Razgriz 2K9 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 The Yuktobanian gov't condemns this invasion. Don't your people have enough land and power in Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) The Elective Dictatorship of Palintine withdraws itself from this situation. All the wine in our country couldn't bring these two sides together. Since our nation has not recevied reports on the "credible security threat," the only judgement we can pass on it is that perhaps it was done in haste. Since the Baron never resolved his conflict with Nordland or came to the negotiation table, the only judgement we can pass is that perhaps it was deserved. A situation like this is like a pressure-cooker: you can't ignore it or it's going to explode, and from what it looks like the Baron did just that. However, since Palintine views that all war is deplorable, we maintain this could have been resolved if both sides came to the table and put their differences aside. So we blame both sides. Edited June 15, 2009 by hawk_11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 "That’s because there never was a ‘credible security threat’ from the mansion, the Nord’s intentionally manufactured the entire international incident." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 "That’s because there never was a ‘credible security threat’ from the mansion, the Nord’s intentionally manufactured the entire international incident." If you're trying to convince me of something, please provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you with a claim like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're trying to convince me of something, please provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you with a claim like that. Considering the Nords could monitor everything that goes in and out of the mansion, intercept all communications going to and from the mansion and that they never found any security threat when they raided it, I'd say the burden of proof is on them to show us what "credible security threat" they found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Considering the Nords could monitor everything that goes in and out of the mansion, intercept all communications going to and from the mansion and that they never found any security threat when they raided it, I'd say the burden of proof is on them to show us what "credible security threat" they found. As I've already stated, so now the argument is back at square one. I've seen no evidence to support their "credible security threat;" however, I've also seen no evidence completely disbarring a "credible security threat." At this point it's all speculation, but silence speaks volumes. If the Nords have evidence they had a very good reason to enter that mansion, I do not see any reason for withholding it. In fact, it would probably shut a lot of critics up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 As I've already stated, so now the argument is back at square one. I've seen no evidence to support their "credible security threat;" however, I've also seen no evidence completely disbarring a "credible security threat." At this point it's all speculation, but silence speaks volumes. If the Nords have evidence they had a very good reason to enter that mansion, I do not see any reason for withholding it. In fact, it would probably shut a lot of critics up. They're withholding the evidence for one reason, it doesn't exist, just like all their evidence of "security threats." Although you might say that this is only speculation, we know first hand that the ENR creates false facts to achieve their imperialistic goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 An aggressive action that sparked a war. If nation was to storm one of your embassies in their land and take it apart without any evidences to prove that your embassy had something to hide, what would you do? However the estate wasn't an Embassy, it was property of Von Uberstein however was never registered as an Embassy as such it is a raid on an estate within at the time German jurisdiction the respective law enforcement authorities considered it justified. By being cowards, they fight the losing fight against a larger enemy. That's your position. Thanks. By being cowards they would attack the so called Nordic monster in the back rather than wait for us to come for them. By not being cowards they review the situation and see who is in the right then act on it. Genocide, per definition: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." All european cultures replaced by one big culture? That may qualify as cultural genocide. We still preserve ancient cultures the general name for all people however are Nord it is more of one culture in word than in reality. Considering the Nords could monitor everything that goes in and out of the mansion, intercept all communications going to and from the mansion and that they never found any security threat when they raided it, I'd say the burden of proof is on them to show us what "credible security threat" they found. Actually as it was a normal building within our territory the only one who needs to see the burden of proof is the Court of the Greater German Empire which they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 They're withholding the evidence for one reason, it doesn't exist, just like all their evidence of "security threats." Although you might say that this is only speculation, we know first hand that the ENR creates false facts to achieve their imperialistic goals. Surely there's some presentable historical basis for that assertion. Also, as a member of the Nordlandic delegation is present, the Elective Dictatorship of Palintine requests a copy of the security report if it is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Actually as it was a normal building within our territory the only one who needs to see the burden of proof is the Court of the Greater German Empire which they have."If you have this alleged evidence why don’t you share it with the international community?"Surely there's some presentable historical basis for that assertion. The Nordlanders invaded Slavorussia on what turned out to be less than accurate pretences, why should anyone give Nordland the benefit of the doubt now? Edited June 15, 2009 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 The Nordlanders invaded Slavorussia on what turned out to be less than accurate pretences, why should anyone give Nordland the benefit