NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here is my concept. I will create a talk show that will cover the latest and most interesting events occurring in the International Incidents Forum, just like a political talk show. There will be a regular panel of commentaries that will introduce topics and debate them. If you wish to see your thread talked about here please telegram me. I would rather not see this thread cluttered with OOC comments. Later on I may invite particular nations to introduce their own commentators, or play the characters I've already established. But enough dilly-dally; let's get on with the show!

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/17142/OTN%20Logo.JPGIs proud to introduce our star reporters...

http://www.presby.edu/visit/news/tphotos/panel.jpg
Janice Farbanks:
Former Independent Senator, Civil Rights Activist and has been described as "...radically Liberal is an understatement for this woman."

Charles Weinberg
Chairman of Citizens for Public Morality, Member of Pro-Life Rotovia and author of "Civil Rights Cause Civil Crimes".

Bill Nicolade
Former Member of Parliament for Communist Coalition, Professor of Modern Art and Editor of Preliterate Monthly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I've gathered since noone likes to sift through five pages of old issues it would be smart for me to come up with a better system. So everyday a link to the latest issue in this thread will be posted here so you can sut straight to that arguementhttp://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3004673#3004673

War in Al Anbar

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif
"Ladies and Gentlmen, good evening and welcome to On the Issues. I'm Janice Farbanks, this is Charles Weinberg and Bill Nicolade. On tonights show we'll be discussion the War in Al Anbar and to do that we have gone straight to source with; General Anthony Hummer from the Freethinker Gournd Forces, Tommi Makinen Dr Twist's former Minster of Foriegn Affairs. General Hummer, if you would like to begin on explaining to our veiwers your nations opinion on the Al Anbari Conflict?"

tag

TAGged

TAGgedPlease check your telegrams. Ditto to Credonia.

Tag, And yes the best thing to discuss atm is the War in Al Anbar. We would also like our own Person on the Panel if it happens :P

Tag, And yes the best thing to discuss atm is the War in Al Anbar. We would also like our own Person on the Panel if it happens :PPlease telegram me his name, and a little information so he/she can be introduced.

Bump

are you planning on discussing my missionary murder thingy? or are you going to wait to see if Transnapastain agrees?

are you planning on discussing my missionary murder thingy? or are you going to wait to see if Transnapastain agrees?I am still waiting for a response from him. Please check your telegrams.

General Hummer coughed, clearing his throat as he took one last look at his notes.

"The war against the state of Al-Anbar, we feel, is unjustified. There are several, main reasons for this, and to illustrate my points, I will, in fact, firstly disseminate the coalitions arguements, for this brutal conflict.

"Now, the first, apparently honourable reason for this atrocity is Al-Anbars invasion of Saudi Arabia and several other middle eastern states, and replacing their, apparantly "peace-loving" clerical, fundementalist dictatorships with his own, milder, more westernised dictatorship model."

"Now, war is never justified, except in self-defense or in extreme humanitarian disasters where, all other avenues of negiotiations and likewise, have been exhausted. Now, Al-Anbars invasion, was not pleasing, but, it has happened, with no accompanying humanitarian crises and with no disruption to any administrative or commercial service. However, the former fundementalistic breeding grounds for terrorists have, well, did, all but dissappear, and the harsh, clerical-based regime was replaced by one with a much greater respect for Civil and Political rights. There was pan-arabian unity, peace. There were, some, political difficulties with Isreal, but these were solved with cool-headed negiotiation."

"The invasion was bad, but the result was very, very good. We had peace, stability, greater economic growth, a staggering drop in terrorist activities, stable and falling oil prices. And Saddam, was...a man we could do business with, one, person who embodied this nationalism and gueniuinely represented his people. Finally, the region was looking like it might fufil its potential."

"Then this. Holy sites attacked, thousands dead, more wounded. Terrorists springing up. An invasion, whatever its aims, that has brought bloodshed back to the region."

"They claim he supported terror. He did more than anyone to eliminate it. They claimed they didnt want him in these countries, did you see them flock to defend him when the bombs fell? They claim, he is an oppressor, when the regimes he displaced are widely regarded as the worst violaters of human rights imaginable."

"Now, thanks to their arrogance, oil supplies have dried up. We have a self-sufficent oil industry, but we're struggling to keep prices below seven dollars a gallon, there are countries that have 10, 15 dollars a gallon. The world is plunging into recession. We're a maritime power, we need a stable middle east, and we would rather have a peaceful, muslim occupier than a warmongering westerner in these regions, if only to make sure there are no cries of crusade, of jihad, of the whole bloody mess."

"And, our final point, is the farcial peace negiotiations. Al-Anbar brought a genuine desire for peace, to the table, Whittier bought, an ultimatum. We can clearly see who the aggressor is here. And that is, for the moment, all I have to say."

OOC: :oops: tired..

