IFA Council (IC)

[Faikliren]

"After some review, I feel that my nation ideologically supports the current resolution. However, we all should know that we cannot be the world police regardless of how many members and who we are allied with. Due to this internal conflict, I, Ciejvel Naredue, must ABSTAIN from voting."

[Bratislav]

"Our alliance already stipulates that we help fellow member-states in case of attack, let that be from a terrorist group or another state. It is also more than obvious that the IFA stands against terrorism and extremism. Hence, this condemnation is really redundant and I don't see the utility. We already stand against terrorism and extremism and fellow IFA states are free to help other external states as long as it doesn't breach the rules of the alliance. The Rapid Reaction Force has been created only to aid our fellow IFA member states in case of attack - not to help non-IFA states in their troubles with such groups. It is not their responsibility and IFA members have donated troops and money to the RRF to specifically help the IFA members not non-allied members. So with that, what is the use of this resolution?"

"We are not advocating for the use of the IFA rapid response force as a world police we are seeking support and unity against terrorism we will not be required as I, Felix and the resolution states to provide aid but it will better inform us of the threats and better inform other alliances of our terrorist threats so they can help us if we need/request it. Now you may so this is pointless we already condemn terrorism, well then all the more reason to sign it. We gain lots to include better relations with other alliances, support in case of a terrorist attack, information of terrorism threats. I have yet to see a legitimate negative sign to this resolution" -James Resim

"What I want to know is simply this. Does this resolution stipulate the use of the RRF to aid non-IFA countries that are under attack by the given terrorist groups? Can the IFA RRF be used to aid non-IFA members under this resolution? If not, is this resolution simply just a symbolic condemnation of terrorism? Thank you."

"My esteemed colleague from Elemental North. Given the mixed response from our members regarding this resolution I think it is key that we debate this resolution further. We still need to be certain on the legal ramifications of this resolution. Thank you."

[Elemental North]

"After some review, I feel that my nation ideologically supports the current resolution. However, we all should know that we cannot be the world police regardless of how many members and who we are allied with. Due to this internal conflict, I, Ciejvel Naredue, must ABSTAIN from voting."

Noted.

And, Mr. President I respect your decision, however I must warn that more than ample time has been given. I would suggest that if they do not answer your questions satisfactorily after this point, as it seems no one else has any questions that you have not posed already, feel free ladies and gentlemen to continue asking though, we close debate and move to the motion to dismiss the bill.

[The United Regions]

"We are not advocating for the use of the IFA rapid response force as a world police we are seeking support and unity against terrorism we will not be required as I, Felix and the resolution states to provide aid but it will better inform us of the threats and better inform other alliances of our terrorist threats so they can help us if we need/request it. Now you may so this is pointless we already condemn terrorism, well then all the more reason to sign it. We gain lots to include better relations with other alliances, support in case of a terrorist attack, information of terrorism threats. I have yet to see a legitimate negative sign to this resolution" -James Resim

"What I want to know is simply this. Does this resolution stipulate the use of the RRF to aid non-IFA countries that are under attack by the given terrorist groups? Can the IFA RRF be used to aid non-IFA members under this resolution? If not, is this resolution simply just a symbolic condemnation of terrorism? Thank you."

"My esteemed colleague from Elemental North. Given the mixed response from our members regarding this resolution I think it is key that we debate this resolution further. We still need to be certain on the legal ramifications of this resolution. Thank you."

"The RRF will not be used without your approval and this pact recognizes that when it says "yet not required" referring to the deployment of aid. So no I do not think the RRF could be used to aid non members because you made it clear that the RRF is for members protection only, thus a request for aid under the Jerica Pact would be left to the alliance to urge or request that member nations send in their individual military as support either that or create a coalition force, as alternatives to using the RRF." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"What I want to know is simply this. Does this resolution stipulate the use of the RRF to aid non-IFA countries that are under attack by the given terrorist groups? Can the IFA RRF be used to aid non-IFA members under this resolution? If not, is this resolution simply just a symbolic condemnation of terrorism? Thank you."

"My esteemed colleague from Elemental North. Given the mixed response from our members regarding this resolution I think it is key that we debate this resolution further. We still need to be certain on the legal ramifications of this resolution. Thank you."

