Cold War RP III (Closed.)

[The Baton Rouge Free State]

Hell yah, if you want we could make the entire region a mess heap by forming an alliance.

Oh I was under the impression you wanted a regional rivalry that'll turn hot the moment provocation is invoked.

lol yah i was being ironic. I'm really ok not getting into any major conflicts though, Hastings Banda irl was pretty non confrontational and isolationist, so it fits into his style. Honestly, if you approached me for a trade agreement i would except, and if you approached me asking for closed borders i wouldn't be too opposed either.

[Wasi State]

Oh I was under the impression you wanted a regional rivalry that'll turn hot the moment provocation is invoked.

lol yah i was being ironic. I'm really ok not getting into any major conflicts though, Hastings Banda irl was pretty non confrontational and isolationist, so it fits into his style. Honestly, if you approached me for a trade agreement i would except, and if you approached me asking for closed borders i wouldn't be too opposed either.

Diplomatic and economic sanctions would likely come first before any direct conflict.

[Monsone]

Grant was a strong supporter of ending racisim. I'll give you that. But Truman was a Democrat, and the only thing he did to curb racisim was desegregate the armed forces. And that shouldn't be surprising since his parents where Confederate Sympathizers. Later on, Truman would become more desegregationist, but not to the extent of what you would need to allow Venezuela and Puerto Rico in. In 1950, lynch mobs where common in some parts of the USA, seating in public transit was segregated, at so much more. Even if you managed to end segregation, lynch mobs, hate crimes, racial slurs and other forms of racism would live on. You can't just say the USA was lest racist because it is impossible for it to occur.

Cotton was one of the USA's major exports. Who grew it, picked it, and processed it until 1865? Enslaved African-Americans. Who did the menial labor of the USA for the longest time? Black people. And who where one of the most oppressed people in the USA ? Black people. You can't erase one of the most defining parts of US history like it was nothing. Since most IRL history is followed, Jim Crow still is in place, and considering that, you can't say the USA was less racist because Jim Crow kept racisim alive and well along with segregation well into the 20th century. If Reconstruction never ended, maybe the USA could claim to be less racist. But no. Since Jim Crow is still around in this RP, it voids your claim of less racisim.

I may not like your lore changes, but I am using that very lore to disprove an assertion you made. And then you claim it is an abuse of power. It is not an abuse of power to point put facts that do exist in your history and yet you omit purposely because they would prove the point you are arguing against. There is nothing. I repeat nothing in your lore that would make the USA any less racist. Prove me wrong using your existing lore if you wish.

I don't argue against all the racism the Democrats or the KKK or the Confederate Lost Cause sympathizers did throughout America during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. I suggested that the Republicans in this timeline took a harder stance in combatting racism than they did IRl. So your claims about America being a liberal, paradise, no racist nation in this RP is pointless.

Mind you, there are as many White Hispaniscs in Venezuela as there are white, Anglo/Scots-irish Protestant people in Georgia or Alabama in this time. The privileged socio-economic class would've welcomed American rule better since it brought stability and a functioning government for them than to place their bets in the coup and rebellion-infested nation that was Venezuela before US administration. This class of people would reap the benefit of US rule the most, and noting that they have a large influence and political connection they're more likely to cooperate with Washington's officials in maintaining stability (or the status quo under US administration) in Venezuela. Another rebellion would just bring the old problems - coups and political dramas that are affecting all Latin American nations bar Venezuela now - and these people aren't likely to trade stability for so-called "independence" (especially noting that the DR is a US state, Puerto Rico and Panama being US territories, and all of those were doing pretty well compared to their neighbors, say, Colombia and Nicaragua). That alone should made people at least resent guerilla groups that offer nothing to them except promises of "independence".

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

[Mathuvan Union]

I don't argue against all the racism the Democrats or the KKK or the Confederate Lost Cause sympathizers did throughout America during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. I suggested that the Republicans in this timeline took a harder stance in combatting racism than they did IRl. So your claims about America being a liberal, paradise, no racist nation in this RP is pointless.

