TheStig Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comrade nikonov Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 This ultimatum ironically is logical, so we would be supporting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Ah, but is the Middle East not culturally linked to the African holdings in question? The Middle East actually does have more in common with the aforementioned African holdings than indeed with Asia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 "The Emirate is an Asian nation. Why should they be allowed claims in Africa and the British not?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOC: He has a point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOC: He has a point OOC: Who, me, or Stig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingChris Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 If the British move back into Africa, they will do so extremely opposed by us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOC: Who, me, or Stig? Stig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) "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 October 21, 2009 by graniteknight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) OOC WRONG Subtle Britain released them and gave independance as a gift for fighting with them in the world wars. Edited October 21, 2009 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingChris Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOC WRONG Chris Britain released them and gave independance as a gift for fighting with them in the world wars. OOC: I'm Chris... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOC: I'm Chris... OOC edited just b4 u replied lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 OOCWRONG Subtle Britain released them and gave independance as a gift for fighting with them in the world wars. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 OOC: I honestly am not sure what you sjust said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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. 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.