[PASSED] Liberate Slavia

[The North Polish Union]

Indeed, the UIAF doesn't seem to realize that they should cooperate with regions wishing to leave the FRA in order to help them speed the process of leaving the FRA.

How exactly are we meant to 'cooperate with regions wishing to leave the FRA in order to help them speed the process of leaving the FRA'?

We cannot go around posting resignations from the FRA - they're the ones who have a relationship with the FRA, not us.

We assume that they have the capacity to read a treaty which they, not us, signed in order to discover the correct way to resign.

We are under absolutely no obligation to go around giving unsolicited advice to regions we are at war with about the need to read treaties properly.

We have in fact sped the process up for Slavia considerably:

1. First, by the inherent act of taking over the region, thereby removing it from the FRA.

2. Secondly by the fact that Albul, who previously was telling the FRA that Slavia was not withdrawing, was immediately rushing on the same day as the invasion to inform the the FRA in the correct way that Slavia wanted out due to the 'merciless invaders', as is referred to in the 3rd January statement.

The fundamental point is we do not just care about existing FRA regions (in fact, we are at war with them by virtue of their membership so wish them every harm); we also care about making the point which was so nicely summed up above: "Stay out of the FRA or face our wrath." No exceptions.

You might call yourselves imperialists, but your actions make you out to be oppressive dictators. This is exactly why this will pass.

We are engaged in a war with the FRA (the inter-regional alliance of regions, therefore all the regions concerned as well as its central body) over their actions in Valhalla against TNI and the United Kingdom of Britain against the LKE. Naturally, we have no problems oppressing them as a result.

What I'm trying to say is that would be in the UIAF's best interests (if they actually cared about destroying the FRA) to join FRA member regions and try to convince the members to withdraw themselves from the FRA, thereby hopefully diminishing the FRA's member base. I was not saying that the UIAF should cooperate with FRA member regions, at least not in the way you read it.

And you did not speed up Slavia's process of leaving the FRA as you claim because Slavia had withdrawn from the FRA on December 24, well before the UIAF's raid.

In this instance however, that doesn't apply. The UIAF had a reason to invade. Since that reason no longer applies to the region, they should, by their very own rules, leave Slavia.

Wait,raiders have rules? everything i knew was a lie

[Port blood]

You being a raider advocate, clearly you aren't open to rationality though. I may be a defender, but at least I recognized the legitimacy of the UIAF's initial invasion. The continued occupation is completely unnecessary. That's exactly why I support this proposal.

Actually,if you look at it differently,its still Slavias fault for the continued occupation
Look at it through the eyes of a raider,what do most raiders want the most?
Exactly,fame
What did Slavia give them with this liberation?
Fame.

I mean,come on,it's written all over the world with the WA voting on it,everyone is talking about this raid and the majority it has in the region

[Vaculatestar64]

You being a raider advocate, clearly you aren't open to rationality though. I may be a defender, but at least I recognized the legitimacy of the UIAF's initial invasion. The continued occupation is completely unnecessary. That's exactly why I support this proposal.

Actually,if you look at it differently,its still Slavias fault for the continued occupation
Look at it through the eyes of a raider,what do most raiders want the most?
Exactly,fame
What did Slavia give them with this liberation?
Fame.

I mean,come on,it's written all over the world with the WA voting on it,everyone is talking about this raid and the majority it has in the region

I agree. This proposal is basically playing directly into the UIAF's hands. By passing this we are not doing anything in particular to help free the region as there is no password. The biggest thing that the natives could do is make a plea to the FRA, UDL, LLA, and others like them for a joint effort liberation. Otherwise we are just participating in a pissing match that is not winnable by the defenders as all it does is give the UIAF exactly what they want which is attention.

[Port blood]

The biggest thing that the natives could do is make a plea to the FRA, UDL, LLA,

Also,who is LLA?

[Whiskum]

In this instance however, that doesn't apply. The UIAF had a reason to invade. Since that reason no longer applies to the region, they should, by their very own rules, leave Slavia.

You say this is our 'very own rules'.

Where precisely in our statements have we ever said that will withdraw from FRA regions if they leave the FRA after we invade them?

If we adopted that principle, any region could join the FRA, get invaded and then leave the FRA after having been invaded, thereby avoiding retribution.

