Margrave Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The Hansa respects the UFE and its peacekeeping policy in Asia. That said, our proof lay no farther away than the Helsinki Peace Memorial, dedicated to all the civilians who were murdered by Mr. Visari's nuclear strike on our nation. We hope that you disagree with that event at least...or does the UFE endorse First Strikes on non-nuclear nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1294779250' post='2572226'] The Hansa respects the UFE and its peacekeeping policy in Asia. That said, our proof lay no farther away than the Helsinki Peace Memorial, dedicated to all the civilians who were murdered by Mr. Visari's nuclear strike on our nation. We hope that you disagree with that event at least...or does the UFE endorse First Strikes on non-nuclear nations? [/quote] "Different Visarí's noob" -Anonymous internet blogger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 It's obvious to anyone with half an attention span can see that the Finnish are referring to the Visari family in general, which includes the Nordic Empire's current leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 OOC: not this blog stuff again. As Subtle famously said: its bad rp. IC: we are of course referring to Michael Visari's ancestor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1294780892' post='2572247'] OOC: not this blog stuff again. As Subtle famously said: its bad rp. IC: we are of course referring to Michael Visari's ancestor. [/quote] At one point I would venture to guess that one of your ancestors owned slaves, or forced himself on a woman. Clearly you support these positions by your line of argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malatose Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 While we respect everyone's opinion, the international community must realize that the Greater Korean Federation has done nothing but release a vague statement condemning the attack. No evidence exempting them from the attack or anything. On the other hand, we have a video evidence plus the caskets of over two hundred dead sailors to support our claims. As such, the ultimatum against the Greater Korean Federation continues to remain in effect. The corrupt, segregationist, and terrorist state of the Greater Korean Federation has 48 hours to submit to the demands of the ultimatum or else. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malatose Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1294779250' post='2572226'] The Hansa respects the UFE and its peacekeeping policy in Asia. That said, our proof lay no farther away than the Helsinki Peace Memorial, dedicated to all the civilians who were murdered by Mr. Visari's nuclear strike on our nation. We hope that you disagree with that event at least...or does the UFE endorse First Strikes on non-nuclear nations? [/quote] The death of those citizens are unfortunate, yes. But the blood of those victims are also on the hand's of your leadership at the time. Jumping into the middle of a nuclear was was foolhardy; and, by doing so, you simply presented yourselves as a target. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 [quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1294781243' post='2572256'] While we respect everyone's opinion, the international community must realize that the Greater Korean Federation has done nothing but release a vague statement condemning the attack. No evidence exempting them from the attack or anything. On the other hand, we have a video evidence plus the caskets of over two hundred dead sailors to support our claims. As such, the ultimatum against the Greater Korean Federation continues to remain in effect. The corrupt, segregationist, and terrorist state of the Greater Korean Federation has 48 hours to submit to the demands of the ultimatum or else. Ministry of Foreign Affairs [/quote] "You do not have video evidance that Korea caused the attack you have video evidance that a terrorist claiming to be Korean carried out the attack. In our eyes that does not mean Korea carried out the attack". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1294775571' post='2572155'] " 'Once Again' name the other time that Michael Visari has done this. Unless you are blaming someone for someone else's actions I suggest you back up what you are saying with proof against this single individual. As far as I know the only two wars that have happened under Michael Visari's leadership were fulfilling his mutual defense pact with the Germans against terrorist rebels and fulfilling their alliance with the then United States of China when a nation sent material support to a nation who aggressively attacked us. In regards to the land grab situation, the UFE as said earlier remains neutral in a conflict between allies, but we do not foresee a scenario where any non-Asian country establishes a colony or protectorate in East Asia. It simply will not happen." [/quote] Let the allies of the Chinese Empire know that when one of them is accused of terrorism with no evidence, considered guilty until they prove their own innocence and threatened with war by a leader who [i]just said[/i] that nuclear mass murder is the fault of the victim's government, the Chinese Empire will be neutral. In this case, as in all cases of Chinese neutrality, what neutrality really means is support for the side with the upper hand and more often than not, support for the injustice being committed. Like in America, where the Chinese claimed to enforce neutrality (but did nothing when more powers openly assisted Pravus Ingruo in dismantling the United States) the Chinese supported the crime being committed. As in the recent revolution in their ally Ursalia, the Chinese Empire prevented other nations from