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "Quite right there General, this is no doubt why our government has felt it nessacary to supply troops to protect Al Anbar from these kinds of imperial invasions."

http://www.new-fields.com/Iraq/image/Ginsberg.jpg
"Oh you're dilusional Janice! There is more than sufficant evidence that under the deals were made between Al Anbar and none other than our President in exchange for our support in this conflict!"

http://www.clark04.com/images/meet.jpg
"I don't know what you've been smoking William, but there is no way I am going to believe the government I served for nearl three decades would sell out like that. Besides. we have supported Al Anbar in previos conflicts, this is merely a sign the government is firmly commited to the continued sovereignty of Al Anbar."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif
"Well I'm getting a signal from the Producer so let's move on to our next guest... Tommi Makinen Dr Twist's former Minster of Foriegn Affairs"

TOMI: We think what Al Anbar has done in the Middle east is Wrong, sure Whitter has gone about it wrong as well, but No nation has the Right to Annex other Nations. Whitter again is out of line and has came up with Endless amounts of nothing to justify the war.

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/kent.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif"A refreshingly even handed opinion there, there may be room yet for a panelist of your integirty sir. Well next we have...General Vladimir of Russian Forces. Welcoem to the show"

Tag

Russian Forces, it's your time to shine.

taggity tag....

-Socialist Tag-

I'll be interested in helping out with the show, if that may be alright. Specific jobs could be discussed over telegram.

OOC: Can TV watchers ring up with questions?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "Well that's about all the time we have on that topic so let's move along. Many of you will have been follwoing the new alliance that could change the power of our world forever, and to discuss it we are honoured to have representatives from both the alliance's founding nations. From Austar Union, Allen Richards and from Credonia, Lauren R Smith. Welcome."

"Thanks for having me Janice, its a pleasure to be here this morning"

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/kentbrockman/02.jpg

I disagree The alliance that have Proposed will surly be a strong alliance, but it wont change the Face of Alliances and it wont change the Power of the World Forever, Dr_Twist was just handed the Leadership of the RBA an Alliances that has gone to war with GDODAD many a time and most famously during World War 5 When the RBA and Allies beat back the GDODAD from there lands and was seen as a Victory, The RBA hasn't been where it should be atm and with new Reforms planned by the Dr_Twist Government to get the RBA off the Ground by setting up Mutual Defense Pacts and starting new Alliances which will be sister Alliances to the RBA, i would Class the RBA still as a World power to be reckoned with even though there name doesn't make its way into public as much as the old days!

"Hi Janice, nice to be here...", replied Allen Richards...

"Well just because the RBA may be in power now, who knows what the future stores? The new alliance can absorb many alliances and become bigger and stronger than GDODAD and RBA, the potential is always there. For now, i have to agree that it doesnt seem as if the alliance will change the face of alliances, at this particular point in time, but i believe that it will in the near future. It all depends on how close knit it is, and the support it gets from inside and outside sources." retorts Credonian Secretary of State Smith.

OCC: Sorry im late... had a hair cut

ICC: GENERAL VLADIMIR BOLSHKROV

"Sorry I am late" Vladimir said when he was walkign quickly to his seat. "Sorry if i have interrupted"

Al Anbar is abusing its power! Saddam is trying to have the world in his hands since the middle east is the worlds most important spot for the oil industry. Luckily Russia has its own oil deposits and we will still get involved to show our good intention and to show that we have help capitalists world wide.

Al Anbar has attacked many middle eastern nations and already it is disgraceful how no one cares about it! It's up to the average sized allied forces to keep stability in this war ridden region. Vladimir Putin personally wants to stop watching muslim children die on his TV. The Boss is a kind gentle man... a man of peace. A man who wants to see the average Al Anbarian kid live free and happily.

Russian Forces will do anything in its power... no matter the cost.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

OOC: were on to a new topic

"Yes tell us, what make this alliance diffrent from the other that have risen and fallen leaving nothing but destruction and diunity in their imperialist wake?"

http://www.new-fields.com/Iraq/image/Ginsberg.jpg

Well just because the RBA may be in power now, who knows what the future stores? The new alliance can absorb many alliances and become bigger and stronger than GDODAD and RBA, the potential is always there. For now, i have to agree that it doesnt seem as if the alliance will change the face of alliances, at this particular point in time, but i believe that it will in the near future. It all depends on how close knit it is, and the support it gets from inside and outside sources.

http://www.whotokill.com/Marks/kentbrockman1.jpg

The days of When you can start a new alliance and hope for a good number turn out is Long gone, The only reason the present meeting you have even has a decent base just for the meeting is because mostly of the names that will be there, I am not pushing anything here, but saying the alliance could change the power of the world forever is rather far out there atm, its only a meeting there is nothing official to date, and the present base even at the meeting isn't that big the RBA itself has a massive base throw many alliances. Sure the alliance has potencail but in today's way of things you need to offer something unique to the people.

"Well just because the RBA may be in power now, who knows what the future stores? The new alliance can absorb many alliances and become bigger and stronger than GDODAD and RBA, the potential is always there. For now, i have to agree that it doesnt seem as if the alliance will change the face of alliances, at this particular point in time, but i believe that it will in the near future. It all depends on how close knit it is, and the support it gets from inside and outside sources." retorts Credonian Secretary of State Smith.

"I would have to agree with Lauren here, the alliance Im sure will be influential in the world, however I dont see it becoming any GDODAD in the near future..."

"Yes tell us, what make this alliance diffrent from the other that have risen and fallen leaving nothing but destruction and diunity in their imperialist wake?"



