Jump to content

Canadian Announcement


Karl Peters
 Share

Recommended Posts

447px-Coat_of_arms_of_Canadasvg.png

Hello all of Planet Bob. I come to you today to state an opening of our borders to all foreign diplomats. We have stayed behind the scenes growing up and becoming something that we can work and grow. Here is a little background information of our wonderful White Team alliance. We have 33 members and stationed on the white sphere. Our leader is John A MacDonlad. We are based off of Canada so just go research some Canadian stuff and we probably got it or about to get it. We are a nuetral alliance with allies on the white team.

However, we are looking to expand our friends outside of White and Black and into different spheres around the world of Planet Bob. If you have any major questions please ask them and I will get back to you as quick as I can. Thank you all.

Forums: http://tcoc.biz/index.php

IRC: #TCoC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The treaties we share with others are all Optionals and so doesn't change our neutral stance we take on CN politics. We might not be the purest neutrals around but we still are neutral.

Sounds more like you're independent, but good luck regardless.

Since it'll probably happen anyway: cue ancient IRON references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuetrality may not fit us as you may have noticed in the past few posts by other members of the internation community. But as my alliance mate Farore stated, we have all optional pacts. Some may classify us as non-interventionists. Non-interventionists would probably be a better name for us.

Our forums are down at the moment. We will get them up and running quickly so that more foreign diplomats can enter our borders. Thank you all for who have come to our alliance. I hope to see more foreign diplomats enter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have any major questions please ask them and I will get back to you as quick as I can. Thank you all.

1. Your name is Karl Peters but you're holding up a picture of Otto von Bismark. Why is this?

2. If The Confederation of Canada is taken a neutral stance on foreign affairs why would anyone want to be allied to you?

3. Recently your alliance has signed a slew of Optional Defense Pacts (ODPs) with other alliances. Is this going to be the official policy of your alliance?

4. How are you going to move beyond the Mittleuropa project and establish legitimacy as an alliance?

And yes, I'm actually interested in your answers, I'm not attempting to be a jerk. Cheers in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is peacekeeping not neutral? I'll sum up that neutrality business with that. Additionally, one can be neutral through optional defence, I believe that's pretty self explanatory and if not, "We would like to help, but must remain neutral until we are attacked first." Some of you may recall that statement. Mitteleuropa has been defunct for a long time, Novus Universitas, a supposed "TGE" idea (not entirely...) has been dismantled - and we're doing just fine. We engage in tight-knit politics outside of our domain; we keep close relations with those that we can trust and with those that have a mindset that treaties aren't everything. The Confederation of Canada likes to focus on its interior. However, this is not to say that we will shun out the rest of the world. While the intention behind this announcement may seem as though we are begging for attention, begging for treaties and so forth then perhaps one should take into account that The Confederation of Canada is simply being friendly and neutral. We mean no harm and no foul.

Edited by Sir John A MacDonald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is peacekeeping not neutral? I'll sum up that neutrality business with that.

It's actually not since it means at some point taking a military stance against someone, implying a "right" and "wrong" value judgment. You can't be neutral and wage a war via treaty ever. There's a reason The Democratic Order doesn't hold treaties after all. Does TCoC see it as an emerging peacekeeping force in the 'verse?

Additionally, one can be neutral through optional defence, I believe that's pretty self explanatory and if not, "We would like to help, but must remain neutral until we are attacked first." Some of you may recall that statement.

So why hold any treaty at all with another power which says that you'll defend them? If your stance is that TCoC needs to be attacked first before it can engage then it doesn't seem like you'll be running to the aid of TGE or RoA if they get slammed. Can you explain this more clearly please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Your name is Karl Peters but you're holding up a picture of Otto von Bismark. Why is this? I cannot answer for him, but I'd say that it has something to do with maple syrup.

2. If The Confederation of Canada is taken a neutral stance on foreign affairs why would anyone want to be allied to you? Neutrality can be a good policy, peacekeeping is a neutral aspect of war, neutrality doesn't necessarily mean that we don't want to get involved, hence why we keep optional treaties around, its better to be neutral/optional and secure rather than mutual/brokered off and have a lot of harm come your way.

3. Recently your alliance has signed a slew of Optional Defense Pacts (ODPs) with other alliances. Is this going to be the official policy of your alliance? As previously stated, we like to remain optional, in most cases the treaty only reflects legality. Our close friends would surely come to our aid in almost any case, though, you never know what the consequences might be hence the optionality.