assisting the government of their ally fend off the revolutionaries and then bizarrely carried over their treaty from the previous government. Can anyone not conclude from this that they supported the violent overthrow of an allied government? What do they think of your government, Chinese allies? Indeed, when your government is threatened from within or without and your Chinese ally prevents your assistance or declares it's neutrality as it is doing right now with Korea what are their true intentions? Why any nation would ally with another nation that so easily discards their allies is a mystery. Even those governments as repugnant as the Chinese Empire's government should at least have the foresight to realize that China is always ready to stab you in the back when it's convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Perhaps you could actually gather evidence before making claims. In our view the Nords and Koreans are at about the same level of development, the Nords have more forces, but their country is also on the other side of the world, and obviously they can't send every soldier they have to this fight. Of course that would require common sense on your part, which you sadly lack. Further you need to learn actual rules of treaty obligations and diplomacy, which you clearly lack. The UFE signs treaty with other sovereign states, not with temporary governments of those states. Whether an individual government ceases to be through armed insurrection or through peaceful election, the state continues. This has been a conception of the state which has been present for centuries. In regards to the United States, the UFE was not an ally even at the time of the events in question, it held a non-aggression and intelligence pact, and it stayed true to those obligations. We in fact cancelled our mutual defense obligations far before it. But again, don't let facts get in the way of a good french whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Relevant Global Research Center article (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93685)[quote name='kitex' timestamp='1294758885' post='2571986'][font="'Times New Roman"][b]Dalmatia Declaration against Korea[/font] [font="'Times New Roman"] [/font] [font="'Times New Roman"]by DDB[/b][/font] [font="'Times New Roman"] [/font] [font="'Times New Roman"]2 days ago, Dalmatia formally issued a declaration against the Greater Korean Federation for a terrorist attack against a Dalmatian ship. Apparently a suspected Korean singlehandedly took control of the ship and broadcast this message:[/font] [font="'Times New Roman"] [/font] [size=2][font="'Times New Roman"]"'Greetings, civilised world and England.[b]'[/b] He paused to laugh at his joke. 'I am Po Ta To, glorious Korean mercenary. Today, I show you power of Korean special forces! I have singlehandedly taken over Dalmatian ship, but there is more! I have been deployed to show the Korean might, and with this Korea declares a holy war against Dalmatia and her overland oppressors, the United Federation of the East!' And with that, To dragged the Chinese man who was on the ship into the cabin and in front of the camera. 'FOR THE MOTHERLAND'" [/font][/size] [size=2][font="'Times New Roman"] [/font][/size] [font="'Times New Roman"][size="2"]So far there is no proof that the man who attacked the ship is Korean or that the attack was even ordered by the Korean government. Still Dalmatia's leader,[/size][size=2] Michael Visari, said in a statement "[/size][size=2]After our own investigations and from the obvious evidence presented by the terrorist, we have learned that the perpetrator of the attack was the Greater Korean Federation." He demanded that t[/size][size=2]he government of the Greater Korean Federation "leave and surrender to the Greater Nordic Empire of Dalmatia within 72 hours" and that "their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing." He offered no evidence in the slightest, as well as he ignored the fact that Korea had recently been the victim of nuclear terrorism and thus were most likely in no position to launch special operations against Dalmatia[/size][/font] [size=2][font="'Times New Roman"] [/font][/size] [font="'Times New Roman"][size=2]Thankfully nations like [/size][size=2]Selenarctos, didn't buy it that the terrorist was from Korea, stating that they were "highly suspicious of the authenticity of the man's claims to represent Korea." Also, when speaking of the terrorist's equipment said "[/size][size=2]There is no significant expenditure of equipment: a cheap gun, sword and video camera with broadcast capabilities could be bought on the streets of Manila for less than a couple hundred coins. Explosives and a remote detonator are a little harder to obtain, but far from impossible as countless terrorist groups demonstrate every year."[/size][size=2] The Kingdom of Cochin also came along as a voice of reason saying that it was illogical to assume that Korea had done the attacking with the only evidence being "[/size][size=2]the words of one man, dead along with the object of the crime, taking along with him any evidences of complicity." So far, the government of Dalmatia has no proof that it truly was Korea who attacked them as well as no evidence that the man was even a true Korean. The GKF, itself issued a statement saying that there was no proof that the man was an actual Korean as well as that they would attack their "closet ally," the UFE, was a "false accusation" and "simply absurd." Add to the fact that the man was a self-described mercenary, it is not Korea's fault at all, seeing as how their are no international laws governing the conduct of mercenaries. Mercenaries occupy a legal twilight zone, where, depending on the type of contract they make with a government, are not responsible for any of their actions whatsoever. [/size][/font] [size=2][font="'Times New Roman"] [/font][/size] [font="'Times New Roman"][size="2"]The government of Dalmatia has little evidence besides a video and the statements of a terrorist to back up its claim. There needs to be more investigation into the situation, possibly by several neutral parties, before Korea finds itself engulfed in war.