Plebiscite to Run in the Midwest

[JEDCJT]

When you yourself have annexed Pennsylvania and New Jersey? You hypocrite.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey joined New England because the people there wanted to join. Your point is?

[V The King]

"Expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving" one may see it. Would we have been "justified and deserving" in annexing the former UAS lands? Certainly. But we did not. Nations should keep to their own borders and toss away these dreams of more land and domination. It only causes more problems once war rolls around."

"You're far too concerned with the idea. Sure, maybe expansionism brings instability as it may encourage the "expander" to seek more land, but who are we to stop stateless people from joining them? Are we going to say "Lo! You can't join that nation! Because that's expansionism and it's wrong!" when they prefer to join an existing state rather than form their own? Of course not, that's nonsensical. We prevent coercive and violent expansions, but see nothing wrong when areas without sovereignty chooses to join an already established nation."

[Arkantos]

Pennsylvania and New Jersey joined New England because the people there wanted to join. Your point is?

That the situation there is the same as the situation in Nebraska and Kansas. Those people chose to join Mississippi.

[Subtleknifewielder]

When you yourself have annexed Pennsylvania and New Jersey? You hypocrite.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey joined New England because the people there wanted to join. Your point is?

That the situation there is the same as the situation in Nebraska and Kansas. Those people chose to join Mississippi.

And how exactly does that make them a hypocrite? They are not contradicting their words with their actions, which is the simple but accurate definition of a hypocrite.

They may be slightly biased on the issue, but they are not hypocrites.

[Arkantos]

And how exactly does that make them a hypocrite? They are not contradicting their words with their actions, which is the simple but accurate definition of a hypocrite.

They may be slightly biased on the issue, but they are not hypocrites.

I was making a point.

[Michael McBride]

"You're far too concerned with the idea. Sure, maybe expansionism brings instability as it may encourage the "expander" to seek more land, but who are we to stop stateless people from joining them? Are we going to say "Lo! You can't join that nation! Because that's expansionism and it's wrong!" when they prefer to join an existing state rather than form their own? Of course not, that's nonsensical. We prevent coercive and violent expansions, but see nothing wrong when areas without sovereignty chooses to join an already established nation."

"Expansionism almost always begins peacefully and almost always ends violently. There are many, many instances of this, from mergers to individual nations, including the recent United States of America and Greater Nordland. While expansionism was not the sole means of the downfall of each of these superpowers, it was certainly a mitigating factor. Also, we present the nation of Yamato, and the former nation of Glorious Aeotoria. Both were expansionist in nature and both have recently met their downfall."

[Subtleknifewielder]

"Expansionism almost always begins peacefully and almost always ends violently. There are many, many instances of this, from mergers to individual nations, including the recent United States of America and Greater Nordland. While expansionism was not the sole means of the downfall of each of these superpowers, it was certainly a mitigating factor. Also, we present the nation of Yamato, and the former nation of Glorious Aeotoria. Both were expansionist in nature and both have recently met their downfall."

...and all of them expanded through varying degrees of violence. Even the US, the least violent of them all, annexed Mexico through conflict with Tahoe. this was peaceful.

[V The King]

"Expansionism almost always begins peacefully and almost always ends violently. There are many, many instances of this, from mergers to individual nations, including the recent United States of America and Greater Nordland. While expansionism was not the sole means of the downfall of each of these superpowers, it was certainly a mitigating factor. Also, we present the nation of Yamato, and the former nation of Glorious Aeotoria. Both were expansionist in nature and both have recently met their downfall."

"All of the aforementioned examples applied violence and coercion when expanding. Although the United States did not apply such tactics as much, it was also the product of a merger with different, already sovereign nations - thus, different ideas, cultures and the suchlike. The case here is a stateless rejoin sharing a similar culture voluntarily joining a nation. The potential for an increase in instability is minimal."

