Articles of American Sovereignty and Self Determination

[LeVentNoir]

"It is heavily encouraged to not have colonies outside the Americas so as to not be hypocrites, however it is not written into the Articles to allow nations to keep their sovereignty intact."

Then we would suppose your would be placing pressure on nations currently in violation of these principals? I expect to see a interesting series of events the next few days.

Along with the Alliance, we must take a stand here. Nations are sovereign. You can try to have some kind of isolationist policy but in reality, if you try to bully other nations, the world will take notice. You are not the "just rulers of the realm" if they obtained land in the americas, who are you to say it is not theirs? And how are you to make them leave except by military force?

I hope you do not pick and choose your targets though, for it would be disastrous of your new bully group to forget the Rebel Army holdings in ecuador, and come across as bullies, hypocrits or just plain cowards.

[Zarfef]

The Aether Empire leader Zarfef, though very far away ponders the following situation:

(In Zarfef's mind)

Native Americans (also called Indians) from accross North America say they agree to these statements of anti-colonialism. They send a message to all current major leaders accross the country with European heritage.

Indian Chief: "We agree! NOW SCRAM!"

Silly American's Zarfef thinks... you are already one giant set of colonies who have simply forgotten their origin!

(End of stuff in Zarfef's Mind)

Edited July 3, 2009 by Zarfef

[VigilantWatcher]

Signed for the Rational Socialist Republic Of Curristan,

President Kerry Long

[Michael McBride]

We in the Imperium can't help but put forward the question of colonies already present in the Americas such as the Rebel Army state of Ecuador and the portion of Norfolk commanded by The Alliance. Will this pact make a strong stance against these enclaves or fumble the question as other anti-colonial policies have done in the past?

As stated previously, yes, we will. As soon as we have as many signatures as we are going to get, we will approach Rebel Army as a group to sit down and speak with them concerning their Ecuadorian holdings. This was never going to be overlooked, it just obviously was not mentioned straight out because we assumed people were smart enough to think that we would speak to them. We thought wrong.

-snipmassivewahhhhindignantpostsnip-

And the true colors are finally shown. Before talks have even started, we have seen the "pull it from my cold, dead, fingers" line used. And you wonder why we don't want foreign influence and land holdings in the Americas? This, right here, is why. If you want a fight, then stop your grandiose speeches and posturing. You know where to find us. We offered talks and you offer violence. So typical.

Then we would suppose your would be placing pressure on nations currently in violation of these principals? I expect to see a interesting series of events the next few days.

Along with the Alliance, we must take a stand here. Nations are sovereign. You can try to have some kind of isolationist policy but in reality, if you try to bully other nations, the world will take notice. You are not the "just rulers of the realm" if they obtained land in the americas, who are you to say it is not theirs? And how are you to make them leave except by military force?

I hope you do not pick and choose your targets though, for it would be disastrous of your new bully group to forget the Rebel Army holdings in ecuador, and come across as bullies, hypocrits or just plain cowards.

As also stated before, those countries in the Americas who choose to sign the Articles will have pressure placed on them to give up their foreign holdings, if any. To those who do not sign, obviously they are not bound by the letter or the spirit of the Articles, but we will still appeal to them to give up their foreign lands as we feel it is the right thing to do.

As for calling us bullies, that is your own, sadly misinformed, opinion. Continue to listen to the rhetoric being spewed out of the Alliance if you like, but in reality it is nothing short of propaganda and useless to a meaningful discussion on the world stage. We have offered talks, first and foremost, to all nations of foreign origin who own land in the Americas. And what is the response of the Alliance? To revoke their so-called neutrality and basically declare war on Xaristan. Pathetic.

[LeVentNoir]

As also stated before, those countries in the Americas who choose to sign the Articles will have pressure placed on them to give up their foreign holdings, if any. To those who do not sign, obviously they are not bound by the letter or the spirit of the Articles, but we will still appeal to them to give up their foreign lands as we feel it is the right thing to do.

As for calling us bullies, that is your own, sadly misinformed, opinion. Continue to listen to the rhetoric being spewed out of the Alliance if you like, but in reality it is nothing short of propaganda and useless to a meaningful discussion on the world stage. We have offered talks, first and foremost, to all nations of foreign origin who own land in the Americas. And what is the response of the Alliance? To revoke their so-called neutrality and basically declare war on Xaristan. Pathetic.

Then we ask you to place pressure on Tahoe and Viniland (if they sign) to relinquish their pacific holdings. It is highly hypocritical of them to hold such places and yet have the audacity to decry other nations with land in another world sphere.

As for the the bullies, it was in relation to the idea that a nation, who with established holdings would be called to talks, the purpose of which would be to relive them of their lands, their sovereign territory, through diplomatic or military pressure.