"The RRF will not be used without your approval and this pact recognizes that when it says "yet not required" referring to the deployment of aid. So no I do not think the RRF could be used to aid non members because you made it clear that the RRF is for members protection only, thus a request for aid under the Jerica Pact would be left to the alliance to urge or request that member nations send in their individual military as support either that or create a coalition force, as alternatives to using the RRF." -Resim

"Given that I would like for WER to affirm that fact about the RRF. He should be aware that the RRF is not allowed to help non-IFA nations and is only to be used to aid IFA nations for defense. That is immutable. Given that is established, we are left with the conclusion that this resolution is merely just a condemnation of several groups. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a symbolic condemnation. However, does this symbolic condemnation warrant potentially starting a conflict with these groups and threatening the security of IFA members?

An example: A given person doesn't like wasps, but in not liking wasps, the person won't go and start hitting the wasp's nest, yeah he will make his point, but he will also incur the wrath of the wasps which will bite him even more than they would have if he had not done that. I think this example applies here. "

[The United Regions]

"The RRF will not be used without your approval and this pact recognizes that when it says "yet not required" referring to the deployment of aid. So no I do not think the RRF could be used to aid non members because you made it clear that the RRF is for members protection only, thus a request for aid under the Jerica Pact would be left to the alliance to urge or request that member nations send in their individual military as support either that or create a coalition force, as alternatives to using the RRF." -Resim

"Given that I would like for WER to affirm that fact about the RRF. He should be aware that the RRF is not allowed to help non-IFA nations and is only to be used to aid IFA nations for defense. That is immutable. Given that is established, we are left with the conclusion that this resolution is merely just a condemnation of several groups. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a symbolic condemnation. However, does this symbolic condemnation warrant potentially starting a conflict with these groups and threatening the security of IFA members?

An example: A given person doesn't like wasps, but in not liking wasps, the person won't go and start hitting the wasp's nest, yeah he will make his point, but he will also incur the wrath of the wasps which will bite him even more than they would have if he had not done that. I think this example applies here. "

"That example applies well here actually, and I am glad you brought it up, We as an alliance must vote on rather or not a terrorist group is added to the Jerica Pacts list per say the Pact, thus if we have the fear of adding a terror organization for that reason then all we must do is vote Nay and it will not be added. Now if you feel that conflict with this group rom say other alliances may make a target of us, well that would be true if we got involved and some of our members may get involved if someone from another alliance is attacked by terrorist, yes. But in that instance would it not be necessary or at least justified? In the event of 'preemptive attacks" on terrorists you as the founder of the IFA may prohibit members from intervening for the safety of other members thus not making us a target." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"Given that I would like for WER to affirm that fact about the RRF. He should be aware that the RRF is not allowed to help non-IFA nations and is only to be used to aid IFA nations for defense. That is immutable. Given that is established, we are left with the conclusion that this resolution is merely just a condemnation of several groups. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a symbolic condemnation. However, does this symbolic condemnation warrant potentially starting a conflict with these groups and threatening the security of IFA members?

An example: A given person doesn't like wasps, but in not liking wasps, the person won't go and start hitting the wasp's nest, yeah he will make his point, but he will also incur the wrath of the wasps which will bite him even more than they would have if he had not done that. I think this example applies here. "

"That example applies well here actually, and I am glad you brought it up, We as an alliance must vote on rather or not a terrorist group is added to the Jerica Pacts list per say the Pact, thus if we have the fear of adding a terror organization for that reason then all we must do is vote Nay and it will not be added. Now if you feel that conflict with this group rom say other alliances may make a target of us, well that would be true if we got involved and some of our members may get involved if someone from another alliance is attacked by terrorist, yes. But in that instance would it not be necessary or at least justified? In the event of 'preemptive attacks" on terrorists you as the founder of the IFA may prohibit members from intervening for the safety of other members thus not making us a target." -Resim

"The problem is simply that these terror groups upon seeing the condemnation will instantly make us a target and being attacking us. They don't care about the consequences, they will just attack. Yes, we would respond strongly, but again, why should we make IFA a target? Just for a simple verbal condemnation? Of course we reject terrorism and extremism. IFA members have the freedom to coordinate their foreign/military policy as long as it doesn't violate our rules. With or without this resolution they have the same capabilities. In all, I see no benefit of this resolution, the only thing it does is make us a target and make our members more unsafe."