[JEDCJT]

"Expansionism almost always begins peacefully and almost always ends violently. There are many, many instances of this, from mergers to individual nations, including the recent United States of America and Greater Nordland. While expansionism was not the sole means of the downfall of each of these superpowers, it was certainly a mitigating factor. Also, we present the nation of Yamato, and the former nation of Glorious Aeotoria. Both were expansionist in nature and both have recently met their downfall."

There are many instances where expansionism don't necessarily lead to a nation's collapse. Look at our allies, the Tahoe Republic and the Holy Imperium of Man. They 'expanded', and you dont see them collapsing, do you?

[Michael McBride]

...and all of them expanded through varying degrees of violence. Even the US, the least violent of them all, annexed Mexico through conflict with Tahoe. this was peaceful.

Was the United States not peaceful at first? Was Nordland not peaceful at first? Simply because something starts in peace does not mean it will end that way.

"All of the aforementioned examples applied violence and coercion when expanding. Although the United States did not apply such tactics as much, it was also the product of a merger with different, already sovereign nations - thus, different ideas, cultures and the suchlike. The case here is a stateless rejoin sharing a similar culture voluntarily joining a nation. The potential for an increase in instability is minimal."

Wasn't Greater Nordland independent nations who joined peacefully? Wasn't the United States? And yet they both ended in violence. The pattern is there, and those who choose to ignore it will surely find themselves repeating history.

There are many instances where expansionism don't necessarily lead to a nation's collapse. Look at our allies, the Tahoe Republic and the Holy Imperium of Man. They 'expanded', and you dont see them collapsing, do you?

The Tahoe Republic was battered in a war with the United States due to both nations' expansionist policies. The Holy Imperium of Man was a part of the United States that was defeated.

[JEDCJT]

The Tahoe Republic was battered in a war with the United States due to both nations' expansionist policies. The Holy Imperium of Man was a part of the United States that was defeated.

We are talking about when Tahoe acquired Cuba, the Bahamas, and Nova Scotia - and when the Holy Imperium of Man acquired southern Mexico and more lands. That's what we are referring to.

[Michael McBride]

We are talking about when Tahoe acquired Cuba, the Bahamas, and Nova Scotia - and when the Holy Imperium of Man acquired southern Mexico and more lands. That's what we are referring to.

The point still remains that both nation's expansionist policies have brought about violent conflict that has led to military defeat.

[JEDCJT]

The point still remains that both nation's expansionist policies have brought about violent conflict that has led to military defeat.

This isn't always the case, y'know.

[Michael McBride]

This isn't always the case, y'know.

We've presented numerous cases where that is the case, and have yet to be refuted with a case where it hasn't.

[Cody Seb]

We've presented numerous cases where that is the case, and have yet to be refuted with a case where it hasn't.

"They have shown two cases where it hasn't. Also, the Dragon Empire is a grouping of nations voluntarily joining together which has remained together for a very long time.

I also disagree that Greater Nordland was peaceful at first, but that changes either side's argument little.

I guess we come down to a point where I can either prove you wrong or I can prove you right. We have every intention of proving you wrong, simply because that was the goal even before your protest, peacful co-existence with two states voting to join our nation, two states who were once joined with our current ones in the form of Louisiana.

Then again, if I prove you wrong you get to say I told you so and from there I'm not sure where it would go. You don't want that, we don't want that and have no intentions of even entering into a situation where that becomes a reality."

[V The King]

Wasn't Greater Nordland independent nations who joined peacefully? Wasn't the United States? And yet they both ended in violence. The pattern is there, and those who choose to ignore it will surely find themselves repeating history.

"I'd reckon you did our hear my words when I said that Kansas and Nebraska lacked sovereignty when they voted in favor of joining the Confederacy and were for a long time under the care of a Vinilandese protectorate. Considering everything else we have said, this is nothing like a merger or an unwarranted annexation as you are attempting to put it."