Well, firstly, the alliance wont be imperialistic. in fact, I see it becoming a NATO style alliance. Its very issues it involves itself in will be the very fuel drive that keeps it going. I see this new alliance as being long term.

OCC: Sorry to OCC but We should not continue until Rotovia returns. He is the host.

OCC: Sorry to OCC but We should not continue until Rotovia returns. He is the host.

OCC: i don't see anything wrong i am going on about stuff and i think he welcomes me being on here with a differant view :P

"This alliance indeed would be unique. In a way, we are creating a bigger better, more organized, and managable International Allied Defense Federation (IADF). While there will be SIGNIFICANT changes, we believe that we will be able to encorporate elements of a democratic political system with a european/NATO style thrown into the mix. international trade and other domestic issues would be just as important as military defense, and thats what will help bind this alliance together. As for it becoming face changing, you are correct. As i stated, it will take much time, hard work. and effort to make this alliance truly successful, and to have it earn the right to be called an allied power in the world. that is certainly something that we can all only hope and wish for at the time, since as you ay, we are only holding a meeting, and nothing is solid or official. I am very optomistic about what the outcome of the meeting will be. Credonia has once before held a rather large conference with nations for the purpose of creating an alliance, and with the help of Austar Union this time, it will be even more successful than my previous efforts in establishing the IADF so many months ago."

Response to Dr_Twist:

Allen laughs, "Surely sir, you cannot deny that the possibility of this alliance becomeing strong is not low. In fact, the nations expected to form this alliance are mostly influential in the world, with many allies. Whilst the alliance will not be the "biggest" as you say, I see it very closely knit with many alliances around the globe. This will in turn, attract the very power it deserves. Anyway, why are alliances only seeking power nowadays? We dont seek to sieze power, we only seek to use it to achieve our goals. Sir, if you dont mind my saying so, you appear to be very favoured towards the RBA especially, and very critical against the alliance we are trying to form here..."

"This alliance indeed would be unique. In a way, we are creating a bigger better, more organized, and managable International Allied Defense Federation (IADF). While there will be SIGNIFICANT changes, we believe that we will be able to encorporate elements of a democratic political system with a european styled alliance. international trade and other domestic issues would be just as important as military defense, and thats what will help bind this alliance together. As for it becoming face changing, you are correct. As i stated, it will take much time, hard work. and effort to make this alliance truly successful, and to have it earn the right to be called an allied power in the world. that is certainly something that we can all only hope and wish for at the time, since as you ay, we are only holding a meeting, and nothing is solid or official. I am very optomistic about what the outcome of the meeting will be. Credonia has once before held a rather large conference with nations for the purpose of creating an alliance, and with the help of Austar Union this time, it will be even more successful than my previous efforts in establishing the IADF so many months ago."

What here is new? I can’t see anything standing out?

Democratic Style Alliance? Not all nations attending are Democratic when you do something along these lines you need to aim to keep all nations of all political styles happy and presently you seem to be only aiming at one with that comment.

"I agree with Allen, which brings me to ask, if you are so critical and pessimistic about the alliance, then why are you attending the talks?"

Response to Dr_Twist:

Allen laughs, "Surely sir, you cannot deny that the possibility of this alliance becomeing strong is not low. In fact, the nations expected to form this alliance are mostly influential in the world, with many allies. Whilst the alliance will not be the "biggest" as you say, I see it very closely knit with many alliances around the globe. This will in turn, attract the very power it deserves. Anyway, why are alliances only seeking power nowadays? We dont seek to sieze power, we only seek to use it to achieve our goals. Sir, if you dont mind my saying so, you appear to be very favoured towards the RBA especially, and very critical against the alliance we are trying to form here..."

The only Reason why such an Alliance would have any form of power in the World is because you have Active Nations attending a Meeting a lot of Famous and well known , I am also using the RBA as an example to base comments off.

"I agree with Allen, which brings me to ask, if you are so critical and pessimistic about the alliance, then why are you attending the talks?"

I am attending the Talks because i Like to keep relations with Present Allies and strengthen those relations even if i Join there alliance, I like to keep up to date on all that, that’s going on.

"This alliance indeed would be unique. In a way, we are creating a bigger better, more organized, and managable International Allied Defense Federation (IADF). While there will be SIGNIFICANT changes, we believe that we will be able to encorporate elements of a democratic political system with a european styled alliance. international trade and other domestic issues would be just as important as military defense, and thats what will help bind this alliance together. As for it becoming face changing, you are correct. As i stated, it will take much time, hard work. and effort to make this alliance truly successful, and to have it earn the right to be called an allied power in the world. that is certainly something that we can all only hope and wish for at the time, since as you ay, we are only holding a meeting, and nothing is solid or official. I am very optomistic about what the outcome of the meeting will be. Credonia has once before held a rather large conference with nations for the purpose of creating an alliance, and with the help of Austar Union this time, it will be even more successful than my previous efforts in establishing the IADF so many months ago."

What here is new? I can’t see anything standing out?

Democratic Style Alliance? Not all nations attending are Democratic when you do something along these lines you need to aim to keep all nations of all political styles happy and presently you seem to be only aiming at one with that comment.