[The United Regions]

"That example applies well here actually, and I am glad you brought it up, We as an alliance must vote on rather or not a terrorist group is added to the Jerica Pacts list per say the Pact, thus if we have the fear of adding a terror organization for that reason then all we must do is vote Nay and it will not be added. Now if you feel that conflict with this group rom say other alliances may make a target of us, well that would be true if we got involved and some of our members may get involved if someone from another alliance is attacked by terrorist, yes. But in that instance would it not be necessary or at least justified? In the event of 'preemptive attacks" on terrorists you as the founder of the IFA may prohibit members from intervening for the safety of other members thus not making us a target." -Resim

"The problem is simply that these terror groups upon seeing the condemnation will instantly make us a target and being attacking us. They don't care about the consequences, they will just attack. Yes, we would respond strongly, but again, why should we make IFA a target? Just for a simple verbal condemnation? Of course we reject terrorism and extremism. IFA members have the freedom to coordinate their foreign/military policy as long as it doesn't violate our rules. With or without this resolution they have the same capabilities. In all, I see no benefit of this resolution, the only thing it does is make us a target and make our members more unsafe."

"Yes it may make us a target but that is why we are given the power to vote rather or not we want to add a terrorist organization to the list. And the reason we have this Pact is so that if a member nation of the IFA is attacked we will receive the support from many nations from multiple alliances. I bet you if the resolution was passed right now within days there would be countless support from the other member alliances sending aid both military and humanitarian to support Guerro in their current terrorist struggle." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"The problem is simply that these terror groups upon seeing the condemnation will instantly make us a target and being attacking us. They don't care about the consequences, they will just attack. Yes, we would respond strongly, but again, why should we make IFA a target? Just for a simple verbal condemnation? Of course we reject terrorism and extremism. IFA members have the freedom to coordinate their foreign/military policy as long as it doesn't violate our rules. With or without this resolution they have the same capabilities. In all, I see no benefit of this resolution, the only thing it does is make us a target and make our members more unsafe."

"Yes it may make us a target but that is why we are given the power to vote rather or not we want to add a terrorist organization to the list. And the reason we have this Pact is so that if a member nation of the IFA is attacked we will receive the support from many nations from multiple alliances. I bet you if the resolution was passed right now within days there would be countless support from the other member alliances sending aid both military and humanitarian to support Guerro in their current terrorist struggle." -Resim

"But then why would we add any organization if adding them makes us a target? In essence it would be an empty list. About Guerro, that may be true, but I'm not sure how keen Guerro would be to have Communist or Fascist troops in his country. "

[The United Regions]

"Yes it may make us a target but that is why we are given the power to vote rather or not we want to add a terrorist organization to the list. And the reason we have this Pact is so that if a member nation of the IFA is attacked we will receive the support from many nations from multiple alliances. I bet you if the resolution was passed right now within days there would be countless support from the other member alliances sending aid both military and humanitarian to support Guerro in their current terrorist struggle." -Resim

"But then why would we add any organization if adding them makes us a target? In essence it would be an empty list. About Guerro, that may be true, but I'm not sure how keen Guerro would be to have Communist or Fascist troops in his country. "

"Because there may be organizations that rather on our list or not would attack us either way, and by adding them to our list we have in essence some of the worlds biggest alliances at our aid in case of such an attack. And in the case of Guerro if he comes to the rational decision to not want communist or fascists troops on his land, [can't say I disagree] then they can perhaps as I mentioned send non-military aid or protect the waters, ensure there are no other organizations supporting this one, find targets in that organization in other countries, ect. but ultimately this Pact if ratified could lead to a safer world for IFA nations and for the World by eliminating or at least creating a safety net in case of terrorism." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"But then why would we add any organization if adding them makes us a target? In essence it would be an empty list. About Guerro, that may be true, but I'm not sure how keen Guerro would be to have Communist or Fascist troops in his country. "

"Because there may be organizations that rather on our list or not would attack us either way, and by adding them to our list we have in essence some of the worlds biggest alliances at our aid in case of such an attack. And in the case of Guerro if he comes to the rational decision to not want communist or fascists troops on his land, [can't say I disagree] then they can perhaps as I mentioned send non-military aid or protect the waters, ensure there are no other organizations supporting this one, find targets in that organization in other countries, ect. but ultimately this Pact if ratified could lead to a safer world for IFA nations and for the World by eliminating or at least creating a safety net in case of terrorism." -Resim

"Do we really want Communist or Fascist countries intervening in our conflicts or situations? Because that's the main way that such alliances would help us. We already have a partnership with the WC which gives us plenty of additional support. Even if they "stand by our side" we are still creating more conflict for ourselves and potentially creating dangerous situations where potential adversaries get military access to member states for the sake of fighting terrorism. "

