Gebiv Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Gebiv acted aggressively against Vektaria by crossing the border for the sake of attacking Rebel Virginian forces, killing Vektarian soldiers in the process of doing so.Gebiv willingly violated the sovereignty of another nation to engage in offensive military action against a third nation. This is not acceptable behavior and is certainly not just cause for activating the defense clause of this treaty. There is no "defense" here to speak of. Gebiv is the aggressor and will should be treated as such. We never crossed the border. Get this fact straight. I have also killed no Vektarian soldiers. Your intelligence is quite false. All Vektarian losses are due to Rebel Virginian forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Or perhaps you are genuinely unaware of who you've been shooting at and where your soldiers are on the map? That's just as plausible as the explanation you posted, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Or perhaps you are genuinely unaware of who you've been shooting at and where your soldiers are on the map? That's just as plausible as the explanation you posted, right? If you wish to say that my armies have been disobeying strict orders, why? I'd assume you'd have more faith in your African brethren to have their soldiers obey orders. I have such faith in you, and I expect the same in return. While we're at it, let's just pretend that witnesses of the scene don't recall the events as I have described to you. Let's also pretend that these were not some of the most elite and best trained forces in my nation, commanded by the best commanders, who also had very strict orders. Let's also pretend the the Rebel Virginians didn't destroy bridges in the area, and crossing the river on foot would be a very bad idea. Heck, while we're doing this pretending, let's also assume my intelligence officers weren't keeping a careful eye on the scene. Maybe then, your insult would be half-valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Or perhaps you are genuinely unaware of who you've been shooting at and where your soldiers are on the map? That's just as plausible as the explanation you posted, right? Let me get this straight.. you're completely forgetting Rebel Virginias's attack on Gebiv, and when Gebiv attempts to flush out the attackers and goes into Vektarian territory, who does nothing to stop it, you blame Gebiv for damages that Rebel Virginia did? Vektaria has already shown their unwillingness to even accept diplomacy as an action. They are fully committed to an all-out war, which is surprising for such a small and harmless "breach of sovereignty" by Gebiv against much more costly and actually damaging actions by Rebel Virginian troops. Edited February 4, 2009 by Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shan Revan Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 It is clear that neither side has all the facts, I feel it would be irresponsible for the PAC to involve itself in this conflict at large given this state. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg92 Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 "I maybe an observer but as a past memeber we are bound to each other and are commited to defending each other. Gebiv was attacked and it sounds as if Wighton is defending the enemy. That is not what we do here in the coalition. We are suposoe to help each other not argue over how the enemy has the right to do what he has done. Wighton you are actibg as if you are not in this coalition as if you are bound to the enemy in some sort of way. Wighton i believe you are hiding something and its time to reveal whatever that may be." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 It is clear that neither side has all the facts, I feel it would be irresponsible for the PAC to involve itself in this conflict at large given this state. That is all. "We have enough facts to know that we(Gebiv) have been attacked and have not attacked them. That is all we need. Why Vektaria is up to all of this isn't required to be known for us to act." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 "The conflict is at an end. We are eternally grateful to our PAC allies for support." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 "The conflict is at an end. We are eternally grateful to our PAC allies for support." "We are not. What we see is how the real African nations pledged support for Gebiv, and the ones based in lands off of Africa were against support. We will leave it at that, make of it what you will." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) "We are not. What we see is how the real African nations pledged support for Gebiv, and the ones based in lands off of Africa were against support. We will leave it at that, make of it what you will." The only nation opposed to supporting Gebiv was Coursca, and it had a reason. Stop trying to point out cracks in our pact where there are none. Your insult is not appreciated. Moving forward, but keeping the recent incident in mind, I want to bring a topic up for discussion. The PAC needs to make sure its signatories are not divided or indecisive in a future conflict that may endanger us all. This Coalition was formed with the intention of uniting all African nations in ensuring peace on their continent. While diplomatic issues (who attacked first, whether it was provoked, etc.) may discourage individual signatories from contributing to the defense, a fast response can often change the course of a conflict. I suggest the formation of a PAC defense force, with troops voluntarily dedicated by all member nations (maybe a pledge of at least 1,000 would be a prerequisite to joining). The defense force could be under the command of a qualified military commander appointed by the PAC President, from a list of candidates submitted by interested signatories (OOC: basically to decide who gets to RP the defense force in action). As an alternative, the organization could be divided into regions (East, North, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, etc.) and