[/size][/font][/quote] Edited January 12, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Xinyan Republic is disgusted with the clear warmongering of Greater Dalmatia, to threaten a war that would take the lives of countless innocent lives on such flimsy evidence. OOC: This is so clearly OOC-motivated it hurts. Justifying an invasion with such flimsy evidence goes beyond simply being unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1294792648' post='2572423'] The Xinyan Republic is disgusted with the clear warmongering of Greater Dalmatia, to threaten a war that would take the lives of countless innocent lives on such flimsy evidence. OOC: This is so clearly OOC-motivated it hurts. Justifying an invasion with such flimsy evidence goes beyond simply being unrealistic. [/quote] New Cadia hopes both parties are able to come to a diplomatic resolution before another war breaks out. OOC: Being completely unrealistic? See: Operation Ajax (The British), Nov. 26th 1939 between the Soviets and the Finnish, the Lavon Affair, the planned Operation Northwoods, and supposedly the apartment bombings dealing with the 2nd Chechen War, Operation Greif... etc. etc... It's totally realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1294794500' post='2572455'] OOC: Being completely unrealistic? See: Operation Ajax (The British), Nov. 26th 1939 between the Soviets and the Finnish, the Lavon Affair, the planned Operation Northwoods, and supposedly the apartment bombings dealing with the 2nd Chechen War, Operation Greif... etc. etc... It's totally realistic. [/quote] OOC: What would Dalmatia's IC reason be for using ludicrously flimsy evidence to occupy a country half a world away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1294791153' post='2572404'] Perhaps you could actually gather evidence before making claims. In our view the Nords and Koreans are at about the same level of development, the Nords have more forces, but their country is also on the other side of the world, and obviously they can't send every soldier they have to this fight.[/quote] Notice how the Chinese Empire answers our charge with an analysis of the military capacity of its allies, not with a response to the obvious lack of evidence for Dalmatia's accusations, their threats of war, justifications for nuclear mass murder or the great injustice being committed against Korea. Everything to the Chinese Empire is the cold calculation of military ability. And the moment you are not useful in that calculation (as is evidenced in the case of the United States) you are cut loose and thrown to the dogs. [quote]Further you need to learn actual rules of treaty obligations and diplomacy, which you clearly lack. The UFE signs treaty with other sovereign states, not with temporary governments of those states. Whether an individual government ceases to be through armed insurrection or through peaceful election, the state continues. This has been a conception of the state which has been present for centuries. [/quote] The Chinese Empire likes to bloviate on it's sad misunderstanding of political theory. And who doesn't smile endearingly when it goes off on some long-winded irrelevant expostulation on Chinese history? It should be hilarious and fortunately none of these delusions actually affect their foreign policy. They are only the public explanations for their calculations. If you foreign leaders actually believe that the Kingdom of Ursalia is the same [i]state[/i] as the Revolutionary Federation of Socialist Republics then you truly are the politically illiterate idiots China takes you for. [quote]In regards to the United States, the UFE was not an ally even at the time of the events in question, it held a non-aggression and intelligence pact, and it stayed true to those obligations. We in fact cancelled our mutual defense obligations far before it. But again, don't let facts get in the way of a good french whining. [/quote] China's complicity in the dismantling of the United States has nothing ostensibly to do with the treaty it canceled before the war. Though with their obvious pattern of betrayal and a Chinese ally's (J Andres) betrayal of the United States that occurred during that war, canceling that treaty prior to the war would fit China's MO. As I said, and apparently the Chinese responder couldn't read, China tried to enforce neutrality in that war, keeping other nations out, [i]except[/i] those nations that later joined Pravus Ingruo, including China's own ally, J Andres. What possible motives of China could one draw from this? Again, when the Chinese Empire speaks of neutrality its intentions are far from neutral. If you were a Chinese ally and another state (a state that makes public justifications for mass murder) accused you of terrorism with scant evidence and threatened war would you expect the Chinese Empire to defend you in both in words and if necessary with their military? If they had to chose between you and another ally, wouldn't you expect them to side with you, the less belligerent and more rational party and the party not threatening war over such flimsy evidence? Does any nation expect its allies to stand up for them in the face of unjust accusations and insane threats of violence? If you are an ally of the Chinese Empire, you certainly should not. You should try to keep yourself useful or at least quiet. Edited January 12, 2011 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1294795343' post='2572468'] Notice how the Chinese Empire answers our charge with an analysis of the military capacity of its allies, not with a response to the obvious lack of evidence for Dalmatia's accusations, their threats of war, justifications for nuclear mass murder or the great injustice being committed against Korea. Everything to the Chinese Empire is the cold calculation of military ability. And the moment you are not useful in that calculation (as is evidenced in the case of the United States) you are cut loose and thrown to the dogs.