"Sir, considering that this alliance is heavily democratic based, do you not think it possible that political freedom comes into play? This is a heavily major issue in the world. Isnt it hypocritical to claim to be democratic, and at the same time persercute others for their political ideals. This new alliance seeks to harness true democracy..."

"This alliance indeed would be unique. In a way, we are creating a bigger better, more organized, and managable International Allied Defense Federation (IADF). While there will be SIGNIFICANT changes, we believe that we will be able to encorporate elements of a democratic political system with a european styled alliance. international trade and other domestic issues would be just as important as military defense, and thats what will help bind this alliance together. As for it becoming face changing, you are correct. As i stated, it will take much time, hard work. and effort to make this alliance truly successful, and to have it earn the right to be called an allied power in the world. that is certainly something that we can all only hope and wish for at the time, since as you ay, we are only holding a meeting, and nothing is solid or official. I am very optomistic about what the outcome of the meeting will be. Credonia has once before held a rather large conference with nations for the purpose of creating an alliance, and with the help of Austar Union this time, it will be even more successful than my previous efforts in establishing the IADF so many months ago."

What here is new? I can’t see anything standing out?

Democratic Style Alliance? Not all nations attending are Democratic when you do something along these lines you need to aim to keep all nations of all political styles happy and presently you seem to be only aiming at one with that comment.

"Anyone who is intelligent enough to be able to put an alliance together knows that a level of democracy within an alliance is NEEDED if you intend to keep it together. So what if other nations arent democracies. We are talking about inner alliance democracy, so that all is fair and just, and so that no nation holds too much power or influence. Would you want to be a part of an alliance where you have no power and no say into what is done? Tell me that."

Would your new alliance take nations such as my own (authoritarian to the extreme) into its 'embrace'?

"I agree with Allen, which brings me to ask, if you are so critical and pessimistic about the alliance, then why are you attending the talks?"

I am attending the Talks because i Like to keep relations with Present Allies and strengthen those relations even if i Join there alliance, I like to keep up to date on all that, that’s going on.


"I really see no need for you to attend. The way i see it is that you are only trying to gain more power. You see potential in an alliance, and whether you think it will be successful or not, your seizing the moment and hopping on board."

Would your new alliance take nations such as my own (authoritarian to the extreme) into its 'embrace'?

"We take ALL nations, so long as they arent imperialistic and terrorist supporters. We also check the level of stability of the nation."

Would your new alliance take nations such as my own (authoritarian to the extreme) into its 'embrace'?

Of course we would, providing that your nation does not commit acts against human rights etc.

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

I certainly don't support terrorists, and I can't recall making any imperialistic moves recently. And, I reckon my nation is pretty stable (I have one war going on, against Transnapastain).

"I agree with Allen, which brings me to ask, if you are so critical and pessimistic about the alliance, then why are you attending the talks?"

I am attending the Talks because i Like to keep relations with Present Allies and strengthen those relations even if i Join there alliance, I like to keep up to date on all that, that’s going on.


"I really see no need for you to attend. The way i see it is that you are only trying to gain more power. You see potential in an alliance, and whether you think it will be successful or not, your seizing the moment and hopping on board."

:roll: That is the Dumbest thing i have heard today i am attending it because 1 i was invited and 2 i wanted to attend to see what was going to be discussed, no nation there has already said they will join any alliance at all they are only going to a meeting, and i would never attempt to gain more power :roll: The only thing i would do was try and form an alliance between the alliances if it was successful, the alliance would be in both of the alliances interests by pushing throw more defend for your new alliance.

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

This alliance, remember, is intended to take on an internationalist approach. Unlikne others, there will be frequent alliance operations. These operations will take on a NATO style, such as peacekeeping, fighting terrorism etc. That is the uniqueness. Therefore, the alliance will have a much greater impact on the world.

I certainly don't support terrorists, and I can't recall making any imperialistic moves recently. And, I reckon my nation is pretty stable (I have one war going on, against Transnapastain).

Well, providing that you passed a full background check, then you would be allowed to attend the talks...

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

This alliance, remember, is intended to take on an internationalist approach. Unlikne others, there will be frequent alliance operations. These operations will take on a NATO style, such as peacekeeping, fighting terrorism etc. That is the uniqueness. Therefore, the alliance will have a much greater impact on the world.

See now we have start off a discussion about a possible alliance becoming a new World power when no 1 knows anything out it, why was this discussion even started? i think the Al Anbar discussion is more important atm....

How is any one expected to know any of this unless they attend the Meeting because nothing has been said before that until right now!

"So what exactly is the alliance's policy on terrorism? Do you have one? Is it a proactive attempt to stampt it out or simply to avoid it? How will this be applied and is it a large part of what your allaince stands for?"

http://www.clark04.com/images/meet.jpg Charles Weinberg

"I agree with Allen, which brings me to ask, if you are so critical and pessimistic about the alliance, then why are you attending the talks?"

I am attending the Talks because i Like to keep relations with Present Allies and strengthen those relations even if i Join there alliance, I like to keep up to date on all that, that’s going on.


"I really see no need for you to attend. The way i see it is that you are only trying to gain more power. You see potential in an alliance, and whether you think it will be successful or not, your seizing the moment and hopping on board."