command decentralized and put into the control of the regional commanders (OOC: having a different player RP each regional division). OOC: Also Sargun, you might want to change the delegate list: "After the election, the victorious nation will forfeit their delegate to the PAC and the President will take his/her place" Edited February 5, 2009 by Vedran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 The Kaevan Autonomous Anarchist Territory respectfully requests that the PAC relinquish control over their protectorate Northwest of Transvaal and Southwest of the Kingdom of Serca and allow the KAAT to claim the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botha Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 The Kaevan Autonomous Anarchist Territory respectfully requests that the PAC relinquish control over their protectorate Northwest of Transvaal and Southwest of the Kingdom of Serca and allow the KAAT to claim the area. OOC:That would be Angola. IC: The Federal Republic of Transvaal protests the awarding of any territory on our borders to advowedly communist or anarchist nations. We also remind the PAC of our on-going border dispute over Southern Angola and we hereby re-exert our claim in Angola up to the Namibe-Lubango parallel. If our territorial claim were recognised, then we would consider recognising the KAAT so long as it gave us firm guarantees that it would not become a base to destablise our nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 OOC:That would be Angola.IC: The Federal Republic of Transvaal protests the awarding of any territory on our borders to advowedly communist or anarchist nations. We also remind the PAC of our on-going border dispute over Southern Angola and we hereby re-exert our claim in Angola up to the Namibe-Lubango parallel. If our territorial claim were recognised, then we would consider recognising the KAAT so long as it gave us firm guarantees that it would not become a base to destablise our nation. OOC: RL countries exist in RP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 OOC: RL countries exist in RP? OOC: In RP no in OOC yes to help people guess which territory is being talked about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 OOC: I see. IC: KAAT will not subject any of its people to the exploitation of statism and capitalism, no matter what claims Transvaal thinks it has over their homes. KAAT also wishes to remind Transvaal that it has the capability and will to defend itself if need be and that any involvement with the inner politics of Transvaal would violate its policy of anti-imperialism. It will support anarchist movements in Transvaal through words only, but will not supply them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botha Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Transvaal would like to point out to the PAC that Kaeva's in-game capital is not located on African soil - but rather California. Therefore they have no rights claiming any PAC protectorate (or Transvaal disputed) territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Transvaal would like to point out to the PAC that Kaeva's in-game capital is not located on African soil - but rather California. Therefore they have no rights claiming any PAC protectorate (or Transvaal disputed) territory. OOC: That'd be an OOC issue, Botha. <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Transvaal would like to point out to the PAC that Kaeva's in-game capital is not located on African soil - but rather California. Therefore they have no rights claiming any PAC protectorate (or Transvaal disputed) territory. KAAT has fixed this. OOC: Sorry, forgot about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) "Due to our highly conflicting ideals and guiding principles, Gebiv votes NAY on KAAT admittance into PAC lands." Edited February 7, 2009 by Gebiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 "Due to our highly conflicting ideals and guiding principles, Gebiv votes NAY on KAAT admittance into PAC lands." "The vote has not yet been brought up. More discussion is needed, yes?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gebiv Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 "The vote has not yet been brought up. More discussion is needed, yes?" "My apologies. You know how hasty I am on voting, especially before it's officially brought up." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 The KAAT understands the animosity toward it and its ideology. It wishes to let the PAC - and the world in general - know that, although it sees fundamental flaws in their governments and societies, the only involvement it wishes to have with the outside world is involvement that is mutually beneficial to their people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 As long as the KAAT remains peaceful and does not actively work towards destabilizing the region, then I would be willing to support a motion to grant them Angola. However, the KAAT should recognize that they will be on their own if they receive Angola. Transvaal has strong anti-communist and anti-anarchist beliefs, and if any conflict develops, it will not involve the PAC as neither nation is a member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastab Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 KAAT thanks Arctica for being reasonable and civil towards different ideologies. The people of KAAT understand this risk. KAAT does not believe in war over trivial things like land claims, but, if it comes to war, feels that it would be more than capable to defend itself against any invading army. KAAT also hopes that its nuclear arsenal would discourage any would-be attackers. OOC: Wait.. my IG nation has nukes. So my RP one does too? How would I roleplay that for a new nation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 OOC: Pretty much that your nation has high-level scientists, just like any other, and is capable of nookz. A new nation doesn't mean it's full of babies, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.