[/quote] The United Federation of the East's political logic was previously stated, we do not prioritize one treaty over another. The military analysis was a refute of an issue that your government raised. [quote]In this case, as in all cases of Chinese neutrality, what neutrality really means is support for the side with the upper hand and more often than not, support for the injustice being committed. [/quote] In this case you claimed we were supporting the Nords through inaction and they they had the upper hand. We object to your arm chair analysis that they actually have the upperhand. [quote]The Chinese Empire likes to bloviate on it's sad misunderstanding of political theory. And who doesn't smile endearingly when it goes off on some long-winded irrelevant expostulation on Chinese history? It should be hilarious and fortunately none of these delusions actually affect their foreign policy. They are only the public explanations for their calculations. If you foreign leaders actually believe that the Kingdom of Ursalia is the same [i]state[/i] as the Revolutionary Federation of Socialist Republics then you truly are the politically illiterate idiots China takes you for. [/quote] You are simply wrong. In 1949 when the Guomindang were defeated by the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese state did not end, only the Government of the Republic of China which was replaced by the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic then should have rightfully assumed the P5 seat in the UN occupied by the RoC, while it was blocked by the first United States for several decades, eventually this principle was recognized. By this same principle, the UFE recognizes the transition of governments but not the transition of the state. I can also point to the UFE assuming the seat of the Second PRC in the Treaty of Bangkok based on continuation of the state, and our alliance with the Serene Republic of Vaule from our alliance with Vauleyo Burytia both based on the state continuing while governments fail. That you failed International Relation 101 is not our problem. [quote]China's complicity in the dismantling of the United States has nothing ostensibly to do with the treaty it canceled before the war. Though with their obvious pattern of betrayal and a Chinese ally's (J Andres) betrayal of the United States that occurred during that war, canceling that treaty prior to the war would fit China's MO. As I said, and apparently the Chinese responder couldn't read, China tried to enforce neutrality in that war, keeping other nations out, [i]except[/i] those nations that later joined Pravus Ingruo, including China's own ally, J Andres. What possible motives of China could one draw from this? Again, when the Chinese Empire speaks of neutrality its intentions are far from neutral. If you were a Chinese ally and another state (a state that makes public justifications for mass murder) accused you of terrorism with scant evidence and threatened war would you expect the Chinese Empire to defend you in both in words and if necessary with their military? If they had to chose between you and another ally, wouldn't you expect them to side with you, the less belligerent and more rational party and the party not threatening war over such flimsy evidence? Does any nation expect its allies to stand up for them in the face of unjust accusations and insane threats of violence? If you are an ally of the Chinese Empire, you certainly should not. You should try to keep yourself useful or at least quiet. [/quote] The United Federation of the East believes in a policy of friendship and partnership with our allies, not delivering moral edicts from on high. It is not the job of the United Federation of the East or any nation to be a moral police force. Instead we clearly state our priority with all our allies, we expect them to support these, and we in turn shall support all our allies goals unless two allies have a point of contention, in which case we will remain neutral and respect the sovereignty of all nations involved unless good offices are specifically requested. This is because unlike your moral imperialism and neo crusader viewpoint, we actually respect our allies and the principle that all states are sovereign rather than subjected to an overarching authority. If you wish to be the moral police, you should put up your forces rather than try to dictate to other sovereign states on how they are supposed to behave. Of course, you are instead content to stand by and cowering and hoping that nations who you spend your time criticizing will fight your battles for you while you wallow in your pool of outrage. How very French. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1294781243' post='2572256'] While we respect everyone's opinion, the international community must realize that the Greater Korean Federation has done nothing but release a vague statement condemning the attack. No evidence exempting them from the attack or anything. On the other hand, we have a video evidence plus the caskets of over two hundred dead sailors to support our claims. As such, the ultimatum against the Greater Korean Federation continues to remain in effect. The corrupt, segregationist, and terrorist state of the Greater Korean Federation has 48 hours to submit to the demands of the ultimatum or else. Ministry of Foreign Affairs [/quote] Greater Korean Federation is guilty of no more vagueness than that has so far been shown by Greater Dalmatia. The video evidence and the caskets of two hundred dead sailors point out to only one incontrovertible truth - Greater Dalmatia had been subject to an act of terrorism. Where is the proof that this had been an act sanctioned by Korea or that it had in fact been Korean service personnel who conducted these attacks? It seems completely unreasonable that Korea would choose to attack any nation in Europe in this manner, let alone Greater Dalmatia, especially in their current weakened state and more illogical they would make any threat about their closes ally, the UFE. We implore upon Greater Dalmatia to be more sensible about this and not jump into an aggressive war. You are not defending yourself, this seems to be a mere pretext to a war. We are also surprised at the cavalier attitude which UFE maintains in this issue when an unnecessary war could be avoided between its allies with a modicum of common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Prime Minister Pons begs the question: why is the UFE, obviously a state of wealth and prestige, respected as a leader amongst the nations, allowing their Foreign Affairs department to slur the race and ancestry of their political opponents? The Commune and the Federation are not in the same league in pure political might; does the Federation really need to lower itself to name calling? We are concerned that the Nation the World trusts as the stablizing entity of Asia is following such a disagreeable practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1294800162' post='2572571'] Prime Minister Pons begs the question: why is the UFE, obviously a state of wealth and prestige, respected as a leader amongst the nations, allowing their Foreign Affairs department to slur the race and ancestry of their political opponents? The Commune and the Federation are not in the same league in pure political might; does the Federation really need to lower itself to name calling? We are concerned that the Nation the World trusts as the stablizing entity of Asia is following such a disagreeable practice. [/quote] Because France kinda sucks. Also lol WW II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1294800298' post='2572579'] Because France kinda sucks. Also lol WW II. [/quote] So this is the kind of thing that comes from a nation calling itself the rightful heir to the great Chinese civilisation. Pitiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Germanic Union citizens mostly lol upon reading of that exchange in the newspapers. Funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 We support Dalmatia in this action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1294800162' post='2572571'] Prime Minister Pons begs the question: why is the UFE, obviously a state of wealth and prestige, respected as a leader amongst the nations, allowing their Foreign Affairs department to slur the race and ancestry of their political opponents? The Commune and the Federation are not in the same league in pure political might; does the Federation really need to lower itself to name calling? We are concerned that the Nation the World trusts as the stablizing entity of Asia is following such a disagreeable practice. [/quote] The Chinese Empire has lowered itself to racial slurs because it has been thoroughly defeated in argument. Their last flailing attempt at an intelligent response was perfectly punctuated by racism. We know these things now: 1) The Chinese Empire supports an attack on their ally and is doing so through declaring neutrality. 2) The Chinese Empire puts greater priority over maintaining politically expedient relationships over the potential mass murder of a neighbouring people and ally. 3) The Chinese Empire is opposed to morality. 4) The Chinese Empire believes that what most people believe are states are actually governments and what most people believe are nations are actually states and that states are virtually eternal. 5) The Chinese Empire thinks you're an idiot and will actually believe that. 6) The Chinese Empire is racist. Edited January 12, 2011 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1294803675' post='2572650'] The Chinese Empire has lowered itself to racial slurs because it has been thoroughly defeated in argument. Their last flailing attempt at an intelligent response was perfectly punctuated by racism. We know these things now: 1) The Chinese Empire supports an attack on their ally and is doing so through declaring neutrality. 2) The Chinese Empire puts greater priority over maintaining politically expedient relationships over the potential mass murder of a neighbouring people and ally. 3) The Chinese Empire is opposed to morality. 4) The Chinese Empire believes that what most people believe are states are actually governments and what most people believe are nations are actually states and that states are virtually eternal. 5) The Chinese Empire thinks you're an idiot and will actually believe that. 6) The Chinese Empire is racist. [/quote] "French is a race? Interesting..." commented a Gardenian political pundit. Edited January 12, 2011 by kitex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Open conversation between China, France, and [u]others[/u] is detracting from the topic at hand. This is why I loathe the application of instantaneous communication in international diplomacy. ‘Take it to tangency,’ I believe, is an appropriate response. 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.