[Vedran]

Arctica has a small holding near the North Pole. Arctica has possessed this holding for decades and is not planning on relinquishing it.

[Michael McBride]

Then we ask you to place pressure on Tahoe and Viniland (if they sign) to relinquish their pacific holdings. It is highly hypocritical of them to hold such places and yet have the audacity to decry other nations with land in another world sphere.

As for the the bullies, it was in relation to the idea that a nation, who with established holdings would be called to talks, the purpose of which would be to relive them of their lands, their sovereign territory, through diplomatic or military pressure.

Tahoe's only "Pacific holding" from what we can see is Hawaii, which has long been considered part of North America. We will not place pressure on them to relinquish that. If there is something we missed, please let us know.

Arctica has a small holding near the North Pole. Arctica has possessed this holding for decades and is not planning on relinquishing it.

The North Pole is not considered a part of the Americas. Therefore, you have nothing to worry about.

OOC: I'm leaving for the 4th weekend, and will be without internet most likely. Mudd can continue this in my stead if he wishes to.

[LeVentNoir]

Tahoe's only "Pacific holding" from what we can see is Hawaii, which has long been considered part of North America. We will not place pressure on them to relinquish that. If there is something we missed, please let us know.

It is a blatant part of the Pacific sphere, and its distance and isolation from the americas would have any rational classification of these islands as Pacific. Indeed, there is not even a long standing occupation of these islands, Tahoe annexed them when the local, pacific government (with zero american land ties) collapsed.

It is a worse grouping than claiming Aotearoa (islands) is part of the Australian Continent. We feel you should provide a well thought out comprehensive definition of the Americas. We would suggest the American Continental tectonic plates would be a good starting point, with additional inclusiveness of the Caribbean.

[LeVentNoir]

double >_>

Edited July 3, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[HHAYD]

Tahoe's only "Pacific holding" from what we can see is Hawaii, which has long been considered part of North America. We will not place pressure on them to relinquish that. If there is something we missed, please let us know.

You are opposed against other nations setting up a colony on the American continent. However, you are not opposed against American nations setting up colonies on other continents.

That does not make sense, it seems like you are heavily biased against non-American people.

Edited July 3, 2009 by HHAYD

[King Kevz]

Pax Pacis agrees totally with Greater Aotearoa, if this Article is to go through then Tahoe must give up their Hawaii holdings.

[Manetheren]

It is a blatant part of the Pacific sphere, and its distance and isolation from the americas would have any rational classification of these islands as Pacific. Indeed, there is not even a long standing occupation of these islands, Tahoe annexed them when the local, pacific government (with zero american land ties) collapsed.

It is a worse grouping than claiming Aotearoa (islands) is part of the Australian Continent. We feel you should provide a well thought out comprehensive definition of the Americas. We would suggest the American Continental tectonic plates would be a good starting point, with additional inclusiveness of the Caribbean.

Very well, this document pertains to northern Japan, Eastern Russia and half of Iceland as well...

Now common sense states that those regions are not part of America. Yet you claim Hawaii as an imperialist colony. Aotearoa's desire to invade Hawaii is well documented, yet so is its cowardice, so we do not expect much to be done about it. Good day, sir.

Tahoe annexed them when the local, pacific government (with zero american land ties) collapsed.

To the contrary, the nation of Ishiopia which was annexed was a rump state of the "6th California Republic" which fell during the California wars between Tahoe and American settlers from the 1st United States in the 1870's.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

Very well, this document pertains to northern Japan, Eastern Russia and half of Iceland as well...

"Milady are they implying that we're part of the Greater American continent?"

"I would think not. If the Americans really believe that they have any such claims to Hanseatic land, I find that extremely humorous."

"And to the situation occurring on the continent with anti-colonialism?"

Sarah shrugged. "I'd be shocked if the Rebel Army gave up their claims to Ecuador, but we'll see. Its not like we have any claims on the American Continent. No reason to worry. They have their side of the world and we have ours. Its as simple as that."

Edited July 3, 2009 by Sarah Tintagyl

[Manetheren]

OOC: Just so you know, LVN indicated that claiming this document covers the North American plate is "acceptable" not that we care, but the NOrth American plate includes Northeast Russia, Northern Japan and parts of Iceland...

[Subtleknifewielder]

"While the doctrine itself is a good ideal, the interpretation is too rigid. At no point have the Alliance or Rebel Army holdings been used to make war on any American nation, nor have the citizens in these areas ever been treated unfairly. The Alliance has refused to evacuate unless the sovereign owners of the land ask them to leave. We doubt the Rebel Army citizens in South America will wish to leave the RA. Therefore the only logical outcome is war. Any nation that is foolish enough to war with Rebel Army will be attempting to bite off more than they can chew."