:roll: That is the Dumbest thing i have heard today i am attending it because 1 i was invited and 2 i wanted to attend to see what was going to be discussed, no nation there has already said they will join any alliance at all they are only going to a meeting, and i would never attempt to gain more power :roll: The only thing i would do was try and form an alliance between the alliances if it was successful, the alliance would be in both of the alliances interests by pushing throw more defend for your new alliance.

I have no comment on this particular statement...

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

"one can only assume. The conference hasnt even begun yet and none of the key ideas have been introduced, and you are already ranting and raving about how bad the alliance is. How would you really know if you dont know what will make this alliance stand out, how unique it would be. Every alliance has its own uniquness, i cant stress that enough. While it may not be able to be displayed now, it will be displayed when it comes down to international diplomacy, military actions, and things of that nature. Also, what is unique in a way is that this alliance, depending on how far the members would like to push it, could be utilized as a major trade source, something MOST alliances dont focus on. They focus on military strenght, defense, and sometimes offense. Also, unlike other alliances, we will not be stagnate. We will actively get involved in world affairs on a regular basis, we will help fight the war on terror, that in itself is unique. No other alliance has devoted time and energy to fighting terror. This alliance will."

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

This alliance, remember, is intended to take on an internationalist approach. Unlikne others, there will be frequent alliance operations. These operations will take on a NATO style, such as peacekeeping, fighting terrorism etc. That is the uniqueness. Therefore, the alliance will have a much greater impact on the world.

See now we have start off a discussion about a possible alliance becoming a new World power when no 1 knows anything out it, why was this discussion even started? i think the Al Anbar discussion is more important atm....

How is any one expected to know any of this unless they attend the Meeting because nothing has been said before that until right now!

I have no comment. It is your questions we are answering. Its your own fault if they only lead in circles...

"So what exactly is the alliance's policy on terrorism? Do you have one? Is it a proactive attempt to stampt it out or simply to avoid it? How will this be applied and is it a large part of what your allaince stands for?"

http://www.clark04.com/images/meet.jpg Charles Weinberg


"We will be, or at least will be presing to be proactive against terrorism. We have several key nations who are against terror, including Credonia, which has actually taken the initiative to combat terror, we are even doing so at this moment. It will help shape the image of the alliance and will also define exactly what we stand for."

Vladimir Smashes the desk with his fist and cries with laughter.

"Thats why in Russia we don't have political debates. They just make people look like monkeys in a safari"

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

"So what exactly is the alliance's policy on terrorism? Do you have one? Is it a proactive attempt to stampt it out or simply to avoid it? How will this be applied and is it a large part of what your allaince stands for?"

http://www.clark04.com/images/meet.jpg Charles Weinberg

Considering that the official talks have not begun, we cannot comment officially. However, both myself and Credonia will be pushing for a stance against terrorism, by activly seeking and destroying terrorist groups/supporters. Something which we have been doing for a while now...

Of course a Form of Democracy would have to play a part within an Alliance, or we would have a Dictator Running it, But what i am trying to say is what you keep skipping around is that there is nothing that Makes this Alliance Unique or Special enough to be considered to be any sort of World Power, sure you could field a fair bit of a Military if need be but if a World War breaks out you wont be the Alliance the World Turns to turn the tide of the war for one of the sides.

These talks started out as if this Alliances was going to be something big and massive but i can't see anything here at all that proves that, the only thing i can see is a few well known RP's attending a meeting about an Alliance.....?

This alliance, remember, is intended to take on an internationalist approach. Unlikne others, there will be frequent alliance operations. These operations will take on a NATO style, such as peacekeeping, fighting terrorism etc. That is the uniqueness. Therefore, the alliance will have a much greater impact on the world.

See now we have start off a discussion about a possible alliance becoming a new World power when no 1 knows anything out it, why was this discussion even started? i think the Al Anbar discussion is more important atm....

How is any one expected to know any of this unless they attend the Meeting because nothing has been said before that until right now!

I have no comment. It is your questions we are answering. Its your own fault if they only lead in circles...


"I said it was a possibility. With the nations we have that are part of this, there is real potential. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that this alliance will succeed."

*SNIP*

, we will help fight the war on terror, that in itself is unique. [/i]

So you are going to Fight terror? No matter what it is you are going to fight it, even if it is right or wrong? Please explain this as it makes no sense u state you will fight a war on terror, but what would the alliance class as terror? How would you know the difference between terror and defense of a helpless nation?

Edited

*SNIP*

, we will help fight the war on terror, that in itself is unique. [/i]

So you are going to Fight terror? No matter what it is you are going to fight it, even if it is right or wrong? Please explain this as it makes no sense u state you will fight a war on terror, but what would the alliance class as terror? How would you know the difference between terror and defense of a helpless nation?


"Thats a good question, and that will most definitly be an issue that will be addressed in the meeting. We need to come upon a common agreement of what exactly terrorism is so that we may act accordingly to stop it. Thats where we will get our justification on fighting the war on terror"

*SNIP*

, we will help fight the war on terror, that in itself is unique. [/i]

So you are going to Fight terror? No matter what it is you are going to fight it, even if it is right or wrong? Please explain this as it makes no sense u state you will fight a war on terror, but what would the alliance class as terror? How would you know the difference between terror and defense of a helpless nation?

