Jump to content

An Ultimatum to the Kuwaiti Emirate


TheStig
 Share

Recommended Posts

"You have (OOC: five RL days) to vacate all your African territory which is out of you continent of Asia, otherwise we shall be re-claiming our African territory merely to prove a point, and as homage to the economic sanction you threatened us with, our blockades shall deny your ships access to the Mediterranean and Indian ocean."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Middle-East, by definition, is not technically part of either Asia nor Africa, but has geologic and cultural ties to both continents. The British, however, are far removed from their claims in Asia, having no direct land ties to the region in question."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Middle-East, by definition, is not technically part of either Asia nor Africa, but has geologic and cultural ties to both continents. The British, however, are far removed from their claims in Asia, having no direct land ties to the region in question."

To be honest I disagree for ages England had singapore and a sphere of influence in china and huge swaths of Asia/middle east/africa under its control. this is my opinion basedo n what historically was nothing ic or ooc, just history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I disagree for ages England had singapore and a sphere of influence in china and huge swaths of Asia/middle east/africa under its control. this is my opinion basedo n what historically was nothing ic or ooc, just history

"But that's not cultural. Singapore is Asian, and none of their other colonies were of a British culture, save Australia and America, which have broken off."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I disagree for ages England had singapore and a sphere of influence in china and huge swaths of Asia/middle east/africa under its control. this is my opinion basedo n what historically was nothing ic or ooc, just history

"Those are neither cultural nor geologic ties, only historical. And they took much of that territory by force. What's your point?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those are neither cultural nor geologic ties, only historical. And they took much of that territory by force. What's your point?"

My point was that while the British have no "land ties" to asian holdings(such as India) thy still have cultural and political and social impacts and ties, something that Kuwait while being in the middle east does not seem to have at least as far as my knowledge goes

Edited by graniteknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that while the British have no "land ties" to asian holdings(such as India) thy still have cultural and political and social impacts and ties, something that Kuwait while being in the middle east does not seem to have at least as far as my knowledge goes

"Britain has no cultural ties to Africa or Asia."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Britain has no cultural ties to Africa or Asia."

OOC: thats a load of crap, have you not read the novel A Passage to India, which while being a fictional novel does depict the British control of government and culture in India rather well. I do not mean to argue such little points as these, they are just my opinions. To be frank I support neither you nor stig in any conflict that you are having I'm just attempting to state that Asia and Africa do have ties to England(the former Rhodesia in Africa being an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: thats a load of crap, have you not read the novel A Passage to India, which while being a fictional novel does depict the British control of government and culture in India rather well. I do not mean to argue such little points as these, they are just my opinions. To be frank I support neither you nor stig in any conflict that you are having I'm just attempting to state that Asia and Africa do have ties to England(the former Rhodesia in Africa being an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

OOC: They don't have any cultural ties. Do you see people from the coast of Africa acting anything like British people? No. Their culture remains. The British did nothing. Also, respond to IC with IC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that while the British have no "land ties" to asian holdings(such as India) thy still have cultural and political and social impacts and ties, something that Kuwait while being in the middle east does not seem to have at least as far as my knowledge goes

"Cultural ties that were neither asked for nor wanted by the natives of India, as shown by Gandhi."

"Britain has no cultural ties to Africa or Asia."
OOC: thats a load of crap, have you not read the novel A Passage to India, which while being a fictional novel does depict the British control of government and culture in India rather well. I do not mean to argue such little points as these, they are just my opinions. To be frank I support neither you nor stig in any conflict that you are having I'm just attempting to state that Asia and Africa do have ties to England(the former Rhodesia in Africa being an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

OOC: ties that were forced on them. They obtained their independence despite Britain's wishes, remember? They didn't WANT to remain part of the Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: So they say. But it WAS clear India did NOT want them there any more, whatever is said about it, whatever was actually done.

OOC they didnt have a choice in the matter.

they were rewarded freedom for like 100 years loyalty to the empire.

if they oposed it os much there were a damnsite more indians than englishmen. they cudda rebelled but didnt end of story :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC they didnt have a choice in the matter.

they were rewarded freedom for like 100 years loyalty to the empire.

if they oposed it os much there were a damnsite more indians than englishmen. they cudda rebelled but didnt end of story :D

OOC: I honestly am not sure what you sjust said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: I honestly am not sure what you sjust said...

OOC

basicly

India was annexed by england in the 1800s by the Wellesy Brothers (duke of wellington as he is better known as)

and in world war 1, after sending 1.3 million soldiers to help in europe africa and asia, and gandhi came, the british gave the indians freedom asa nation as a gift for the aid in the great war basicly

gandhi just pushed for it.. alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: Ah.

You put too much faith in what governments say, my friend. Sure, perhaps they did justify giving India up for the years of loyalty. But it was also becoming quite clear it would cost them more to maintain their presence there than it would for them to simply withdraw. Gandhi, though his demonstrations were peacewul, was still in essence, a rebel. He illustrated that India preferred to be independent, and not tied to Britain in such a way.

Also, I don't see a lot of evidence that Indian culture was seriously affected by British culture. Some, yes, but not much overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...