Edited July 3, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[iamthey]

As for calling us bullies, that is your own, sadly misinformed, opinion. Continue to listen to the rhetoric being spewed out of the Alliance if you like, but in reality it is nothing short of propaganda and useless to a meaningful discussion on the world stage. We have offered talks, first and foremost, to all nations of foreign origin who own land in the Americas. And what is the response of the Alliance? To revoke their so-called neutrality and basically declare war on Xaristan. Pathetic.

Wrong we have not declared war on you, we have stated that we will defend our sovereign territory with the full range of our military if you deem it necessary to make this a matter of war. As for propaganda... I would remind you that its you who have ignored all of my attempts at fair, and scholarly debate on the matter. When your answer to my legal inquiries, and my moralistic arguments is only transiently related to the arguments and basically says "I want you to leave" how can I continue to debate? You offer talks yes, but what would these talks be except simply another opportunity for me to make arguments that go on ignored. Since debate has rendered zero results, as you are totally unwilling to compromise, I am done with it. I really want this to end peacefully; I don't like war. However if you insist upon making yet another war in the western hemisphere then I suppose there is nothing I can really do to stop you. I have drawn my line in the sand at norfolk beyond that the choice is yours.

Edited July 4, 2009 by iamthey

[LeVentNoir]

Very well, this document pertains to northern Japan, Eastern Russia and half of Iceland as well...

Now common sense states that those regions are not part of America. Yet you claim Hawaii as an imperialist colony. Aotearoa's desire to invade Hawaii is well documented, yet so is its cowardice, so we do not expect much to be done about it. Good day, sir.

To the contrary, the nation of Ishiopia which was annexed was a rump state of the "6th California Republic" which fell during the California wars between Tahoe and American settlers from the 1st United States in the 1870's.

We said it would be a good starting point. We are still waiting on you to provide a definition of the Americas, as the world community would like some specific details as to where this clubhouse applies. And as much as common sense dictates that Russia, Iceland, and Japan are not part of the American Continent, neither is Hawaii, nor Midway.

We have no desire to invade your nation, else you would be at war, and our troops would be on the beaches right now. If you think you could hold those islands like the big strong nation you are, we ask if you would consent to a naval battle. We are willing to step up, are you?

And as you note, Ishtopia was a separate, independent nation, not under jurisdiction, nor with any political ties to continental America.

We shall leave you with your Hypocrisy.

Edited July 4, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[Yort92]

President Magnimer in his office:

Sigh I just don't know about this stuff anymore. Personally I don't mind a presence so long as it isn't an aggressive one and that they got there peacefully. Of course I would hate random tanks rolling in from some random far away country no one can pronounce. I would hope that such an act as this would not hurt overseas trade. I just don't know about this. I don't see why we couldn't grandfather the people already here... O well... I'm just gonna watch this roll a while and then I'll make a better decision...

Official Release:

As of yet, the nation of Tennessee has no official position on the Articles.

[Sumeragi]

Would the Aleutian Islands be considered American?

[Arkantos]

Would the Aleutian Islands be considered American?

I believe they are.

[Michael McBride]

OOC: Just a note before this begins... I probably got bitten by a tick while camping this weekend and need to go in for blood work tomorrow, but I am currently on Codine for the pain... so if something doesn't make sense, I blame the drugs.

It is a blatant part of the Pacific sphere, and its distance and isolation from the americas would have any rational classification of these islands as Pacific. Indeed, there is not even a long standing occupation of these islands, Tahoe annexed them when the local, pacific government (with zero american land ties) collapsed.

It is a worse grouping than claiming Aotearoa (islands) is part of the Australian Continent. We feel you should provide a well thought out comprehensive definition of the Americas. We would suggest the American Continental tectonic plates would be a good starting point, with additional inclusiveness of the Caribbean.

For almost the last one hundred fifty years, the Hawaiian Islands have been considered part of the North American continent. I challenge you to point to a source from those last hundred fifty years where they are not considered part of that continent, and then I will begin considering your argument seriously.

You are opposed against other nations setting up a colony on the American continent. However, you are not opposed against American nations setting up colonies on other continents.

That does not make sense, it seems like you are heavily biased against non-American people.

Really? I've said that? Please, show me where. If you're referring to the Hawaiian Islands, please show me what continent they are on if not the North American one.