[The United Regions]

"Because there may be organizations that rather on our list or not would attack us either way, and by adding them to our list we have in essence some of the worlds biggest alliances at our aid in case of such an attack. And in the case of Guerro if he comes to the rational decision to not want communist or fascists troops on his land, [can't say I disagree] then they can perhaps as I mentioned send non-military aid or protect the waters, ensure there are no other organizations supporting this one, find targets in that organization in other countries, ect. but ultimately this Pact if ratified could lead to a safer world for IFA nations and for the World by eliminating or at least creating a safety net in case of terrorism." -Resim

"Do we really want Communist or Fascist countries intervening in our conflicts or situations? Because that's the main way that such alliances would help us. We already have a partnership with the WC which gives us plenty of additional support. Even if they "stand by our side" we are still creating more conflict for ourselves and potentially creating dangerous situations where potential adversaries get military access to member states for the sake of fighting terrorism. "

"In no way would nations be forced to get helped in the event of a terrorist attack and as I said there are other ways if members are afraid of allowing fascists or communists on their land likewise many of the other alliances members are not communist or fascists including the alliance my nation is founder of the Christian Liberty Alliance which shares many of the same values as the IFA as well as plenty of the UL's members [I will admit there are some] and most of The Union of Armed nations members. Anyways if a nation were to do such a thing then the IFA as well as I'm sure the alliance it comes from and the other member alliances would condemn said actions and provide support for the attacked nation and go after the attacker. If this is a serious worry of yours perhaps once passed we could make an amendment to prohibit such an event from happening." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"Do we really want Communist or Fascist countries intervening in our conflicts or situations? Because that's the main way that such alliances would help us. We already have a partnership with the WC which gives us plenty of additional support. Even if they "stand by our side" we are still creating more conflict for ourselves and potentially creating dangerous situations where potential adversaries get military access to member states for the sake of fighting terrorism. "

"In no way would nations be forced to get helped in the event of a terrorist attack and as I said there are other ways if members are afraid of allowing fascists or communists on their land likewise many of the other alliances members are not communist or fascists including the alliance my nation is founder of the Christian Liberty Alliance which shares many of the same values as the IFA as well as plenty of the UL's members [I will admit there are some] and most of The Union of Armed nations members. Anyways if a nation were to do such a thing then the IFA as well as I'm sure the alliance it comes from and the other member alliances would condemn said actions and provide support for the attacked nation and go after the attacker. If this is a serious worry of yours perhaps once passed we could make an amendment to prohibit such an event from happening." -Resim

"I put it basically like this.

Scenario one: One terrorist attack in an IFA member-state, IFA members unite to help (Guerro's case)

Scenario two (effect of this pact): Several terrorist attacks, but this time, non-IFA members may (or may not) be willing to help, but furthermore, their intervention (even with approval) might pose security threats for the IFA. Military cooperation with non-allies is tricky and risky.

Basically, it is apparent that with scenario two, we are increasing bad risk. This is what this pact is doing. While it may somehow encourage non-IFA members to help us, in the long run, it increases the bad risk of both increased terror attacks and the fact that you may have a few bad seeds, find their way into intervention in an IFA member state. That risk needs to be minimized. The Guerro crisis shows that IFA is more than capable with dealing with terrorism on its own."

[The United Regions]

"In no way would nations be forced to get helped in the event of a terrorist attack and as I said there are other ways if members are afraid of allowing fascists or communists on their land likewise many of the other alliances members are not communist or fascists including the alliance my nation is founder of the Christian Liberty Alliance which shares many of the same values as the IFA as well as plenty of the UL's members [I will admit there are some] and most of The Union of Armed nations members. Anyways if a nation were to do such a thing then the IFA as well as I'm sure the alliance it comes from and the other member alliances would condemn said actions and provide support for the attacked nation and go after the attacker. If this is a serious worry of yours perhaps once passed we could make an amendment to prohibit such an event from happening." -Resim

"I put it basically like this.

Scenario one: One terrorist attack in an IFA member-state, IFA members unite to help (Guerro's case)

Scenario two (effect of this pact): Several terrorist attacks, but this time, non-IFA members may (or may not) be willing to help, but furthermore, their intervention (even with approval) might pose security threats for the IFA. Military cooperation with non-allies is tricky and risky.

