[Comrade Craig]

Well, you opened this post, so apparently you do.

In my old age I find myself getting more lazy. Case in point: I took INT's protectorate with NEAT, did a quick search-and-replace, and voila! If I missed anything, rest assured that this is, in fact, a treaty between the International and the Soviet Union, and if any third alliance it is mentioned, please chalk it up to alcohol and a healthy dose of I-don't-care-what-you-think.

Without further ado, I give you the following treaty text, which I'm sure will be parsed for years to come by 13 year olds with non-existent degrees in international law:

final text said:

A Declaration of Mutual Cooperation from the International and the Soviet Union

The International (INT) and the Soviet Union (SU) have found a mutually beneficial association with each other. To ensure that this is not disturbed by outside forces, and to further develop bonds of friendship and commerce, we hereby voluntarily enter into this binding agreement.

Article I
Sovereignty: Both alliances shall respect and abide by the internal and external sovereignty of the other with exception of the limitations mentioned below. Neither party takes responsibility for the independent actions or statements of the others. Joint statements or actions will be explicitly identified as such.

Article II
Protection: INT affirms that it shall provide complete protection to SU. This includes, but is not limited to, military, diplomatic, intelligence, or trade support. SU is highly encouraged, but has no obligation, to render similar assistance to INT if requested.

Article III
Commerce: SU affirms that it shall give INT the opportunity to purchase tech for fair market value. Both alliances guarantee the completion in a timely manner of all tech deals that are brokered between, regardless of which individual countries entered into the deal.

Article IV
Security: In an effort to limit exposure of one alliance to the enemies of the other and to avoid conflict in already established agreements, both alliances agree to maintain open communication regarding newly proposed treaty agreements.

Article V
Conduct: All member nations of both alliances shall conduct themselves respectfully towards the other. Both alliances agree to keep any problems in private channels.

Article VI
Voting: SU agrees to encourage, but not require, its membership to vote for INT-approved senate candidates in cases where the SU member is on the same team as the approved candidate.

Article VII
It is the intention of both INT and SU that this agreement shall remain in force until such time as it is deemed no longer necessary by mutual consensus. If it is deemed necessary to terminate this agreement without mutual consent, such termination may take place 48 hours after written notice by the party terminating the agreement, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

Signed for the Soviet Union:

Velken -Pretor
Bubba The Great -Prime Minister
The_Many -Minister of Defense

Signed for INT:

The congress of the International

[King Xander the Only]

Cool. Nice work, INT.

[Style #386]

Onward the revolution!

Congratulations, comrades!

[Soviet Limburg]

Forwards to revolution!

[Arrnea]

A Pretor of a Soviet Union confuses me, but congratulations nonetheless.

This post has been edited by Arrnea: 03 August 2009 - 12:05 AM

[Yuthura Ban]

Congratulations guys...

[kobiashiy]

Congratulations on the nice treaty..

[Starcraftmazter]

Got some mighty fine protectors there, SU

[Cataduanes]

Congratz SU, in INT you have some reliable comrades.

[Fadeev]

OMNOMNOM! Sweet treaty is sweet!

[Tom Litler]

I wonder how the United States of CN and their protectors in the New Polar Order feel about the Soviet Union unnecessarily aggrandizing a minor skirmish between some members of each respective alliance (SU and USCN) as some sort of "Cold War". I wonder how the USCN and Polaris feel about the Soviet Union being in a perceived arms race with the USCN and I also wonder how (finally, on a relevant note) the members of the Internationale feel about all this as well as how they feel about being used as a newly developed "weapon" to be wielded by the Soviet Union and used as leverage only to somehow deter the New Polar Order (as I would predict) from involving itself in the SU's attempts at antagonizing an alliance that never meant them any harm nor thought of the diplomatic scuffles as being serious issues.

What I'm trying to do here is present to the Internationale the full unadulterated facts of the belligerent attitude of their new protectorate in the hopes that they might reconsider being involved with a group of nations bent on fulfilling some prophesy they feel to be "inevitable" at the cost of both the lives of their citizens, and of the innocents in the United States of CN and their allies.

Congratulations, Soviet Union. After all, who needs nuclear weapons when you could instead have "allies" to absorb them, no?