Allowing regions to escape all consequences of joining the FRA by leaving it after they are invaded would not be much of a deterrent.

We have no such principle. If you become an FRA region, you are liable to the full force of war and leaving the FRA after we invade will not change that.

That is not to say we will always claim the full extent of that liability, but any consideration shown is entirely within our gift and we consider regions we invade as FRA regions as having virtually no grounds for complaint about anything - FRA membership is simply totally unacceptable for us. If people want to be given gifts and special consideration by the UIAF, then we would expect them to behave respectfully and acknowledge their wrongs - of course we do not expect the natives of regions we invade to behave respectfully, but equally as explained they should not expect us to show them any courtesies either.

To be very clear: TNI and the LKE have been saying for over 7 years what we intend to do to regions which join the FRA. Any region which joins the FRA should be aware of what we have said. We have attended peace conferences, one initiated by Europeia and the other by the FRA itself, in 2011 and 2013 to discuss an end to the wars: on the first occasion the FRA rejected our peace offer, on the second occasion we walked out due to FRA unprofessionalism.

What I'm trying to say is that would be in the UIAF's best interests (if they actually cared about destroying the FRA) to join FRA member regions and try to convince the members to withdraw themselves from the FRA, thereby hopefully diminishing the FRA's member base. I was not saying that the UIAF should cooperate with FRA member regions, at least not in the way you read it.

Members of your region appear to have a remarkable and convenient ability for trying to say or do things they do not actually accomplish.

You previously suggested that we should "should cooperate with regions wishing to leave the FRA in order to help them speed the process of leaving the FRA". In response to that, I explained that we cannot post these regions' resignations from the FRA on their behalf, that is for the regions themselves to do, and that we assume they are capable of reading treaties which they sign to understand the relevant requirements. Accordingly, I couldn't see how we could help regions which already want to leave the FRA with leaving the FRA more quickly, which is what you were expressly talking about earlier.

You are now suggesting that we join FRA regions and then try to persuade them to leave the FRA.

That is an option, it exists, on some occasions we have used it. Military action is another option and, where available, is a superior option for two reasons:

1. You are assuming that we are primarily trying to appeal to the native population of the FRA region we are invading. As we consider such regions and people to be fundamentally our enemies, their views are not really something we are interested in - once they join the FRA, they constitute the FRA and are enemies. What we are more interested is in sending a warning to future regions which might join the FRA by showing them precisely what happens when you join the FRA. Asking an existing FRA region to leave does not have a deterrent effect; invading an FRA region very much is a deterrent.

2. Simply asking a region to leave does not actually accomplish it - and nearly all FRA regions would say no. Contrastingly, if you take military action, it forcibly guarantees that region's exit for the duration of military action, and, as shown by Slavia's 3rd January statement where Albul talks about the impact of 'merciless invaders' as a reason for leaving the FRA, is also very effective as an illustration of the risks of FRA membership to the natives.

Finally, you have suggested that because we invade FRA regions rather than only asking them to leave, we do not care about destroying the FRA. That makes no sense whatsoever and shows a complete lack of understanding with regard to our regions' track record of consistently opposing the FRA.

And you did not speed up Slavia's process of leaving the FRA as you claim because Slavia had withdrawn from the FRA on December 24, well before the UIAF's raid.

On the contrary, the statement of 24th December was not made 'directly to the Regional Assembly' as is required by the FRA Charter, so Slavia remained an FRA region, an official status which was matched by its regional representatives remaining in place, its retention of an FRA membership, its inclusion on the FRA member list, its failure to make any announcement withdrawing from the FRA and the statements of its Defence Minister that it was still FRA.

Moreover, you began this strand this discussion discussion by saying 'even if the UIAF does not recognize the December 24 withdrawal' you still believed it ought to have behaved differently. My comment was therefore made assuming the point as read for this particular issue, because if that starting point is not accepted as a premise for our discussions, then your subsequent argument, the one we have now been discussing, becomes nonsensical.

[Getti]

The biggest thing that the natives could do is make a plea to the FRA, UDL, LLA,

Also,who is LLA?

Lazarus.