Mind you, there are as many White Hispaniscs in Venezuela as there are white, Anglo/Scots-irish Protestant people in Georgia or Alabama in this time. The privileged socio-economic class would've welcomed American rule better since it brought stability and a functioning government for them than to place their bets in the coup and rebellion-infested nation that was Venezuela before US administration. This class of people would reap the benefit of US rule the most, and noting that they have a large influence and political connection they're more likely to cooperate with Washington's officials in maintaining stability (or the status quo under US administration) in Venezuela. Another rebellion would just bring the old problems - coups and political dramas that are affecting all Latin American nations bar Venezuela now - and these people aren't likely to trade stability for so-called "independence" (especially noting that the DR is a US state, Puerto Rico and Panama being US territories, and all of those were doing pretty well compared to their neighbors, say, Colombia and Nicaragua). That alone should made people at least resent guerilla groups that offer nothing to them except promises of "independence".

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

Bring on McCarthyism!
Also I need to get planes

[Monsone]

Because the USA who I would be spending my RP fighting against has a flawless uber nation where by the people of Venezuela loving being part of America due to apperntly creating a welfare state through nationalising oil as lazzir faire capitalist America who also manged to fix race relations in his country with the Republicans being less racist then what they were.

No, the race relations weren't fixed in 1950 because Truman and the Democrats are still in power; No, Venezuelans certainly don't love being part of America (like the way a New Englander or Southern patriot did), but the majority don't want full independence either; and yes, a Sovereign Wealth Fund exists to manage the oil revenues in Venezuela. Gulf, Exxon, and all the others are still active in the Maracaibo Basin, though; the SWF is merely one, albeit the largest, driller of oil in Venezuela.

If I'm being honest, you've overestimated how quickly someone will forget their identity. Venezuela as built on the idea of destroying imperialism by Simon Bolivar. You can just erase that and claim all is well because Simon Bolivar is a big deal to the Venezuelan people even in 1950. You cannot erase cultures so easily and quickly. Especially cultures that originated in a country you have basically colonized in all but name.

[Monsone]

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

Bring on McCarthyism!
Also I need to get planes

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

[The Baton Rouge Free State]

I don't argue against all the racism the Democrats or the KKK or the Confederate Lost Cause sympathizers did throughout America during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. I suggested that the Republicans in this timeline took a harder stance in combatting racism than they did IRl. So your claims about America being a liberal, paradise, no racist nation in this RP is pointless.

Mind you, there are as many White Hispaniscs in Venezuela as there are white, Anglo/Scots-irish Protestant people in Georgia or Alabama in this time. The privileged socio-economic class would've welcomed American rule better since it brought stability and a functioning government for them than to place their bets in the coup and rebellion-infested nation that was Venezuela before US administration. This class of people would reap the benefit of US rule the most, and noting that they have a large influence and political connection they're more likely to cooperate with Washington's officials in maintaining stability (or the status quo under US administration) in Venezuela. Another rebellion would just bring the old problems - coups and political dramas that are affecting all Latin American nations bar Venezuela now - and these people aren't likely to trade stability for so-called "independence" (especially noting that the DR is a US state, Puerto Rico and Panama being US territories, and all of those were doing pretty well compared to their neighbors, say, Colombia and Nicaragua). That alone should made people at least resent guerilla groups that offer nothing to them except promises of "independence".

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

Monsone be making a good point especially with the last part. McCarthy really shook up american politics, he's the reason the two parties really redefined themselves in the 1950s and 60s. The Democrats looked at themselves and they were basically known as the party that fixed the great depression, so they started basing many of their ideas on FDR's policies, and furthermore, the republicans got really shooken up, after Eisenhower dipped, the republicans started repositioning themselves around McCarthyism like ideologies. All you have to do is look at the immediate politicians after McCarthy left to prove that:
Republicans: Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford (all very right wing and very conservative)
Democrats: Kennedies, Sam Rayburn, John McCormack (all very left)

My point here is, McCarthy definitely was a very influential and polarizing figure in politics, and so was his personality cult, if he didnt rise someone would have, the Republican move further right at this point was inevitable because the Democrats were already defining themselves as "that leftist party".