of the doubt now? The benefit of the doubt should not be given. What should be sought is evidence, and if they refuse to provide that evidence then clearly something is wrong. However, everyone is busy saber-rattling rather than trying to solve this in a diplomatic fashion. Diplomacy works both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 The benefit of the doubt should not be given. What should be sought is evidence, and if they refuse to provide that evidence then clearly something is wrong. However, everyone is busy saber-rattling rather than trying to solve this in a diplomatic fashion. Diplomacy works both ways. Diplomacy works only when a third party forces it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Well lets see here. When Slavorussia was invaded the German Kaiser accused us of several things that were completely untrue. He claimed Slavorussia committed an “act of aggression against this nation. First, they assisted in the invasion of the Greater German Reich, disposing comrade Kaiser Martens” Although it’s true we helped dispose of the demon Martens we did so only after he instructed his allies in Belka to invade us. Secondly he claimed we ordered them to send the majority of their “industrial capacity” to Slavorussia as reparations for the war. In truth we received no reparations from Nordland, or Nordland’s allies, apart from being allowed to annex our Baltic territories that were lost to us since the Bolshevik in the early 20th century. While there are considerable resources and industrial cities in the region that could not have harmed Germany’s economy that much. I’d also like to point out that Allied soldiers never reached the borders of Germany. We only made it half way into Prussia. Further building on that point Prussia and the UFE negotiated peace exclusively and we had no part in the peace negotiations. The German Kaiser claims to approach us and open a line of communication between Slavorussian and Germany, but we refused. Not true in the least. Germany never attempted to have a diplomatic meeting of any sort. We were invited to the Prussian capital once to discuss economic issues, but those fell through. I should mention that it was not of our doing, nor can the blame be placed on any single European nation for nothing resulting from those discussions. Then, and this is the most outlandish claim of all, then they accused us of mobilizing 1 million troops and 5 thousand tanks. At the time Slavorussia’s standing army was 500.000 men and women and roughly 3,500 armored vehicles. Even at our zenith we could never mobilize 1 million troops to the western border. We just didn’t have the manpower, and the entire country would be undefended if we were attacked from the East, North or South. Truthfully we cant speak for any other of Nordland’s conquests, as they are still part of Nordland, but these constant lies against Slavorussia are evidence enough for us to believe they are lying now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: Have you guys ever written a persuasive essay before? Facts. Facts. Facts. If you're going to win over any critical mind, you need citations and backup, not just "he said she said but this happened." Links, damn it. You're trying to prove the validity or non-validity of a war. If you're not willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't be sitting here acting as if I'm an idiot for not willing to believe you. Back your !@#$ up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Diplomacy works only when a third party forces it. A third party enforcing anything generally leads to an escalation in weapons used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Diplomacy works only when a third party forces it. Diplomacy works when two sides are willing to compromise. I do not see that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: Have you guys ever written a persuasive essay before? Facts. Facts. Facts. If you're going to win over any critical mind, you need citations and backup, not just "he said she said but this happened." Links, damn it. You're trying to prove the validity or non-validity of a war. If you're not willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't be sitting here acting as if I'm an idiot for not willing to believe you. Back your !@#$ up. ooc: Please calm yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) ooc: Please calm yourself OOC: If you read that in an angry voice, ask your own mind to forgive itself for raising its voice. If anything, that was in a passive-aggressive annoyed voice. Edited June 15, 2009 by hawk_11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: If you read that in an angry voice, I ask your own mind to forgive itself for raising its voice. If anything, that was in a passive-aggressive annoyed voice. ooc: you cursed, and admitted to being annoyed, so please calm yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 ooc: you cursed, and admitted to being annoyed, so please calm yourself. OOC: Do the necessary work to prove your point, and I won't feel so mentally insulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=60686 Military movements will be here due to the cluster$%&@ this thread has turned in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: DON'T MAKE ME BREAK OUT THE RETARDOPULT ON YOU BOYS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 A third party enforcing anything generally leads to an escalation in weapons used. Says the Nordlandic party, who only signed their "agreement" because of a third party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Says the Nordlandic party, who only signed their "agreement" because of a third party. Your pathetic attempts at understanding the course of historical events amuses me please go on the Discussion never had a 3rd party forcing negotiations the only 3rd party was Hansa as it was between Nordland and Comintern. Are you saying Lady Tintagyl forced us to go to the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 OOC: Do the necessary work to prove your point, and I won't feel so mentally insulted. ooc: I think I did the necessary work countered their claim with my own, and used that as a base for my claim that they lie. The problem is there's nothing on the forums documenting either side's claims. You said you want links, all I can link you to is the declaration of war against Slavorussia and maybe the meeting in Prussia. 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.