[Port blood]

Didnt know that,explains a lot though

[The Wet Lands]

against. whos business is it of mine to dabble in others afairs. nations/regions fall. fact of existance. best of luck to them.

[Consular]

Just to make it clear to those who may or may not be aware, Port Blood is not a member of the UIAF, nor does he represent the UIAF in any way. His knowledge of our intentions or activities is therefore unqualified.

- Major-General Cassius Cerebella

[Vaculatestar64]

The biggest thing that the natives could do is make a plea to the FRA, UDL, LLA,

Also,who is LLA?

Lazarus Liberation Army

[The Church of Satan]

Keeping that in mind Whiskum, FRA member regions have no real reason to leave the FRA then. Even if you do invade a member region, leaving the FRA does nothing to help them. It only feeds your already enormous egos. Give 1 good reason why Slavia should have left the FRA? So you don't invade them? Not much of an incentive to be honest. It just makes you look even more petty than the average invader. Not to mention you're just bullying the natives for giggles. You wouldn't be so supportive of such a thing if it happened to your own region now would you? Be honest too. Don't say you'd have no problem with it just to support your invader ideals.

[The North Polish Union]

In this instance however, that doesn't apply. The UIAF had a reason to invade. Since that reason no longer applies to the region, they should, by their very own rules, leave Slavia.

You say this is our 'very own rules'.

Where precisely in our statements have we ever said that will withdraw from FRA regions if they leave the FRA after we invade them?

If we adopted that principle, any region could join the FRA, get invaded and then leave the FRA after having been invaded, thereby avoiding retribution.

Allowing regions to escape all consequences of joining the FRA by leaving it after they are invaded would not be much of a deterrent.

We have no such principle. If you become an FRA region, you are liable to the full force of war and leaving the FRA after we invade will not change that.

That is not to say we will always claim the full extent of that liability, but any consideration shown is entirely within our gift and we consider regions we invade as FRA regions as having virtually no grounds for complaint about anything - FRA membership is simply totally unacceptable for us. If people want to be given gifts and special consideration by the UIAF, then we would expect them to behave respectfully and acknowledge their wrongs - of course we do not expect the natives of regions we invade to behave respectfully, but equally as explained they should not expect us to show them any courtesies either.

To be very clear: TNI and the LKE have been saying for over 7 years what we intend to do to regions which join the FRA. Any region which joins the FRA should be aware of what we have said. We have attended peace conferences, one initiated by Europeia and the other by the FRA itself, in 2011 and 2013 to discuss an end to the wars: on the first occasion the FRA rejected our peace offer, on the second occasion we walked out due to FRA unprofessionalism.

What I'm trying to say is that would be in the UIAF's best interests (if they actually cared about destroying the FRA) to join FRA member regions and try to convince the members to withdraw themselves from the FRA, thereby hopefully diminishing the FRA's member base. I was not saying that the UIAF should cooperate with FRA member regions, at least not in the way you read it.

Members of your region appear to have a remarkable and convenient ability for trying to say or do things they do not actually accomplish.

You previously suggested that we should "should cooperate with regions wishing to leave the FRA in order to help them speed the process of leaving the FRA". In response to that, I explained that we cannot post these regions' resignations from the FRA on their behalf, that is for the regions themselves to do, and that we assume they are capable of reading treaties which they sign to understand the relevant requirements. Accordingly, I couldn't see how we could help regions which already want to leave the FRA with leaving the FRA more quickly, which is what you were expressly talking about earlier.

You are now suggesting that we join FRA regions and then try to persuade them to leave the FRA.

That is an option, it exists, on some occasions we have used it. Military action is another option and, where available, is a superior option for two reasons:

1. You are assuming that we are primarily trying to appeal to the native population of the FRA region we are invading. As we consider such regions and people to be fundamentally our enemies, their views are not really something we are interested in - once they join the FRA, they constitute the FRA and are enemies. What we are more interested is in sending a warning to future regions which might join the FRA by showing them precisely what happens when you join the FRA. Asking an existing FRA region to leave does not have a deterrent effect; invading an FRA region very much is a deterrent.

2. Simply asking a region to leave does not actually accomplish it - and nearly all FRA regions would say no. Contrastingly, if you take military action, it forcibly guarantees that region's exit for the duration of military action, and, as shown by Slavia's 3rd January statement where Albul talks about the impact of 'merciless invaders' as a reason for leaving the FRA, is also very effective as an illustration of the risks of FRA membership to the natives.