Basically, it is apparent that with scenario two, we are increasing bad risk. This is what this pact is doing. While it may somehow encourage non-IFA members to help us, in the long run, it increases the bad risk of both increased terror attacks and the fact that you may have a few bad seeds, find their way into intervention in an IFA member state. That risk needs to be minimized. The Guerro crisis shows that IFA is more than capable with dealing with terrorism on its own."

"I fail to see how the Pact would increase the risk of a terrorist attack, because we would only be adding terrorist organizations that are already a threat to the IFA thus seeing their organization on a list will have no effect of the hatred they already have towards us. It will just increase the amount of support we get at fighting that organization from other alliances." -Resim

[Western European Republic]

"I feel that it is my duty to quell some concerns about the Jerica Pact. First of all, other alliances that are far more prone to attacks than us, such as the United Left and the Union of Armed States, have already ratified the treaty. There have been absolutely no threats made towards the IFA if we ratify. It is extremely unlikely that we will be attacked when other alliances that have already ratified the treaty that are more controversial than us have not been. Second of all, It does not require nor encourage sending IFA soldiers to non-IFA nations. Nations have a choice of who to apply to, and if they do apply to the IFA, they can be told that they must be members of the IFA to apply for RRF assistance. Alliance protocol overrides this part of the treaty, as will be explained later. Thirdly and finally, it is not obligated nor permitted to help non-IFA nations. Again, alliance protocol overrides this part of the treaty in this case due to the fact that the IFA has existing legislation."

[Vangaziland]

"If I may add one last humble thing. Just as in the Turntry conflict, peace has been the Vannish delegation's priority. Our intel reports that a war may be happening between one of these terrorist nations and one of the aforementioned alliances. We find the timing of this treaty a slight bit suspicious. Must we rush to war at this moment? Just like in Turntry, Vangaziland will be a staunch advocate for peace. Perhaps other alliances would be best served to avoid war as well."

He paused for a moment and continued. "Often, someone shows up at our doorstep asking for us to help fight one group or the next. One nation recently came to us telling us to go after the UL. Some alliances want us to go after the fascists. We must ask ourselves why do they want us to intervene in their wars? Hunting out forces is not what we do, unless the IFA is attacked. I wish people had shown a little more restraint before jumping into this vote with little research, just because it sounds good. Laws and pacts and electoral candidates for that matter deserve to be examined, questioned and examined some more. Jumping to aye does not do the law, this council or the IFA any justice. I hope that with the next few resolutions, members might ask questions, debate and study the background before making a decision."

[Western European Republic]

"If I may add one last humble thing. Just as in the Turntry conflict, peace has been the Vannish delegation's priority. Our intel reports that a war may be happening between one of these terrorist nations and one of the aforementioned alliances. We find the timing of this treaty a slight bit suspicious. Must we rush to war at this moment? Just like in Turntry, Vangaziland will be a staunch advocate for peace. Perhaps other alliances would be best served to avoid war as well."

He paused for a moment and continued. "Often, someone shows up at our doorstep asking for us to help fight one group or the next. One nation recently came to us telling us to go after the UL. Some alliances want us to go after the fascists. We must ask ourselves why do they want us to intervene in their wars? Hunting out forces is not what we do, unless the IFA is attacked. I wish people had shown a little more restraint before jumping into this vote with little research, just because it sounds good. Laws and pacts and electoral candidates for that matter deserve to be examined, questioned and examined some more. Jumping to aye does not do the law, this council or the IFA any justice. I hope that with the next few resolutions, members might ask questions, debate and study the background before making a decision."

"Actually, they have been. I have been persuading many delegates to vote 'aye' via reasoning that I have already elaborated on. Many nations are citing their reasoning behind their votes, too- which is rare in this Council. I must give all the IFA nations here a round of applause and a pat on the back for this."

[Vangaziland]

"Here is the question that lingers. If we are not required to assist, what is the point of this pact? It is a little verbose, if all the goal is for us to condemn three terrorist groups. That could have been done easily."

[The United Regions]

"If I may add one last humble thing. Just as in the Turntry conflict, peace has been the Vannish delegation's priority. Our intel reports that a war may be happening between one of these terrorist nations and one of the aforementioned alliances. We find the timing of this treaty a slight bit suspicious. Must we rush to war at this moment? Just like in Turntry, Vangaziland will be a staunch advocate for peace. Perhaps other alliances would be best served to avoid war as well."

