Lynneth Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 "And if, by chance, a nation DOES take action to expel an African naton from their continent...would that not activate the Defense clause of the treaty?" "Most probably, which in turn requires some kind of treaty between numerous nations that are enough to keep Aprhike where they belong, according to this treaty: Africa." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 "And if, by chance, a nation DOES take action to expel an African naton from their continent...would that not activate the Defense clause of the treaty?" "Are you seriously asking if a defense clause would be activated in defense of a signee? Of course it would. Diplomacy always comes first - the treaty requires that, in case of a dispute involving land, diplomacy must be attempted by at least the signee. If they do not attempt diplomacy first they will, of course, be expelled from the treaty. This is a secondary effect of Article VII." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Carthage reminds the world that this is to fight imperialism in Africa - not to police the world. If you have a problem with an African nation in your continent, it is your job to police your part of the world. The signees of the Aphrike treaty respect the sovereignty and decisions each other makes even if we may have differing political opinions. This is not the No-Colonies Pact, this is the Treaty of Aphrike. The key phrase here is Africa. "Are you seriously asking if a defense clause would be activated in defense of a signee? Of course it would. Diplomacy always comes first - the treaty requires that, in case of a dispute involving land, diplomacy must be attempted by at least the signee. If they do not attempt diplomacy first they will, of course, be expelled from the treaty. This is a secondary effect of Article VII." "So...in that case, say a nation asks an African nation to leave their continent. Diplomacy is pursued, with no result...then comes a military attack due to failed negotiations. Diplomacy was exercized, and yet you still support the colonialist. It's a no-win situation for the anti-colonialist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 "So...in that case, say a nation asks an African nation to leave their continent. Diplomacy is pursued, with no result...then comes a military attack due to failed negotiations. Diplomacy was exercized, and yet you still support the colonialist. It's a no-win situation for the anti-colonialist." "You are making up fantasies. Every case is different. Every case has history to examine, present events to deal with, politics to dodge through and the voice of the people to be counted as well. To take a fake case without any of these variables and put it as a criticism is too flawed to deserve an answer. Diplomacy is not accepting talks from somebody and outright denying everything without considering." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 "These scenarios must be considered if you are to eliminate potential flaws in your charter. They cannot be ignored." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundeskanzler Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 "Are you seriously asking if a defense clause would be activated in defense of a signee? Of course it would. Diplomacy always comes first - the treaty requires that, in case of a dispute involving land, diplomacy must be attempted by at least the signee. If they do not attempt diplomacy first they will, of course, be expelled from the treaty. This is a secondary effect of Article VII." We do not expect some nations in Africa to use diplomacy first, given the history. We do like how the treaty was revised to save the members from hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 We do not expect some nations in Africa to use diplomacy first, given the history.We do like how the treaty was revised to save the members from hypocrisy. Learn African history before you speak of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Learn African history before you speak of it. "We have learned African History, and he is not completely wrong...some of you have not always tried diplomacy first." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 "We have learned African History, and he is not completely wrong...some of you have not always tried diplomacy first." "Do you always need to get the last word in?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 "Do you always need to get the last word in?" "Hmm...I dunno...yes." ---- It would be noted that this last was said in almost a joking matter. 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.