Poll

UNITED NATIONS: Return former-US territory to the USA.

Yay
Nay
Abstain

Author Topic: Nonnel's Nation RP: Earth 2077 - [AMERICA, THE BEAUTIFUL!]  (Read 326470 times)

russia, china
Russia left the UN a long time ago, therefore forfeiting their veto power.

Russia left the UN a long time ago, therefore forfeiting their veto power.
yes but that was under some silly management
Russia rejoined and is a leading member of the UNSC like before

yes but that was under some silly management
Russia rejoined and is a leading member of the UNSC like before
its like saying that a stuffty president leaves the un and then the next wants to rejoin it and get their veto power back

but w/e

the GI of A or whatever was stuff

LYNX threatens to blow up a Swedish-built nuclear reactor that they captured near the town of Sneek if CTITF forces enter the Friesland,

LYNX threatens to blow up a Swedish-built nuclear reactor that they captured near the town of Sneek if CTITF forces enter the Friesland,
oh

well aint that a little dandy

nonnel have you actually looked at any of my pms
just to make sure

LYNX threatens to blow up a Swedish-built nuclear reactor that they captured near the town of Sneek if CTITF forces enter the Friesland,
dear lord perhaps we should send UNSC to help defuse the situation

Swat has proposed and I have supported the following treaty:

I would like to request that a WWIII will possibly be mitigated for policies to be brought by both NATO and ESTO:

They are declared as DEFENSE treaties; an agitator and clear first-move member of either party against the opposite party are to not have any support against the mass-call-for-arms of the opposite alliance.

Peace is to be sought out immediately if stuff stirs up, under the guidance of the UNSC.

Basically, if a member of Alliance 1 attacks a member of Alliance 2:
 - Alliance 1 is discouraged forbidden from helping their attacking member
 - Alliance 2 is permitted to attack the infringing member without fear of penalty

This treaty - as I understand it - does not cover cases involving members of an alliance annexing other members of the same alliance. Swat, correct me if I have misunderstood any of this.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 07:34:51 PM by TristanLuigi »

when did sweden build a nuclear reactor in sneek

when did sweden build a nuclear reactor in sneek

since when i was doing reconstruction there

it isn't a "discouragement"

is basically says that alliance 1 is not called to arms, and doing so will be viewed as an attempt to disturb world peace

these are defense treaties for a reason

but yes, if a uh, member of the same alliance attacks another member they should get booted and raped.

nonnel have you actually looked at any of my pms
just to make sure
yes

it isn't a "discouragement"

is basically says that alliance 1 is not called to arms, and doing so will be viewed as an attempt to disturb world peace
will edit that

but yes, if a uh, member of the same alliance attacks another member they should get booted and raped.
obviously, but it's a matter of each individual alliance and is not covered by this treaty
never said it was okay

Vietnam demands an explanation for the lack of Venezuelan captives in Colombia.

"We know they have them, but we are not sure of their fate! They may have been relocated or sentenced to.. worse."

ww3 ambitions crushed :(