[Greater Liverpool]

Anyway, let's get back to the point. Sarderia you can't have the majority of Venezuelans supporting your own history and lore go against you in a way. There would be no way you could nationalize that amount of Oil and use it to fund Venezuela it goes against the American economic policy at the time. Not just that even if you can explain how it was possible that would give even more claim for national independence because people will be able to say that it is self-sufficient and should be independent of America. Even if the Republicans were not as racist as what they were IRL they would still be very racist since many at the time still supported segregation in the country. Also by giving millions of Venezuela's citizenship would perhaps even increase tension between races I mean look at Hispanics and Italians in the 40s and 50s who were discriminated against. I just don't understand why you can't just accept you can't have a perfect nation not matter your lore when you change bad things to good also expect things to go bad it is the very nature of politics and society.

[Sarderia]

I don't argue against all the racism the Democrats or the KKK or the Confederate Lost Cause sympathizers did throughout America during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. I suggested that the Republicans in this timeline took a harder stance in combatting racism than they did IRl. So your claims about America being a liberal, paradise, no racist nation in this RP is pointless.

Mind you, there are as many White Hispaniscs in Venezuela as there are white, Anglo/Scots-irish Protestant people in Georgia or Alabama in this time. The privileged socio-economic class would've welcomed American rule better since it brought stability and a functioning government for them than to place their bets in the coup and rebellion-infested nation that was Venezuela before US administration. This class of people would reap the benefit of US rule the most, and noting that they have a large influence and political connection they're more likely to cooperate with Washington's officials in maintaining stability (or the status quo under US administration) in Venezuela. Another rebellion would just bring the old problems - coups and political dramas that are affecting all Latin American nations bar Venezuela now - and these people aren't likely to trade stability for so-called "independence" (especially noting that the DR is a US state, Puerto Rico and Panama being US territories, and all of those were doing pretty well compared to their neighbors, say, Colombia and Nicaragua). That alone should made people at least resent guerilla groups that offer nothing to them except promises of "independence".

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

1) I would not change significant historical events because that would just end horribly to my role. The Republicans did take a harder stance against racism and segregation in this timeline, primarily done by sponsoring organizations such as the NAACP and pushing for Plessy v. Ferguson laws to be implemented across all states, inlcuding the Deep South states. The Republicans basically held more influence in Congress than they had IRL, but they fail to turn over several important events such as the implementation of Jim Crow laws - but they are still pretty much seen as the liberal and anti-segregationist people. Republicans made most of the governors in US territories, where the population is mostly Hispanic.

2) Venezuela was made an exemption from the Jones Act in this timeline, so in a sense they enjoyed the freedom of trade as well as the benefits being an US territory such as greater US investment, job growth and expansion, and an overall increase in GDP per Capita throughout the years - since there is no maritime laws that inhibit its growth. Since Venezuela has already a native government (similar to a US Territory, but with the exemption that only the Venezuelan Congress could pass significant laws concerning Venezuela), their citizens has US citizenship, and the only Washington influence being in foreign affairs and the military, they are already independent, of sorts. I'd argue that the benefits Venezuela has being a quasi-US territory reached all classes of society, not just the white citizens (which constitutes about 49% of the population). The remainder, which is of Mestizo descent, do hold significant positions in the Venezuelan government and economy as well - because they has historically been so, and Washington did not interfere at all on how Venezuelans are treated by their government - all they cared about was to gain a foothold, an internationally recognized US dominion present in South America, so that the other South American nations could look at Venezuela's success and align themselves more with the United States than the other superpowers of the region (British Empire, Brazillian Empire, Germany, and now the Soviet Union).

1) Your argument is centered on "Jim Crow exists and the Republicans are less racist." But the Republicans have shown no tangible evidence that they aren't as racist as IRL. And just saying there aren't with nothing to back up the statement (for example, abolishing Jim Crow laws would count, or desegregation). But one of that has happened yet. The military might be desegregated, but just about everything else isn't. I don't really buy your argument for the Republicans being less racist because there is no evidence to prove it.