[Arrnea]

Tom Litler, on Aug 3 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

-snip-

You, accusing someone else of belligerence? How quaint...

[Hell Scream]

Leftists will soon dominate CN now.

[Velken]

Tom Litler, on Aug 3 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

I wonder how the United States of CN and their protectors in the New Polar Order feel about the Soviet Union unnecessarily aggrandizing a minor skirmish between some members of each respective alliance (SU and USCN) as some sort of "Cold War". I wonder how the USCN and Polaris feel about the Soviet Union being in a perceived arms race with the USCN and I also wonder how (finally, on a relevant note) the members of the Internationale feel about all this as well as how they feel about being used as a newly developed "weapon" to be wielded by the Soviet Union and used as leverage only to somehow deter the New Polar Order (as I would predict) from involving itself in the SU's attempts at antagonizing an alliance that never meant them any harm nor thought of the diplomatic scuffles as being serious issues.

What I'm trying to do here is present to the Internationale the full unadulterated facts of the belligerent attitude of their new protectorate in the hopes that they might reconsider being involved with a group of nations bent on fulfilling some prophesy they feel to be "inevitable" at the cost of both the lives of their citizens, and of the innocents in the United States of CN and their allies.

Congratulations, Soviet Union. After all, who needs nuclear weapons when you could instead have "allies" to absorb them, no?

First of all there has never been any "conflict" between the leadership of the Soviet Union or the USCN. No acts of aggression of any nature has been taken against them by members of the USSR. Furthermore no one had any authorization by or other members of the coucil to post that document on the wiki. There has been a "cold war" jokingly talked about between members of both respected alliances ona few occassions but never ment to be anything other than that. Our relations to the USCN have never been hostel, their was a "minor" incident that occured a few weeks back between one of our new members and a member of their alliance that was being raided. One of their represenatives contated us and it was settled in a peaceful manner. I renounce all of what is posted in that article and if the party responsible for creating it is a member of the Soviet Union they will be dealt with.

Funny how you jump to conclusions based on false information and without checking your sources . Just how "accurate" are half the articles on the wiki?...seriously? lol. Anyone can edit or create articles on there if not mistaken. Over half the articles I've just read on there at random are either incomplete, full of errors or are incorrect. My point is, if you are going to come on here and accuse us or another alliance of something I suggest you check further into the facts before doing so.

[Soviet Limburg]

Do not give any attention to figures like Tom Litler and you save yourself a headache.

This post has been edited by Soviet Limburg: 03 August 2009 - 01:11 PM

[Cataduanes]

True enough but Litler's post warranted some sort of reply, you cannot leave a post like that unanswered.

[Tom Litler]

Soviet Limburg, on Aug 3 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Do not give any attention to figures like Tom Litler and you save yourself a headache.

So much for freedom of speech, comrade.

All opinions are valid but some are more valid than others, right?

And Velken, if your relations with the USCN are not as the article makes them out to be then perhaps you'd do better to harness your members properly so that they don't go misrepresenting your official foreign policy.

[Comrade Craig]

Tom Litler, on Aug 3 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

All opinions are valid but some are more valid than others, right?

The preferred phrase on our end of the spectrum is that some animals are more equal than others.

And for the record, the USCN has not approached us with regards to SU, nor has any other alliance. Our door is always open, and I believe you'll find that INT's diplomatic staff is very reasonable.

-Craig

This post has been edited by Comrade Craig: 03 August 2009 - 02:20 PM

[Velken]

Tom Litler, on Aug 3 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

And Velken, if your relations with the USCN are not as the article makes them out to be then perhaps you'd do better to harness your members properly so that they don't go misrepresenting your official foreign policy.

I don't tell my members what they can and cannot say, only I adivise and suggest they not do or act in certain manner that could cause controversy or conflict with foreign alliances. As far as the article, I don't know who made and frankly I don't care. This is a great day for both the International and the Soviet Union comrade, this issue is over.

[PrototyoeRuler]

Comrade Craig, on Aug 3 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

The preferred phrase on our end of the spectrum is that some animals are more equal than others.

And for the record, the USCN has not approached us with regards to SU, nor has any other alliance. Our door is always open, and I believe you'll find that INT's diplomatic staff is very reasonable.

-Craig

You guys are really loose, eh?