iamthey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) It is truly deplorable how the Imperial Alliance can jump from claiming to not be associated with the Nords to demanding the CI (which if memory serves does not control Italy; one of their members exercises control) leave with their tail between their legs. The Imperial Alliance has no need for removing itself from North America without leaving the other continents to which it doesn't belong.And New Brunswick, for the record, is an Imperial Province. When have I ever claimed to not be associated with the Nords I have a permanent alliance with the CSSR? And I am not arguing against colonialism, (in fact I don't believe I am being colonial I am simply a global nation but that is because I embrace a cultural and governmental ideology that is entirely neutral to culture and specific policies (Unlike ideologically centric states that embrace specific governing ideologies or perpetuate specific cultures)), I am arguing against the hypocrisy of being booted from North America and to not have the same apply to any North American Nation's claim in Europe. Edited May 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 No nation wishes to lose its territory, we did so because we chose to respect the regional law of the land, which is tahoe's policy. My connection to the GNR has nothing to do with this, but if you feel it does then lets examine that matter. I chose to respect the request of the regional powers that be, considering I had only a small plot of land I didn't feel that I controlled a sizable enough portion of land to consider my nation a resident of that region. So if you consider me an agent of the GNR and the NC, then I suppose you could say the nords held consistent with their anti-colonialist policy and gave up a long established claim in North America. Conversely the CI has decided to impose its control through a military occupation of the Italian peninsula and has decided to defend its colony in the European continent. That being said we encourage the CI to embrace this just example and cede the territory back to the regional leaders that are better able to command the territory. Here you talk as if your relations with the Nords have nothing to do with assisting them in gaining more land for themselves. The main flaw in your argument is that you have no reason to leave a highly built-up and industrialized section of land aside from prodding by allies; you were not 'booted out' in any sense. If you lose in a war against Tahoe and the surrender terms remove you forcibly, that would be getting the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Both New Brunswick and Hawaii are a part of Tahoe, and both are in North America. So labelling them 'colonies' would be illogical, to say the least. If you look at a map you will see Hawaii in the middle of the pacific. Not in North America. From your capital to Hawaii it is about 4,600 miles. From our capital to Hawaii it is about 2,500 miles. Would Hawaii not be land physically separated from your "main one", that is New Zealand, or does that idea not apply for you. You have islands more than 2,500 miles from your main land. Cuba is less than 2,000 miles from our mainland, and on the same continent indeed. Or how about Canada, that has lands thousands of miles from each other yet geographically connected. We do not feel those on one continent can colonise their own continent. And it is laughable that you should complain about strong arm tactics, when that is all you have ever known. We have spread our large population out evenly over our lands according to land size, ensuring equal resource consumption and population density. You are criticizing us because our largest habitable lands are the ones furtherest from Hawaii, while we have islands physically smaller but populated to the same density much closer?! And although Aotearoa is the two largest islands, they are by no means our 'main ones'. They do not receive any more proportional funding or have a higher proportional population than any other islands. Indeed, many of those smaller islands are important nodes for agricultrual networks. Finally, your one argument rests on the idea that Glorious Aotearoa is a nation of Aotearoa and some islands. Look closer and see our pacific islands. We live, breed and die on those islands. Glorious Aotearoa is one and whole with those islands and would be lesser without them. We can see your motives. Your nation does not wish to give up its foot hold in this area, nor your naval base. Two faced as ever when you have to apply your own doctrines to your self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 "Hah! In Italy, Alvonian culture is merely a trend that happened for a short period of time." "That may be true, but it would have lasted longer had the Nordic Reich in it's former, the NC, not kicked us out violently for a crime we never would have the idiocy to carry out." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hawaii is as equally part of the rest of the Tahoe Republic as any other state. To argue it is not one of our "main" lands is to argue your other equally represented islands are not one of your "main" ones. Hawaii is as part of Tahoe as any of your most outlying islands are part of Aotearoa. Tahoe is one and whole with Hawaii and would lesser without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 And yet you accuse the possessors of Italy, who's government places equal value on both places, of colonizing? The exact same thing has happened with Mainland Tahoe and Hawaii. Each part of Alvonia is but a portion of the whole; to take one away is to deprive the other. By your own argument this should not be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 We offer to resolve this situation peacefully, and we also offer to buy the Norfolk area from the Imperial Alliance. We implore you to agree, before Tahoe forces you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hawaii is as equally part of the rest of the Tahoe Republic as any other state. To argue it is not one of our "main" lands is to argue your other equally represented islands are not one of your "main" ones. Hawaii is as part of Tahoe as any of your most outlying islands are part of Aotearoa.Tahoe is one and whole with Hawaii and would lesser without it. We paid the price of a generation of young men to defend that slice of land. And when the inhabitants request that they become citizens of ours again, then you start calling us imperialists. The Germans that remain there are eternally grateful that we returned. Even the Italians, some of which had family in our American holdings, are grateful too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 We would like to make the point that the initial treaty and land transaction were mutually beneficial to both parties (us and the Imperial Alliance) and that Tahoe, despite being a major American nation, has no right to meddle in the internal or foreign affairs of another sovereign nation. That said, since the Imperial Alliance has stated that it will cede the land back to us, all parties in the conflict can consider it resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakwars Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Tahoe has no right to force nations to give up their lands and yet say they will not give up their own lands that violate their own doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hawaii is as equally part of the rest of the Tahoe Republic as any other