The exact definition of terror will be discussed as terrorism. I have prepared a dossier if you wish to viewed it, which defines terrorism perfectly...

mmm that would be useful maybe you could post is as a Terrorism Guideline within the Alliance and post it as a new Thread and see what other people think..?

With Terrorism you shoot them all and let allah sort them out. It worked fine in chechnya.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

With Terrorism you shoot them all and let allah sort them out. It worked fine in chechnya.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

I think that was a little Different RF, But ect for that anything else on this Issue i will not Comment to.

With Terrorism you shoot them all and let allah sort them out. It worked fine in chechnya.



That may be the view of the Russian Forces, which is not nessasarly shared with the AU, Credonia, or the future alliance.

With Terrorism you shoot them all and let allah sort them out. It worked fine in chechnya.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

"With all due respect sir, there is a right way and a wrong way of dealing with terrorists, and that by far is the wrong way to deal with them. It would destroy the alliance's image, plus it is morally wrong."

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

We have no comment on such statements, whether it be a threat, or a simple comment.

Anything for the benefit of the state and for the people and Vladimir Putin is the only morally right choice. Thats how things are done in Russia.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!


"I have no comment on that statement either"

Anything for the benefit of the state and for the people and Vladimir Putin is the only morally right choice. Thats how things are done in Russia.



We have no comment.

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

We have no comment on such statements, whether it be a threat, or a simple comment.

It was a simple Comment Basically stating we don't want the argument to continue or it will destroy relations between our Nations, Nations that have always had good relations between each other and we don't want that to change over something as simple as this, It truly is sad!

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

We have no comment on such statements, whether it be a threat, or a simple comment.

It is no threat comrade. He is just saying as relations worse there will be less communication and as that happens a collision course may happen any time and nothing could stop it.

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

We have no comment on such statements, whether it be a threat, or a simple comment.

It was a simple Comment Basically stating we don't want the argument to continue or it will destroy relations between our Nations, Nations that have always had good relations between each other and we don't want that to change over something as simple as this, It truly is sad!

We see no need to elaborate. No comment is made, again...

Stop these no comments! They already show negative thoughts in a snobbish way!

But... if you continue like this... very well but there is nothing much coming out of this debate.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

Of course we would be putting the dossier to be debated on by the alliance, as debating is a major part of true democracy...

It is sad that this Argument has turned the way it has, as it will only destroy relations between Great Nations that will one day could possible need each other in Battle!

We have no comment on such statements, whether it be a threat, or a simple comment.

It was a simple Comment Basically stating we don't want the argument to continue or it will destroy relations between our Nations, Nations that have always had good relations between each other and we don't want that to change over something as simple as this, It truly is sad!

We see no need to elaborate. No comment is made, again...

I try to repair relations that may have been destroyed today and you spit in my Face, The Dr_Twist Government will never forget this!

Stop these no comments! They already show negative thoughts in a snobbish way!

But... if you continue like this... very well but there is nothing much coming out of this debate.

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/train/kuzma6.jpg

By no comment we mean that we have nothing to say about the statement.

And Dr_Twist, you may take a no comment as you wish. We do not seek to destroy relations, partly reason for our lack of comment.

"I dont see why, this was merely just a talk show to debate the issues. I dont see why this would impair any relations"

"I dont see why, this was merely just a talk show to debate the issues. I dont see why this would impair any relations"

We wholeheartedly agree...

I agree as well. This is only a mere debate between high members of the government. A arguement should have no impact on relations.

I agree as well. This is only a mere debate between high members of the government. A arguement should have no impact on relations.

Not even that! This is merely a talkshow...

"Any additoonal questions Janice?"

"Any additoonal questions Janice?""Lauren, just one more. What is, in your opinion, the likely mannor inwhich the alliance will defend it's members. Say by a joint defence force, or like the UN without a military backing. And if you are planning to have a standing force, how will this be financed and which nation(s) will host and have the most direct control over it?"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif

Edit: I got characters mixed up, sorry.

We'd like to take a breif moment to thank our sponsors...

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/the_resi_corporation.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135454)

"Well Janice, i cant give official answers yet, however, I can say that this alliance will be both defensive, and UN like, to some degree. What i CAN say officially is that there will be a standing military force. It is unclear who exactly will be in charge of commanding it, but representatives from Credonia and Austar Union agreed that we will propose that the President of the alliance will have control over the joint armed forces. As to who will be financing it, it is unclear at this time, that is definitly an issue that will need to be discussed to some great extent during the meeting. When we start talking about money, we must get the opinion of all involved nations due to the economic status of many of the smaller nations who may not be able to contrubute much money or resources to the military force."

"Well Janice, i cant give official answers yet, however, I can say that this alliance will be both defensive, and UN like, to some degree. What i CAN say officially is that there will be a standing military force. It is unclear who exactly will be in charge of commanding it, but representatives from Credonia and Austar Union agreed that we will propose that the President of the alliance will have control over the joint armed forces. As to who will be financing it, it is unclear at this time, that is definitly an issue that will need to be discussed to some great extent during the meeting. When we start talking about money, we must get the opinion of all involved nations due to the economic status of many of the smaller nations who may not be able to contrubute much money or resources to the military force."