2) All South American countries have communities of white people. And they aren't always Hispanic. In fact, most aren't of Spanish descent. But unlike in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, in Venezuela aren't the majority. And the reason so many people are nostalgic for the Venezuela of the 1970s was because not just the white people benefited. Everyone did. But under US rule, knowing how the US has treated it's indigenous tribes as well as minorities, it is inevitable that ONLY the white people of Venezuela would reap the benefits while everyone else saw few benefits if any. Meanwhile in IRL Venezuela, sure the white people benefited greatly, but so did everyone else, which is why if you talk to just about any Venezuelan, they will remember everything before the 1990s with a fair ammount of joy, because most everyone was rich, and not just those of a paler skin complexion. As I have said before, you can have the world's greatest economy, but if you don't have a solid welfare state to provide for everyone, then you will have extreme inequality which leads to discontent and then rebellion.

And creating a welfare state in the IC is going to fail. Why? One name: Joseph McCarthy.

Monsone be making a good point especially with the last part. McCarthy really shook up american politics, he's the reason the two parties really redefined themselves in the 1950s and 60s. The Democrats looked at themselves and they were basically known as the party that fixed the great depression, so they started basing many of their ideas on FDR's policies, and furthermore, the republicans got really shooken up, after Eisenhower dipped, the republicans started repositioning themselves around McCarthyism like ideologies. All you have to do is look at the immediate politicians after McCarthy left to prove that:
Republicans: Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford (all very right wing and very conservative)
Democrats: Kennedies, Sam Rayburn, John McCormack (all very left)

My point here is, McCarthy definitely was a very influential and polarizing figure in politics, and so was his personality cult, if he didnt rise someone would have, the Republican move further right at this point was inevitable because the Democrats were already defining themselves as "that leftist party".

The US already has a welfare program since 1935, and the Red Scare, while it certainly had a great effect to the population, did not erase that system entirely. In fact, we would see the increase of more left-leaning policies of America during the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ (Medicare for example), and while McCarthy was certainly a very influential and profound figure in American politics, the line of social safety nets that FDR put into place wouldn't simply disappear because of him.

Anyway, let's get back to the point. Sarderia you can't have the majority of Venezuelans supporting your own history and lore go against you in a way. There would be no way you could nationalize that amount of Oil and use it to fund Venezuela it goes against the American economic policy at the time. Not just that even if you can explain how it was possible that would give even more claim for national independence because people will be able to say that it is self-sufficient and should be independent of America. Even if the Republicans were not as racist as what they were IRL they would still be very racist since many at the time still supported segregation in the country. Also by giving millions of Venezuela's citizenship would perhaps even increase tension between races I mean look at Hispanics and Italians in the 40s and 50s who were discriminated against. I just don't understand why you can't just accept you can't have a perfect nation not matter your lore when you change bad things to good also expect things to go bad it is the very nature of politics and society.

The Democrats supported segregation, the Republicans didn't. The Republicans in this timeline were quite openly against segregation, while they failed to reverse policies such as Jim Crow. I don't nationalize the oil, if you take the time to even read my response you'd know that the SWF corporation funding Venezuela's version of Social Security (which is different than the Social Security implemented in the USA) is only one of the oil corporations in Venezuela, and they operate mainly on the Maracaibo basin and other oil-producing regions in Venezuela. Gulf, Exxon, Mobil, and the other Seven Sisters still control the majority of US oil production in this timeline. The point is, people do realize that the economic improvement and national stability happened because of Venezuela being an US puppet state, a quasi-US territory, so while Venezuelans might resent the legacy of Simon Bolivar combined with US presence, they would resent more the chaos and instability before US administration.

Basically, the United States is the lesser of two evils. They don't like their foreign policy and national military being dictated by the US, but they hated the prospect of having "Independence" and being gobbled up in political chaos and massive economic downturn even more (and judging by your movement, which is socialist, they would resent it even more because of US propaganda). Naturally, they'll pick up the former over the latter; though I am sure that a significant part of the population, maybe 20 to 30% would still want an independent Venezuela.