state. To argue it is not one of our "main" lands is to argue your other equally represented islands are not one of your "main" ones. Hawaii is as part of Tahoe as any of your most outlying islands are part of Aotearoa.Tahoe is one and whole with Hawaii and would lesser without it. And Imperial Alliance had the exact same relationship with norfolk and you deemed it a colony. The situation is the same. The crunch is now. Either over turn this doctrine, restore Norfolk to Imperial Alliance, or keep this doctrine, ced away your own colonies. Either way act with Integrity. The other option is to stay the two faced cowards you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 ***Private to the Imperial Alliance*** We are very disappointed in the Tahoans actions of late and note their hypocrisy. We would very much like to see that you are able to keep your plot of land around Norfolk. However, if you are forced to leave, would it be possible for use to salvage some of the infrastructure you've built? Perhaps we could find some use for it so that all is not lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The Dragon Bloc hereby announces its support of the Pacific on its stance on picking an angle and sticking to it, but not having your cake and eating it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) ***Private to the Imperial Alliance***We are very disappointed in the Tahoans actions of late and note their hypocrisy. We would very much like to see that you are able to keep your plot of land around Norfolk. However, if you are forced to leave, would it be possible for use to salvage some of the infrastructure you've built? Perhaps we could find some use for it so that all is not lost. *Private* I originally requested to acquire the land based on the need at the time for a direct and open port on the Atlantic, as I now control part of my nation's historical claims in North Africa I no longer am starved of a port so it is only a political burden to continue to defend my plot in the Americas. That being said your request is acceptable and we will leave the civilian infrastructure intact. If you wouldn't mind would you allow us to maintain a single civilian/naval/military base on the Chesapeake. The rest of the land and infrastructure will become yours as that would solve the question of the "colony" but still allow me continued access to the American markets. If the doctrine is overturned though we will see where it goes from there. In either case we continue to be committed to our treaty, and relationship. Edited May 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 OOC: See, that's just plain dumb. Giving up all your industrial power in the region but keeping a military presence? I'm sure that'd go over GREAT with Tahoe. With that, I'm eatin' dinner. BRB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) *Private*I originally requested to acquire the land based on the need at the time for a direct and open port on the Atlantic, as I now control part of my nation's historical claims in North Africa I no longer am starved of a port so it is only a political burden to continue to defend my plot in the Americas. That being said your request is acceptable and we will leave the civilian infrastructure intact. If you wouldn't mind would you allow us to maintain a single civilian/naval/military base on the Chesapeake. The rest of the land and infrastructure will become yours as that would solve the question of the "colony" but still allow me continued access to the American markets. If the doctrine is overturned though we will see where it goes from there. In either case we continue to be committed to our treaty, and relationship. ***Private*** You can keep the Norfolk Naval Base. Consider it a lease for an indefinite period. We shall stay committed to the treaty as well. The massive infrastructure improvements you've made in the area will not be forgotten. Hopefully, a solution beneficial to both of our nations can be reached. Edited May 22, 2009 by Raritan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) OOC: See, that's just plain dumb. Giving up all your industrial power in the region but keeping a military presence? I'm sure that'd go over GREAT with Tahoe. With that, I'm eatin' dinner. BRB. OOC: There is a distinct difference between holding a lease on a military base and having a full fledged foot hold on a continent. Colonies exist for a specific economic purpose and that is either to gain access to markets, or to draw raw resources from the land. That is what drives the threat of colonialism especially in cases with small pieces of land, for as demand for resources expands so too must the colony. With a port/military base however it exists for an entirely different reason. It exists simply to allow our ships to function under our laws and to prevent confusion between jurisdictional authorities. Further it exists simply to assist in interests within the region. Thus the threat of the colony is removed. Moreover I would argue that a lease is not technically in violation of the doctrine as I do not own the territory, but rather am renting it under contract with the host nation. Lastly most defensive pacts basically create military bases in the two nations as whenever you RP your soldiers moving in them that’s essentially what they are doing so really we are just being specific. ***Private***You can keep the Norfolk Naval Base. Consider it a lease for an indefinite period. We shall stay committed to the treaty as well. The massive infrastructure improvements you've made in the area will not be forgotten. Hopefully, a solution beneficial to both of our nations can be reached. *Private* We thank Ardoria for its consideration. Edited May 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) The other option is to stay the two faced cowards you are. Come and get it, worm If you actually do have the integrity you think you have, do something about Hawaii. Otherwise, go back to playing in the sandpit with the other children. Edited May 22, 2009 by Emperor Mudd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Come and get it, wormIf you actually do have the integrity you think you have, do something about Hawaii. Otherwise, go back to playing in the sandpit with the other children. Glorious Aotearoa is not a nation opposed to colonies. We are happy to have you hold Hawaii. We are opposed to liars and cheats. And you are doing exactly that. However, we will not sink to your level and strong arm someone. We will just show the world how hypocritical and low you are. They can make up their minds if they want to deal with such a snake of a nation. You may insult us however you like, but you might want to find something insulting, or actually true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) O'Deaghaidh Doctrine has nothing to do with Europe. It is another statement against colonies in America. If a doctrine or policy is adopted now to remove a colony, I'm sorry, a cultural development area for Alvonia, the area would still have to be grandfathered in or it would be seen as warmongering. Speak out against it, but do not make threats or requests. Edited May 22, 2009 by mykep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) New Brunswick is a colony of the IMperium of Man. Nova Scotia, its neighbor, is a full fledged state in the Union of the Tahoe Republic OOC: ...Disregard my statement. I mixed up New Brunswick with Nova Scotia... Edited May 22, 2009 by JEDCJT 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.