"While the doctrine itself is a good ideal, the interpretation is too rigid. At no point have the Alliance or Rebel Army holdings been used to make war on any American nation, nor have the citizens in these areas ever been treated unfairly. The Alliance has refused to evacuate unless the sovereign owners of the land ask them to leave. We doubt the Rebel Army citizens in South America will wish to leave the RA. Therefore the only logical outcome is war. Any nation that is foolish enough to war with Rebel Army will be attempting to bite off more than they can chew."

Simply because they have not been used as an advance base to make war yet, does not mean that they will not be used as one in the future. Also, why do people automatically assume that we want war? The creation of this policy was to prevent war, not start it. The only nations that have threatened war right off so far have been the Alliance and Aotearoa.

Wrong we have not declared war on you, we have stated that we will defend our sovereign territory with the full range of our military if you deem it necessary to make this a matter of war. As for propaganda... I would remind you that its you who have ignored all of my attempts at fair, and scholarly debate on the matter. When your answer to my legal inquiries, and my moralistic arguments is only transiently related to the arguments and basically says "I want you to leave" how can I continue to debate? You offer talks yes, but what would these talks be except simply another opportunity for me to make arguments that go on ignored. Since debate has rendered zero results, as you are totally unwilling to compromise, I am done with it. I really want this to end peacefully; I don't like war. However if you insist upon making yet another war in the western hemisphere then I suppose there is nothing I can really do to stop you. I have drawn my line in the sand at norfolk beyond that the choice is yours.

Considering we had not mentioned war at all and it was you who first brought up the subject, that makes you the aggressor in this case. As for your "legal" arguments, they are faulty and using the legal philosophy of someone who does not exist will not help your case, nor help your forward the debate. Once again, we wish to have talks with both the Alliance and Rebel Army concerning these matters. We wish our opportunity to present our case in private, in a civilized way, not spewing propaganda over the international airwaves as you have. Should you continue to rebuff those offers, the world can clearly see who the unreasonable one is in this instance.

We said it would be a good starting point. We are still waiting on you to provide a definition of the Americas, as the world community would like some specific details as to where this clubhouse applies. And as much as common sense dictates that Russia, Iceland, and Japan are not part of the American Continent, neither is Hawaii, nor Midway.

We have no desire to invade your nation, else you would be at war, and our troops would be on the beaches right now. If you think you could hold those islands like the big strong nation you are, we ask if you would consent to a naval battle. We are willing to step up, are you?

And as you note, Ishtopia was a separate, independent nation, not under jurisdiction, nor with any political ties to continental America.

We shall leave you with your Hypocrisy.

Once again, this time by a nation completely uninvolved in the matter at hand, war is threatened. And the world wonders why some in America want to keep the populous just to Americans.

Would the Aleutian Islands be considered American?

Considering they are considered a part of the Alaskan territory, which is a part of the North American continent, they are, yes.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Simply because they have not been used as an advance base to make war yet, does not mean that they will not be used as one in the future. Also, why do people automatically assume that we want war? The creation of this policy was to prevent war, not start it. The only nations that have threatened war right off so far have been the Alliance and Aotearoa.

You need to pay mopre attention to what we said. We did not say you want war, only that this strict interpretation of the doctrine will lead to war. Regardless of what you want. the Rebel Army citizens in South ASmerica are not bloody likely going to welcome YOUR interference in THEIR choices.

And please, point out where Aotearoa actually threatened to declare war? You cannot. They have not said they will declare war, only that if they had, you would already be fighting by now.

[HHAYD]

Really? I've said that? Please, show me where. If you're referring to the Hawaiian Islands, please show me what continent they are on if not the North American one.

Nowhere in your article stated that North American nations that sign the document can not establish any kind of bases or colonies outside of North and South America.

[Michael McBride]

Nowhere in your article stated that North American nations that sign the document can not establish any kind of bases or colonies outside of North and South America.

Ah, but I have said, numerous times in fact, that those who sign the Articles would be heavily pressured to give up any overseas holdings, if any, and that those who signed the Articles would apply pressure on American nations who didn't sign to give up overseas holdings. Reading comprehension is your friend, but, then again, we haven't come to expect anything more from a government who couldn't defeat a bunch of poo-flinging terrorists on their own.

[Michael McBride]

You need to pay mopre attention to what we said. We did not say you want war, only that this strict interpretation of the doctrine will lead to war. Regardless of what you want. the Rebel Army citizens in South ASmerica are not bloody likely going to welcome YOUR interference in THEIR choices.

And please, point out where Aotearoa actually threatened to declare war? You cannot. They have not said they will declare war, only that if they had, you would already be fighting by now.

Except that they did threaten war, most pointedly in the part about troops being on our beaches and challenging Tahoe to a naval battle. Once again, we have offered talks, and now nations completely uninvolved are threatening war over something that does not even concern them.