He paused for a moment and continued. "Often, someone shows up at our doorstep asking for us to help fight one group or the next. One nation recently came to us telling us to go after the UL. Some alliances want us to go after the fascists. We must ask ourselves why do they want us to intervene in their wars? Hunting out forces is not what we do, unless the IFA is attacked. I wish people had shown a little more restraint before jumping into this vote with little research, just because it sounds good. Laws and pacts and electoral candidates for that matter deserve to be examined, questioned and examined some more. Jumping to aye does not do the law, this council or the IFA any justice. I hope that with the next few resolutions, members might ask questions, debate and study the background before making a decision."

"I agree sir, peace is the best option, you saw this from The United Regions as well in the Turntry conflict when after we were nuked Prime Minister David Bell was begging nations not to Nuke Turntry back because he knew innocent people would die as a result. But sir, peace is not in these terrorist vocabulary. The way I see it we have two options stand united and destroy any terrorist threats we may have or become isolations and try to face these terrorist threats alone as we see are most defiantly present both with the earlier altercation in Bratislav and the current Red Triangle incident. Also since you bring up peace I would like to point out that piece would be fortified between otherwise potentially hostile alliances with the ratification of this pact." -Resim

[Bratislav]

"I put it basically like this.

Scenario one: One terrorist attack in an IFA member-state, IFA members unite to help (Guerro's case)

Scenario two (effect of this pact): Several terrorist attacks, but this time, non-IFA members may (or may not) be willing to help, but furthermore, their intervention (even with approval) might pose security threats for the IFA. Military cooperation with non-allies is tricky and risky.

Basically, it is apparent that with scenario two, we are increasing bad risk. This is what this pact is doing. While it may somehow encourage non-IFA members to help us, in the long run, it increases the bad risk of both increased terror attacks and the fact that you may have a few bad seeds, find their way into intervention in an IFA member state. That risk needs to be minimized. The Guerro crisis shows that IFA is more than capable with dealing with terrorism on its own."

"I fail to see how the Pact would increase the risk of a terrorist attack, because we would only be adding terrorist organizations that are already a threat to the IFA thus seeing their organization on a list will have no effect of the hatred they already have towards us. It will just increase the amount of support we get at fighting that organization from other alliances." -Resim

"Condemnation goes a step further. It makes us a target and puts us in the spotlight, which increases the chance of attack. Even if we have all the back of the world, why should we increase that chance? There are currently troubling conflicts going with these terrorist groups, condemning it along with those alliances, puts us in the fray of things, and increases ourselves to the possibility of attack. My goal is to minimize that risk. And as we have established - this pact - all it is, is a verbal condemnation. Nothing more. Why is it so worth it?"

"Here is the question that lingers. If we are not required to assist, what is the point of this pact? It is a little verbose, if all the goal is for us to condemn three terrorist groups. That could have been done easily."

"Exactly. This concerns the Bratislavian side. This pact is effectively just a verbal condemnation of terrorists. But given the verbose nature of the resolution and the circumstances, we are suspicious that ulterior motives may be hidden behind the resolution. For that reason, the resolution, the people behind it, all should be investigated to the fullest extent. This will take some time to fully complete."

[Vangaziland]

"Would members of the IFA be okay with a simple condemnation of the 3 terrorist groups? Vangaziland has already done so and we may be gathering intel on its major players. Anyone, and we do mean anyone, with ties to terrorism is under investigation."

[Giliberafta]

"Would members of the IFA be okay with a simple condemnation of the 3 terrorist groups? Vangaziland has already done so and we may be gathering intel on its major players. Anyone, and we do mean anyone, with ties to terrorism is under investigation."

"I believe that would be the best for as of right now."

[Bratislav]

"Would members of the IFA be okay with a simple condemnation of the 3 terrorist groups? Vangaziland has already done so and we may be gathering intel on its major players. Anyone, and we do mean anyone, with ties to terrorism is under investigation."

"Which groups do you have in mind? And could such a condemnation open us to potential attacks?"

[Western European Republic]

"Would members of the IFA be okay with a simple condemnation of the 3 terrorist groups? Vangaziland has already done so and we may be gathering intel on its major players. Anyone, and we do mean anyone, with ties to terrorism is under investigation."

"I believe that would be the best for as of right now."

"I'm not sure. Do we really want to be the one alliance that didn't ratify this treaty?"

[Bratislav]

"I believe that would be the best for as of right now."

"I'm not sure. Do we really want to be the one alliance that didn't ratify this treaty?"

"Isn't the whole point of that treaty to condemn terrorism?"