Finally, you have suggested that because we invade FRA regions rather than only asking them to leave, we do not care about destroying the FRA. That makes no sense whatsoever and shows a complete lack of understanding with regard to our regions' track record of consistently opposing the FRA.

And you did not speed up Slavia's process of leaving the FRA as you claim because Slavia had withdrawn from the FRA on December 24, well before the UIAF's raid.

On the contrary, the statement of 24th December was not made 'directly to the Regional Assembly' as is required by the FRA Charter, so Slavia remained an FRA region, an official status which was matched by its regional representatives remaining in place, its retention of an FRA membership, its inclusion on the FRA member list, its failure to make any announcement withdrawing from the FRA and the statements of its Defence Minister that it was still FRA.

Moreover, you began this strand this discussion discussion by saying 'even if the UIAF does not recognize the December 24 withdrawal' you still believed it ought to have behaved differently. My comment was therefore made assuming the point as read for this particular issue, because if that starting point is not accepted as a premise for our discussions, then your subsequent argument, the one we have now been discussing, becomes nonsensical.

So your entire reasoning behind not wanting to convince FRA member regions to leave is that theyre your enemies? Not only does convincing FRA member regions lose you enemies, it also damages the FRA; and I would assume that your animosity towards the FRA as a whole would overreach your animosity towards individual FRA member regions. Your reasons appear to me to make exceedingly little sense.

[Whiskum]

Keeping that in mind Whiskum, FRA member regions have no real reason to leave the FRA then. Even if you do invade a member region, leaving the FRA does nothing to help them. It only feeds your already enormous egos. Give 1 good reason why Slavia should have left the FRA? So you don't invade them? Not much of an incentive to be honest.

If you think, as you say, that a region would have a good reason to leave the FRA if we invade them and leaving the FRA then leads us to withdraw from them, then there is every much as good reason for existing FRA regions to leave if they are vulnerable to attack - and as I say, current FRA regions are not not the only audience we are appealing to - invading an FRA region sends a message to prospective future FRA regions about the consequences of joining.

Slavians evidently thought their invasion gave them good cause to leave the FRA and they were right, if I may quote the 3rd January statement:

First, our region members feel some animosity with the FRA, since they feel no impact in being in the FRA... until now.

Our region recently became founderless and thus fell to the hands of merciless invaders due to our FRA membership, no matter how dubious it was.

It would be entirely ineffective to maintain a policy whereby leaving the FRA is a 'get out of jail' free card. That just deals with the FRA region which we have invaded, which by virtue of occupying it we can force out of the FRA anyway - it does not deal with either other FRA members or more importantly with future FRA members.

We invade and conduct long occupations of ordinary regions - so why pray would we automatically give regions we are at war with when we invaded them an additional protection to guarantee that an occupation of their region is always terminated?

There is absolutely no deterrence or retribution against associating with the FRA in the first place in the system which you are proposing, merely a way for FRA members and FRA members alone to know they are always safe from being occupied. That hardly fits in with having declared war on them.

As stated before, we do not always claim all the liability: if a region leaves the FRA, acknowledges its wrong and wholly repents for its FRA membership, then that would count in its favour, but we can forcibly secure their exit from the FRA in the first place and joining the FRA is for us a heinous offence - so for them to seek our forgiveness, they would have earn it. Most natives have no interest in doing so and we have no interest in helping them either.

You say this is our 'very own rules'.

Where precisely in our statements have we ever said that will withdraw from FRA regions if they leave the FRA after we invade them?

If we adopted that principle, any region could join the FRA, get invaded and then leave the FRA after having been invaded, thereby avoiding retribution.

Allowing regions to escape all consequences of joining the FRA by leaving it after they are invaded would not be much of a deterrent.

We have no such principle. If you become an FRA region, you are liable to the full force of war and leaving the FRA after we invade will not change that.