4. How are you going to move beyond the Mittleuropa project and establish legitimacy as an alliance? Mitteleuroa has been defunct for a long time, as well as Novus Universitas. We're doing perfectly fine. As for my nation bio stating that my protection is assured by The German Empire - this is because of a long standing friendship with many people within TGE. This can apply to any single person, any single alliance and so forth. People have friends you know. ;)

It's actually not since it means at some point taking a military stance against someone, implying a "right" and "wrong" value judgment. You can't be neutral and wage a war via treaty ever. There's a reason The Democratic Order doesn't hold treaties after all. Does TCoC see it as an emerging peacekeeping force in the 'verse? My point on peacekeeping is that it is a military action based off of no moral standpoint other than trying to end hostilities, this does not necessarily reflect TCoC's policies, I never once stated that we peacekeep and I do not believe that it is possible to peacekeep through CN warfare.
So why hold any treaty at all with another power which says that you'll defend them? If your stance is that TCoC needs to be attacked first before it can engage then it doesn't seem like you'll be running to the aid of TGE or RoA if they get slammed. Can you explain this more clearly please? It still remains an optional treaty, the quote I gave referring to being attacked first was just another example as well, mate. Optional treaties often hold a spectrum, don't they?
Edited by Sir John A MacDonald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. I think we're miscommunicating here so I'll lay out my confusion.

1. Mr. Peters (Minister Peters?) has asserted that TCoC is a white-sphere based alliance which is neutral but holds treaties with other powers (TGE and RoA, I don't recall others). The current view within the 'verse is that by allying yourself to another power you are provided some sort of implicit support for their activities and that, in the event they come under military assault, you will provide some sort of aid up to and including military intervention. How do you reconcile being both a neutral stay-at-home alliance and possibly sending troops across someone else's borders in what could only be an offensive action? Can TCoC honor its military obligations to other powers while remaining neutral?

2. You wrote "As previously stated, we like to remain optional, in most cases the treaty only reflects legality. Our close friends would surely come to our aid in almost any case, though, you never know what the consequences might be hence the optionality." What legality are these treaties reflecting? Also, if TCoC has true friends why would they worry about the consequences of helping you if you were in distress? (Note: I find providing an "out" to your allies to be very charming and noble, incidentially)

3. Is the direction TCoC is going one where peacekeeping operations will become the norm? Does TCoC see itself as a haven for smaller nations who might need some sort of protection from raiders and the like? Or does this stance trend more toward TCoC establishing itself more as an impartial party for mediation of conflict?

Cheers again, apologies for being difficult. Definitely interested in the answer to #3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank you for your comments, you're not being difficult. I rather enjoy this, as opposed to random, useless comments.

1. Mr. Peters (Minister Peters?) has asserted that TCoC is a white-sphere based alliance which is neutral but holds treaties with other powers (TGE and RoA, I don't recall others). The current view within the 'verse is that by allying yourself to another power you are provided some sort of implicit support for their activities and that, in the event they come under military assault, you will provide some sort of aid up to and including military intervention. How do you reconcile being both a neutral stay-at-home alliance and possibly sending troops across someone else's borders in what could only be an offensive action? Can TCoC honor its military obligations to other powers while remaining neutral? It can therefore be stated that neutral alliances must sometimes go to war for the defence of an ally - however, this aspect of militarism is only through defence, nothing aggressive on any front.

2. You wrote "As previously stated, we like to remain optional, in most cases the treaty only reflects legality. Our close friends would surely come to our aid in almost any case, though, you never know what the consequences might be hence the optionality." What legality are these treaties reflecting? Also, if TCoC has true friends why would they worry about the consequences of helping you if you were in distress? (Note: I find providing an "out" to your allies to be very charming and noble, incidentially) For this case, say a declaration on TCoC conflicted with another treaty that one of our close friends/allies has, hence they would have to worry about consequences. Legality only reflects an international standard, in my opinion. Backdoor treaties are dishonourable.

3. Is the direction TCoC is going one where peacekeeping operations will become the norm? Does TCoC see itself as a haven for smaller nations who might need some sort of protection from raiders and the like? Or does this stance trend more toward TCoC establishing itself more as an impartial party for mediation of conflict? Should a nation join us, and have a war slot or so filled, it is our obligation (so long as they were unaligned during the declaration on them) to attempt a cease-fire or a white peace. We will not take in any nation that has prior (current, during registration) wars on its hands. For this reason, TCoC could be seen as a mediator, and as such, this provides an aspect of peacekeeping (though non militaristic) in CN warfare.

Edited by Sir John A MacDonald
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...