From my Experience from RP, most nations and alliances don't like the idea of an Alliance Based army because its Hard to keep an eye on if the numbers match each other when economies change and when Populations grow i Personally think from Experience that an Alliance Army isn't always good because it takes so much work to get the numbers right and those numbers can so easily change when people enter or leave populations grow or die and when Economies Boom or dry out.

tagged

You can aways have a set number of military forces, and if more nations join than we need..well, have them contribute to the costs of maintaiming them. A system can easily be created, all it takes is a little effort.

sir TAG alot :P

"Well Janice, i cant give official answers yet, however, I can say that this alliance will be both defensive, and UN like, to some degree. What i CAN say officially is that there will be a standing military force. It is unclear who exactly will be in charge of commanding it, but representatives from Credonia and Austar Union agreed that we will propose that the President of the alliance will have control over the joint armed forces. As to who will be financing it, it is unclear at this time, that is definitly an issue that will need to be discussed to some great extent during the meeting. When we start talking about money, we must get the opinion of all involved nations due to the economic status of many of the smaller nations who may not be able to contrubute much money or resources to the military force."

From my Experience from RP, most nations and alliances don't like the idea of an Alliance Based army because its Hard to keep an eye on if the numbers match each other when economies change and when Populations grow i Personally think from Experience that an Alliance Army isn't always good because it takes so much work to get the numbers right and those numbers can so easily change when people enter or leave populations grow or die and when Economies Boom or dry out.

Well, of course this would idea would be up to the general assembly. I personally am thinking about making the alliance army really just be run on a "roster shift". Each nation takes turn in committing manning troops to the army, which is controlled by the President. There would be things in place to keep the President in check of course...

"Well Janice, i cant give official answers yet, however, I can say that this alliance will be both defensive, and UN like, to some degree. What i CAN say officially is that there will be a standing military force. It is unclear who exactly will be in charge of commanding it, but representatives from Credonia and Austar Union agreed that we will propose that the President of the alliance will have control over the joint armed forces. As to who will be financing it, it is unclear at this time, that is definitly an issue that will need to be discussed to some great extent during the meeting. When we start talking about money, we must get the opinion of all involved nations due to the economic status of many of the smaller nations who may not be able to contrubute much money or resources to the military force."

From my Experience from RP, most nations and alliances don't like the idea of an Alliance Based army because its Hard to keep an eye on if the numbers match each other when economies change and when Populations grow i Personally think from Experience that an Alliance Army isn't always good because it takes so much work to get the numbers right and those numbers can so easily change when people enter or leave populations grow or die and when Economies Boom or dry out.

Well, of course this would idea would be up to the general assembly. I personally am thinking about making the alliance army really just be run on a "roster shift". Each nation takes turn in committing manning troops to the army, which is controlled by the President. There would be things in place to keep the President in check of course...

Now this is a great idea i like this!

Now this is a great idea i like this!

Mr. Etherton smiled, "Of course, it would be ultimately be up to the general assembly. But this system has proven quiet effective in world organisations such as NATO, and the UN... I think it will prove popular my system, and I expect it may be modeled upon by other future, and maybe even current existing alliances."

Scrolling accross the screen comes: "For more information on this new alliance: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135304&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0"

OOC: When is phone-in question time?
IC:

The number of viewers of the talkshow in Taiwan begins to rise as workplaces take lunch breaks.

BUMP

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif Janice Farbanks: "I'd like to thank all of today's panelists for their unique insights that one can only hope will provide us with a more even handed veiw on the world. With that said I believe it will be time for the phone in segment of our show, after this next segment. Since we broadcast in over 39 countries please check the freecall number at the bottem of your screen to be connected through to us here at the show."

OOC: Attention everyone, from now on the character of Janice Farbanks will be handled by Valgrad. In a moment she will make her first post introducing our new issue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif Hello this is "On The Issues".

"Earlier this week in Volga, there was great tragedy. Missionaries and citizens from Transnapastain were lined up before a firing line and killed in plain view. Here to explain exactly what happend here is General Karl Klingerman, Deputy Minister of Defence from Volga."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "I've just been informed by my producer that we have an exclusive interveiw with Foriegn Minister Ahab Moses of The Dominion of Lower Egypt on the the topic of the conflict with An Albar. We'll come right back to you in a moment General"

"Foreign Minister?"

Foreign Minister Moses:
Hello.

OOC: Well, when you wish to speak to my guy, you'll be speaking to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri on the phone from Baghdad.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "Foreign Minister Moses, could you explain exactly the current state of relations between Al Anbar and Lower Egpt?"

OOC: How does one go about getting on the panel of this talkshow at some point?

An angry voice, with an Arab accent, dials into the talkshow.

"I'd like to ask the ambassador from LowerEgypt why they have a right to interfere in another nation's internal affairs - in this case, Al Anbar's?"

OOC: How does one go about getting on the panel of this talkshow at some point?Telegram me with a name and breif description.

An angry voice, with an Arab accent, dials into the talkshow.