That is not to say we will always claim the full extent of that liability, but any consideration shown is entirely within our gift and we consider regions we invade as FRA regions as having virtually no grounds for complaint about anything - FRA membership is simply totally unacceptable for us. If people want to be given gifts and special consideration by the UIAF, then we would expect them to behave respectfully and acknowledge their wrongs - of course we do not expect the natives of regions we invade to behave respectfully, but equally as explained they should not expect us to show them any courtesies either.

To be very clear: TNI and the LKE have been saying for over 7 years what we intend to do to regions which join the FRA. Any region which joins the FRA should be aware of what we have said. We have attended peace conferences, one initiated by Europeia and the other by the FRA itself, in 2011 and 2013 to discuss an end to the wars: on the first occasion the FRA rejected our peace offer, on the second occasion we walked out due to FRA unprofessionalism.


Members of your region appear to have a remarkable and convenient ability for trying to say or do things they do not actually accomplish.

You previously suggested that we should "should cooperate with regions wishing to leave the FRA in order to help them speed the process of leaving the FRA". In response to that, I explained that we cannot post these regions' resignations from the FRA on their behalf, that is for the regions themselves to do, and that we assume they are capable of reading treaties which they sign to understand the relevant requirements. Accordingly, I couldn't see how we could help regions which already want to leave the FRA with leaving the FRA more quickly, which is what you were expressly talking about earlier.

You are now suggesting that we join FRA regions and then try to persuade them to leave the FRA.

That is an option, it exists, on some occasions we have used it. Military action is another option and, where available, is a superior option for two reasons:

1. You are assuming that we are primarily trying to appeal to the native population of the FRA region we are invading. As we consider such regions and people to be fundamentally our enemies, their views are not really something we are interested in - once they join the FRA, they constitute the FRA and are enemies. What we are more interested is in sending a warning to future regions which might join the FRA by showing them precisely what happens when you join the FRA. Asking an existing FRA region to leave does not have a deterrent effect; invading an FRA region very much is a deterrent.

2. Simply asking a region to leave does not actually accomplish it - and nearly all FRA regions would say no. Contrastingly, if you take military action, it forcibly guarantees that region's exit for the duration of military action, and, as shown by Slavia's 3rd January statement where Albul talks about the impact of 'merciless invaders' as a reason for leaving the FRA, is also very effective as an illustration of the risks of FRA membership to the natives.

Finally, you have suggested that because we invade FRA regions rather than only asking them to leave, we do not care about destroying the FRA. That makes no sense whatsoever and shows a complete lack of understanding with regard to our regions' track record of consistently opposing the FRA.


On the contrary, the statement of 24th December was not made 'directly to the Regional Assembly' as is required by the FRA Charter, so Slavia remained an FRA region, an official status which was matched by its regional representatives remaining in place, its retention of an FRA membership, its inclusion on the FRA member list, its failure to make any announcement withdrawing from the FRA and the statements of its Defence Minister that it was still FRA.

Moreover, you began this strand this discussion discussion by saying 'even if the UIAF does not recognize the December 24 withdrawal' you still believed it ought to have behaved differently. My comment was therefore made assuming the point as read for this particular issue, because if that starting point is not accepted as a premise for our discussions, then your subsequent argument, the one we have now been discussing, becomes nonsensical.

So your entire reasoning behind not wanting to convince FRA member regions to leave is that theyre your enemies? Not only does convincing FRA member regions lose you enemies, it also damages the FRA; and I would assume that your animosity towards the FRA as a whole would overreach your animosity towards individual FRA member regions. Your reasons appear to me to make exceedingly little sense.

First, nowhere in my post is it said that our ' entire reasoning behind not wanting to convince FRA member regions to leave is that theyre your enemies'.

Indeed, nowhere in my post was it even said that we do not want to convince FRA member regions to leave: on occasion, where a region is foudned, has some internal elements expressing discontent against the FRA and is not controlled by oligarchic pro-FRA elites, we have pursued precisely that option. For FRA regions in general, every public announcement we make includes criticism of the FRA which their member-regions can and do read.

I expressly say we have no problem with the idea of convincing FRA regions to leave in principle:

You are now suggesting that we join FRA regions and then try to persuade them to leave the FRA.

That is an option, it exists, on some occasions we have used it.

However, just because we can try and persuade FRA members to leave doesn't mean we are going to rule out military action. We have both options.