Also, by granting millions of Hispanics citizenship the US is by no way a "perfect state". I think you should be content that your independence movement is no more than an independence movement, and they have a very, very slight chance to take over Venezuela from the US. Most likely they would remain a small band of guerilla fighters in the jungle, that possibly could persist past the Cold War. If you really wanted a powerful nation that could wrestle Venezuela away from the US, pick Colombia or Cuba or whatever.

[Mathuvan Union]

Bring on McCarthyism!
Also I need to get planes

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

Imma ask for some planes from britain russia and america

[Arvenia]

I'm going to post on the IC soon, so I wonder which one of your countries would want to send a message to my country.

[Mathuvan Union]

I'm going to post on the IC soon, so I wonder which one of your countries would want to send a message to my country.

do you have jets?
i want them.
give them
i want them.

[Sarderia]

Bring on McCarthyism!
Also I need to get planes

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

What you asked is basically US$426 Million worth of tanks, and that would need another year or two at minimum to produce, not to mention America is stockpiling tanks as well. I'll respond it in a while (I did not notice it at first, sorry).

Edit: Also, a side note regarding my previous replies. If the rebels are more right-wing and willing to adopt a Capitalist, NATO-aligned government, the US would probably start a swift transition process to hand them over principal government positions. If not, I think I will release Venezuela gradually from US control, culminating in 1953 when Eisenhower would finally sign the Constitution of Venezuela.

[Greater Liverpool]

-snip-

Okay whatever you say but the OP has voided your actions what you do with that is up to you.

[Romextly]

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

Imma ask for some planes from britain russia and america

for how much?

[Mathuvan Union]

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

What you asked is basically US$426 Million worth of tanks, and that would need another year or two at minimum to produce, not to mention America is stockpiling tanks as well. I'll respond it in a while (I did not notice it at first, sorry).

can I have planes and/or a jet blueprint

[Mathuvan Union]

Imma ask for some planes from britain russia and america

for how much?

a) do you have jets
b) can I have some supermarine spitfires and huriccanes?
I like making new planed outta old ones.

[Sarderia]

-snip-

Okay whatever you say but the OP has voided your actions what you do with that is up to you.

Nope. I don't take Republicans being racists and most Venezuelans want independence.

[Romextly]

I asked the USA for money for tanks and military equipment and I offered a good deal in return. And I got no response. Time to see if the USSR is willing to sell some tanks and give aid. Or I'll just build my own tanks, even if they cost more.

Imma ask for some planes from britain russia and america

which ones?

[Greater Liverpool]

Okay whatever you say but the OP has voided your actions what you do with that is up to you.

Nope. I don't take Republicans being racists and most Venezuelans want independence.

Don't matter if the OP says it is void, it is void.

[Mathuvan Union]

Okay whatever you say but the OP has voided your actions what you do with that is up to you.

Nope. I don't take Republicans being racists and most Venezuelans want independence.

take a look at rule 3.

[Mathuvan Union]

Imma ask for some planes from britain russia and america

which ones?

spitfires huricanes and jets.

[Sarderia]

Nope. I don't take Republicans being racists and most Venezuelans want independence.

Don't matter if the OP says it is void, it is void.

Nope, and I'm going to put it IC-ly.

Nope. I don't take Republicans being racists and most Venezuelans want independence.

take a look at rule 3.

yeah, Trump and Reagan and Nixon wasn't there in 1950. So no.

[Mathuvan Union]

Don't matter if the OP says it is void, it is void.

Nope, and I'm going to put it IC-ly.

take a look at rule 3.

yeah, Trump and Reagan and Nixon wasn't there in 1950. So no.

trump was around then. he ws born in 1949.
reagan was alive.
so was nixon.
do you want to be banned?

[Greater Liverpool]

Don't matter if the OP says it is void, it is void.

Nope, and I'm going to put it IC-ly.

take a look at rule 3.

yeah, Trump and Reagan and Nixon wasn't there in 1950. So no.

You do realize going against the OP is a sure-fire way for you to get kicked out the RP