"I'd like to ask the ambassador from LowerEgypt why they have a right to interfere in another nation's internal affairs - in this case, Al Anbar's?"
Al Anbar attacked soveriegn independent arab states. what he did is as evil as what whittier is doing.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "Foreign Minister Moses, could you explain exactly the current state of relations between Al Anbar and Lower Egpt?"
They are very bad at the moment.
Al Anbar can not be trusted.

On the phone with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri

"This is Naji Sabri, Foreign Minister for Al Anbar. The lies spread by LowerEgypt and its criminal mercenaries, such as Whittier are hurting everyone, not just people in Al Anbar. All our fights have been defensive in nature. We were attacked by Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. We had to respond and respond we did. Al Anbar is now working on a plan to introduce a referendum into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to see whether the majority would like to succeed from Al Anbar. If they do, we would be willing to move them on their way to independence. We expect the chance of them voting yes to leave Al Anbar to be small, however."

http://www.new-fields.com/Iraq/image/Ginsberg.jpg "Mr. Sabri, is it true that An Albar has an under the table agreement with Rotovia? And, if so, what does this agreement entail?"

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.sabri/story.sabri.jpg

"No, that is not correct. We have openly admitted that we sell oil to Rotovia. We do not see this as 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'bribery'. They purchased this oil before the conflict even began. We have no reason to bribe anyone, for we know that the world stands with us during these outrageous criminal acts perpetrated by the criminal mercenaries."

On the phone with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri

"This is Naji Sabri, Foreign Minister for Al Anbar. The lies spread by LowerEgypt and its criminal mercenaries, such as Whittier are hurting everyone, not just people in Al Anbar. All our fights have been defensive in nature. We were attacked by Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. We had to respond and respond we did. Al Anbar is now working on a plan to introduce a referendum into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to see whether the majority would like to succeed from Al Anbar. If they do, we would be willing to move them on their way to independence. We expect the chance of them voting yes to leave Al Anbar to be small, however."
Al Anbar only agreed to this after a large coalition of nations invaded it and Loweregypt threatened to join the coalition.

On the phone with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri

"This is Naji Sabri, Foreign Minister for Al Anbar. The lies spread by LowerEgypt and its criminal mercenaries, such as Whittier are hurting everyone, not just people in Al Anbar. All our fights have been defensive in nature. We were attacked by Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. We had to respond and respond we did. Al Anbar is now working on a plan to introduce a referendum into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to see whether the majority would like to succeed from Al Anbar. If they do, we would be willing to move them on their way to independence. We expect the chance of them voting yes to leave Al Anbar to be small, however."
Al Anbar only agreed to this after a large coalition of nations invaded it and Loweregypt threatened to join the coalition.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.sabri/story.sabri.jpg

"Al Anbar has always shown its wish to negotiate and has attempted several times to initiate a peaceful end to this since the start of the war of aggression, but it was the criminal mercenaries of Whittier that refused to negotiate realistically."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif "Lower Egypt? A response?"

"Does it look as though a peaceful resolution can be reached? And if not will this be another candy ass treaty whereby in a few months we're all right back where we started?"

http://www.clark04.com/images/meet.jpg
Charles Weinberg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.sabri/story.sabri.jpg

"Al Anbar has every intention of making peace and sticking to the terms of any agreement made. It is up to the criminal mercenaries to abide by the treaty and its terms and its willingness to sign the treaty, not us. We have stated many times that we have wanted peace but only to be ignored or insulted by the criminals."

(OOC: Wesley Clark. :roll: )

(OOC: Wesley Clark. :roll: )OOC: lol, I spent hours looking for a good panel picture and this was the best one with the most individual pictures to use.

tag.

tag.

I have Given my opinion on this Subject Before, The war hasn't been handled well by Both sides, Al Anbar shouldn't of invaded innocent nations, and Whitter should of done better and not made things so confusing and so fast and should of made them clear to all involved, It is both Sides fault and they can’t blame any one but themselves on this Issue saying other wise is just dumb!

Tomi http://membres.lycos.fr/simondogman/images/persos/kent9.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/soc16.gif

"I would like to thank all the panelists for a deeply intresting debate, however that is all we have time for in this segment.

Earlier this week in Volga, there was great tragedy. Missionaries and citizens from Transnapastain were lined up before a firing line and killed in plain view. Here to explain exactly what happend here is General Karl Klingerman, Deputy Minister of Defence from Volga."

OOC: Rotovia, that woman is fin scary looking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/445000/images/_449454_cosgrove300.jpg

"Thank you for inviting me on. I'd like to start by just saying that the Propagandists from Transnapastain blew this whole thing out of proportion. Already relations between our nations were strained, and they just leapt at the chance to attack a peace-loving people such as ours. We merely took the opportunity to remove a few trouble-makers from the world.

Those missionaries were preaching messages of hate, and attempting to lead the populace away from worship of the President to a false religion. While this is punishable by death in our great nation, this alone was not enough, as they were foreigners. These missionaries were importing weaponry and false propaganda telling the people of the Most Serene Republic that they could vote for their leaders, and other ridiculous and blasphemous statements. Our President was so horrified by this that he had no choice but to remove them from this world, lest they contaminate anyone with their ridiculous views. Which is better - allowing a rebellion in which thousands could die to occur, or to simply remove the cause of this rebellion, i.e. less than a hundred missionaries."

(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133333 for the topic)