There is no reason we can't use one approach for founded FRA regions which are not yet vulnerable and which are amenable to leaving, and another approach entirely for vulnerable FRA regions to illustrate the dangers of FRA membership to all concerned - which guarantees the exit of the region in question, as it has here, while actually showing potential future FRA members what will happen to them.

If you are saying that the (in most cases unlikely) possibility of persuading FRA members that they can leave the organisation means we should not invade them, then you are arguing that we should grant FRA regions an exemption from being invaded in the interests of pursuing a war against the FRA. You would also remove the incentive against regions choosing to joining the FRA in the first place - they'd know there would be no threat.

If you are suggesting that we have to ask a specific region to leave before we invade it, then that is hardly good military tactics and the military option is more effective in the case of founderless regions, as it actually guarantees an exit, and in deterrence against future FRA membership.

We have the options of seeking to use persuasion with some FRA regions and of invading others - on terms that may not be fair to the individual regions concerned - but it achieves our policy and why would we want to be fair to them anyway? They join the FRA with full warning of what we will do.

[Port blood]

Just to make it clear to those who may or may not be aware, Port Blood is not a member of the UIAF, nor does he represent the UIAF in any way. His knowledge of our intentions or activities is therefore unqualified.

- Major-General Cassius Cerebella

I seriously wonder why people would think im associated with the UIAF,im retired from raiding lol,though I wouldn't say I'm unqualified because I was a raider myself;thus can think like one
I can't be certain though



@Whiskum and The North Polish Union: Please cut down with the long quote and only quote what necessary,its bogging up the thread a lot

[Daeus]

A condemnation of http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sword_excalibur would be more suitable IMO then a liberation.

Is this even a main nation or is it just a puppet?

Sorry for the really late response, but I'm really not sure. Also, now that I've thought of it, a condemnation won't do any good at all other than increase their fame.

[Port blood]

Is this even a main nation or is it just a puppet?

Sorry for the really late response, but I'm really not sure. Also, now that I've thought of it, a condemnation won't do any good at all other than increase their fame.

Actually,it won't have much of an effect,they got fame enough lol,so you could condemn them if you wanted to

[Getti]

Sorry for the really late response, but I'm really not sure. Also, now that I've thought of it, a condemnation won't do any good at all other than increase their fame.

Actually,it won't have much of an effect,they got fame enough lol,so you could condemn them if you wanted to

Sword Excalibur is a puppet. After the op it will likely be abandoned.

[Port blood]

Actually,it won't have much of an effect,they got fame enough lol,so you could condemn them if you wanted to

Sword Excalibur is a puppet. After the op it will likely be abandoned.

I already mentioned that

[The Church of Satan]

So the UIAF wants its victims to grovel at their feet? Even then the UIAF still wouldn't let them off the hook? And I thought your egos couldn't get any bigger. At this point you've long since made a statement from the occupation. -_-

[Port blood]

So the UIAF wants its victims to grovel at their feet? Even then the UIAF still wouldn't let them off the hook? And I thought your egos couldn't get any bigger. At this point you've long since made a statement from the occupation. -_-

Where exactly do you see "victims groveling at their feet"? all i see is spam and disrespect

[Mahaj]

So the UIAF wants its victims to grovel at their feet? Even then the UIAF still wouldn't let them off the hook? And I thought your egos couldn't get any bigger. At this point you've long since made a statement from the occupation. -_-

Where exactly do you see "victims groveling at their feet"? all i see is spam and disrespect

And why is the UIAF owed any respect?

[Port blood]

Where exactly do you see "victims groveling at their feet"? all i see is spam and disrespect

And why is the UIAF owed any respect?

Because they are human beings?

[Chester Pearson]

And why is the UIAF owed any respect?

Because they are human beings?

So every human, no matter how despicable they may be, is entitled to respect?

[Port blood]

Because they are human beings?

So every human, no matter how despicable they may be, is entitled to respect?

If they don't deserve any respect,you most certainty don't

[Whiskum]

The UIAF has no expectation of the natives of the FRA regions we occupy behaving in a respectable manner towards our occupation.

Natives of the FRA regions we occupy should have no expectation of us taking their interests into account.

If people want us to give them something which they have precisely no right to expect, then naturally refusing to cooperate is not a way to go about.