against Jews and Gypsies no propaganda is complete without a good Godwin, that is essentially a colony and imperialist tool of France and that uses it's food exports to threaten the entire world be allowed to get away simply because of it's food exports?

BA: For a country that believes so devoutly in sacrificing particular interests to the 'greater good', Thailand's willingness to play Russian roulette with the global food supply seems quite disconcerting. I get that Muslims are supposed to be humble, but you're being faaaar too generous with this idiot. Indeed, as you claim the current régime is so extremist, are you at all concerned that Yogyakarta may scorch the earth and destroy the facilities out of spite?

YS: They won't be able to do this, for Thai Marines and Air Force will disallow them from burning the land. Just like how the Wehrmacht kept the Soviets from torching eastern Europe. And even if they managed to scorch the earth, they are to blame for making us make them resort to desperate measures and we shall try to make sure that the perpetrators of such crimes are tried for crimes against humanity in the UN.

BA: With respect, Chancellor, you seem overly optimistic regarding both the objectives and timeline of this mission. I am imagining her eye twitching violently throughout all of this. Just how long do you think the operation will take?

YS: One year, at most. Maybe even sooner. They'll be home for Christmas with a BulkProd turkey. That is for combat operations (training of Indonesian army and it's offensive against remaining rebel held territories). The whole operation might actually take half a year more, as after the victory against the rebels, Thai forces will decrease so only 2,000 remain, the Indonesian army stabilizes complete control over the country and hunts down any insurgents and the Indonesian economy become viable which in the end is the only reason we got involved in the first place.

Then, UN inspectors, as well as inspectors from other NGO's because let's pretend this was all for legitimate goals, will be invited to oversee free and fair elections which we don't believe in. After those elections, the remaining Thai forces will leave, unless the newly elected government requests them to stay for further training/help.

BA: You have previously likened the Thai invasion to the 2003 Iraq War. That chapter was characterized by unilateral invasion under false pretexts, complete ignorance of the local culture by the invader, an imposed political order and installation of a crony government, and lack of commitment to the peacebuilding process that after eight years had failed to produce a stable government. What makes you think Indonesia will be different?

YS: The Iraq War was just an example I have used, not our role model for Indonesia. Well then, why did you use it? What makes me believe that Indonesia will be different is that we understand the culture of Indonesia as Thai and Indonesian culture have a large number of similarities like how Indonesia is Muslim, was colonized by the Dutch, and speaks a language unrelated to continental Asia and that we rely on the Indonesians themselves defeating the regime, not just our troops who appear to be led by generals from 1914. Also, Indonesia, unlike Iraq, is not an artificial nation with sectarian rivalries. All nations are artificial. And it's in the midst of a literal gender war that would make Tumblr proud, if it wasn't setting off its trigger words. _{Heh. Tumblr. Offended at everything.}

BA: Experts on Middle Eastern history widely agree that the sectarian rivalries you allude to were themselves a byproduct of the invasion. Have you considered that Thai intervention will only serve to strengthen support for the Indonesian régime, or inflame grassroots extremism?

YS: No, you're implying we considered anything. There is already unrest and the Indonesian people are clearly against the regime. You remember they were the main opposition in 2107, right? And recall that this same Chancellor said at the start of the interview that protestors are just anarchist traitors. There will be no support for the regime except from France and Feminist Britain, which forced a peace not long after. As in post WWII Germany the Nazi ideology became a taboo and lost all support, the same thing will happen in Indonesia. Women are evil, and should only serve as royal concubines. No, seriously, in addition to his wife the Thai emperor has a harem with a slave for every day of the year. I wish I was making this up.

Also, I would like to disagree with your position that the sectarian rivalries in Iraq were byproduct of the American invasion. You've already proven you don't know Thai OR Indonesian history; are you really going to call out the guy playing AS the Middle East? Those existed already and were a result of the British and French, in order to serve their colonial interests, creating artificial countries without prior knowledge of the region's ethnic and religious rivalries.

BA: But as you admit, they were artificially exacerbated by foreign powers, and some observers i.e. anyone that's looked at this for more than half a minute charge that you are inflating the threat of the Indonesian government along the same lines. After all, if Yogyakarta is the menace you claim, why have only Thailand and Malta pursued hostile action? Because thanks to Thailand, Malta is starving, plus it's a theocratic backwater that also hates women.

YS: Because other nations believe that by appeasement, the Indonesian government will stop being a threat. It wasn't a threat until you attacked it. In the same way Britain appeased Hitler, who in turn was emboldened by this appeasement. UAR and AF make the same mistake as Britain. You're right. They should invade Thailand before its insanity goes critical.

BA: Lastly, how will the invasion affect Thai commitments to the United Nations mission in Japan?

YS: Not at all. Our commitments will be the same. It's funny because when Christos played Japan, he literally declared war on the UN.

BA: Before we go, I would like to ask you about your government's policy regarding the Kravyads. The most recent census by the United Nations Commission on Non-Normal Populations estimates that approximately four million Kravyads inhabit Thai territory. How is the government treating them?

YS: The same as all other citizens. As long as they abide to Thai law and do not create trouble, they can live in peace. You can tell he took no time to learn what they are. Those things are literally monsters. Look up 'Rakshasa'.

BA: Chancellor, this has been a most enlightening interview. Thank you for your time. I know you're being civil for the sake of public broadcasting, but please, stop torturing yourself!

YS: I thank you for inviting me here.

We will now take a quick break. When we return, Mirsozlaw Krakowski on the Indonesian food crisis: is BulkProd profiteering? We'll be right back. . . I imagine the break is to work the pent-up rage out of her system.

So, there you have it. christos200: terrible writer, terrible politician, and murderer of another hour of my life. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sacrifice the last of my dignity to Halloween Unspectacular V...