[Michael McBride]

"I'd reckon you did our hear my words when I said that Kansas and Nebraska lacked sovereignty when they voted in favor of joining the Confederacy and were for a long time under the care of a Vinilandese protectorate. Considering everything else we have said, this is nothing like a merger or an unwarranted annexation as you are attempting to put it."

No matter how you try and sugarcoat it, it is still expansion, which still has always led to more aggressive behavior. Call it what you wish, put whatever parameters on it that you wish, the pattern still stands.

[V The King]

No matter how you try and sugarcoat it, it is still expansion, which still has always led to more aggressive behavior. Call it what you wish, put whatever parameters on it that you wish, the pattern still stands.

"Whatever Xaristan says. We'll just leave that from sheer experience, Viniland knows what is aggressive behavior and what is not; what rightful and justified expansionism is or is not.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Was the United States not peaceful at first? Was Nordland not peaceful at first? Simply because something starts in peace does not mean it will end that way.

The US, uyes. Nordland, not so much.

Wasn't Greater Nordland independent nations who joined peacefully? Wasn't the United States? And yet they both ended in violence. The pattern is there, and those who choose to ignore it will surely find themselves repeating history.

The patter is non-existant. As Viniland has pointed out, the Dragon Empire started the same way. They have yet to aggressively expand their borders.

The Tahoe Republic was battered in a war with the United States due to both nations' expansionist policies. The Holy Imperium of Man was a part of the United States that was defeated.

The Holy Imperium was NOT a part of the US when it was defeated, withdrawing before war came anywhere near them.

[Cody Seb]

"I also bring forward the example of the Hanseatic Commonwealth. They have expanded more than just about anyone, in a wide variety of culturally unrelated places and have yet to end in failure or turn to violence. Quite the contrary, they could be considered the most loved country in the world, yet have one of the most expansionist policies, or at least circumstances, in the world."

[Californian]

We congratulate the Mississippi Confederation on annexing Kansas and Nebraska. If the majority voted for annexation and the results are valid, we feel the matter is settled.

[Michael McBride]

The Holy Imperium was NOT a part of the US when it was defeated, withdrawing before war came anywhere near them.

We would ask that you kindly read up on your history before debating us on this topic. The Holy Imperium of Man withdrew from the United States when Xaristan declared war, and agreed to help Xaristan and Louisiana. They were, however, a part of the USA when the war was declared in the first place.

"I also bring forward the example of the Hanseatic Commonwealth. They have expanded more than just about anyone, in a wide variety of culturally unrelated places and have yet to end in failure or turn to violence. Quite the contrary, they could be considered the most loved country in the world, yet have one of the most expansionist policies, or at least circumstances, in the world."

You seem to forget that the Commonwealth played a central role in bringing down the destruction of Greater Nordland. I believe that would qualify under "turning to violence".

[Sargun II]

You seem to forget that the Commonwealth played a central role in bringing down the destruction of Greater Nordland. I believe that would qualify under "turning to violence".

Violence was the only way to stop Greater Nordland - that nobody can deny. That you fault someone for taking the only action to defeat a great evil shows a biased eye.

[Cody Seb]

"I have a few points regarding that. First of all, as New Zealand mentioned, it was the only way. Secondly, that had nothing to do with expansion whatsoever. Thirdly, you yourself opposed Greater Nordland.

Also, if you use that example as an example for violent expansion, you declared war on the United States. Using your logic, that would mean disexpansionism, or whatever you wanted to call it, leads to violence."

[Subtleknifewielder]

We would ask that you kindly read up on your history before debating us on this topic. The Holy Imperium of Man withdrew from the United States when Xaristan declared war, and agreed to help Xaristan and Louisiana. They were, however, a part of the USA when the war was declared in the first place.

No, it is you who need to learn how to read. You are assuming several things we never said. We never said the Imperium was not part of the US when war was declared. What we said was they withdrew from the US before the US was defeated, before any fighting actualy took place in their own territory.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder