International Coalition for Expansion (MT signup)

[Glaswegistan]

P90

Thats another SMG, mate.

AKM

A bit better...

...Could I possibly interest you in some proper weapons?

/evilbusinessmanmoustachetwirltipofthetophatsmirk

[Sovjetia]

P90

Thats another SMG, mate.

AKM

A bit better...

...Could I possibly interest you in some proper weapons?

/evilbusinessmanmoustachetwirltipofthetophatsmirk

no thank you old chap but we supply others and our selves (we make our own wepons) here: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sovj ... k/id=43077

[Greater Belkan Reich]

Nation Name:The Greater Reich of the Belkan People aka GBR
National Leader(s):Fuhrer Erik von Starke
National/Most Common Religion:Calvinism
Government Form:Constitutional Authoritarian Republic
Military Strength: 1.4 Million
Main Infantry Weapon: G36
Main Battle Tank: Leopard 2 & T-90
Main Fighter Plane: Su-37 & Mig-35
Infantry Calibers Used: Both 7.62mm Nato & 5.56 Nato
Military Service Branches: Wehrmacht,Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, SS
Infantry Body Armor: Dragon Scale Tactical Body Armor
Are You Willing to Switch to the 6.5x38mm ICE Cartridge for Your Main Rifle?: No
Are You Willing to Assist in Offensive Military Operations?:Yes
List All Other Alliances You Are a Member of: None
Do You Want to Make a Monetary Donation to the ICE Humanitarian Branch?:Not for schools or hospitals
Are You In Need of Military Aid?:No
Are You Willing to Volunteer Extreme-Climate Areas of Your Nation for Training Exercises?: Yes
If Yes, List Areas and Climate:North-Eastern Belka Tundra, Northern Belka Temperate Forest, Western Belka Moderate-Arid Plains
Other Facts You Believe ICE Should Know About Your Nation: A strong supporter of Capitalism and Ultra-Nationalism as well as Nordic Pride. Due to semi-recent downturns before the beginning of the current regime the government had to begin a significant re-armament process and this has strained the national resources and their is a strong drive to invade in order to acquire more resources. Pro-Life,Anti-LBGT

[Glaswegistan]

no thank you old chap but we supply others and our selves (we make our own wepons) here: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sovj ... k/id=43077

ಠ_ಠ

Listen here my good man; there are two types of people in the world, the people who buy their weapons from good, Party-loving Glaswegistani companies, and the people who lose wars. You want to win wars don't you?

Of course you do, so buy from Glaswegistan! We offer affordable, effective firepower for the socialist everyman!

[Finorskia]

no thank you old chap but we supply others and our selves (we make our own wepons) here: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sovj ... k/id=43077

ಠ_ಠ

Listen here my good man; there are two types of people in the world, the people who buy their weapons from good, Party-loving Glaswegistani companies, and the people who lose wars. You want to win wars don't you?

Of course you do, so buy from Glaswegistan! We offer affordable, effective firepower for the socialist everyman!

If you want to win wars. You by Lyras stuff.

[Glaswegistan]

If you want to win wars. You by Lyras stuff.

We offer affordable, effective firepower for the socialist everyman!

If you want to win wars; you buy good weapons.
We sell good weapons, at good prices, which still earn us a good profit when mass sales are concerned.

[Capisaria]

Thats another SMG, mate.



A bit better...

...Could I possibly interest you in some proper weapons?

/evilbusinessmanmoustachetwirltipofthetophatsmirk

no thank you old chap but we supply others and our selves (we make our own wepons) here: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sovj ... k/id=43077

FIX'D:

No, thank you old chap, but we supply others and ourselves (we make our own weapons) here:

[Phonencia]

Listen here my good man; there are two types of people in the world, the people who buy their weapons from good, Party-loving Glaswegistani companies, and the people who lose wars. You want to win wars don't you?

Of course you do, so buy from Glaswegistan! We offer affordable, effective firepower for the socialist everyman!

If you want to win wars. You by Lyras stuff.

FUCK TO THE YES!

Sovjetia, you are DENIED entry into the ICE due to your extremely low RPing skills. Maybe some day if you improve we'll allow you to join but not for quite a while. My main piece of advice to you is this, take everything you use that was in Call of Duty and hurl it out of a window as hard as possible. SOME of it is a little realistic. Aka, the M4A1 Carbine but that's about it (the M16A4s didn't even have fucking iron sights with mounted optics! WTF!?)

Nation Name:The Greater Reich of the Belkan People aka GBR
National Leader(s):Fuhrer Erik von Starke
National/Most Common Religion:Calvinism
Government Form:Constitutional Authoritarian Republic
Military Strength: 1.4 Million
Main Infantry Weapon: G36
Main Battle Tank: Leopard 2 & T-90
Main Fighter Plane: Su-37 & Mig-35
Infantry Calibers Used: Both 7.62mm Nato & 5.56 Nato
Military Service Branches: Wehrmacht,Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, SS
Infantry Body Armor: Dragon Scale Tactical Body Armor
Are You Willing to Switch to the 6.5x38mm ICE Cartridge for Your Main Rifle?: No
Are You Willing to Assist in Offensive Military Operations?:Yes
List All Other Alliances You Are a Member of: None
Do You Want to Make a Monetary Donation to the ICE Humanitarian Branch?:Not for schools or hospitals
Are You In Need of Military Aid?:No
Are You Willing to Volunteer Extreme-Climate Areas of Your Nation for Training Exercises?: Yes
If Yes, List Areas and Climate:North-Eastern Belka Tundra, Northern Belka Temperate Forest, Western Belka Moderate-Arid Plains
Other Facts You Believe ICE Should Know About Your Nation: A strong supporter of Capitalism and Ultra-Nationalism as well as Nordic Pride. Due to semi-recent downturns before the beginning of the current regime the government had to begin a significant re-armament process and this has strained the national resources and their is a strong drive to invade in order to acquire more resources. Pro-Life,Anti-LBGT

I am hesitant to accept you as your roleplaying skills seem to be dangerously close to ICE's minimum level of skill required to be accepted. Can you provide me with links to your most recent RPs?

[Phonencia]

Well I myself have every intention of being picky.

True the ICE does not say anything directly about self determination but since self determination is opposite to forceful annexation (and the clause about "absorbing liberated lands" is very clearly support for annexation) which the ICE favors then it follows that the ICE are, at least to an extent, opposed to self determination. This has also been explained in the communiqué's from Phonencia to my state.

As for ICE being offensive I simply don't see how anyone can interpret the ICE charter (or your own Castilla Doctrine for that matter) as not being a defense of offensive action. "Tyrants cannot be reasoned with and it is the belief of the I.C.E. that forceful liberation is necessary for the good of the population of oppressed nations." seems to put it very clearly.

As for the Polaris Initiative you are quite correct that its charter never directly states that it opposes offensive action. In fact there is one paragraph that could be interpreted as favoring it. But for the most part the charter speaks of "protecting", "preserving", "keeping" and "defending". That anti-offensive approach seemed to gain general formal acceptance in the Initiative with the following statement by Reformed Britannia after which it seemed to become official praxis. In any case the evidence seems to speak for itself, Polaris has never (to my knowledge at least) waged an offensive war.

But by all means if the ICE member states agrees that they desire a partnership with Polaris, initiate the procedures. My country is but one of many and can't block the rest of the initiative.

Castilla Doctrine is definitely an offensive policy, and there's no doubt about it; I never did anything to hide that. But it does include a clause that might come at your satisfaction, "that [we] will support the principles of popular sovereignty wherever a tyrannical government has been uprooted or otherwise defeated." That's just how I view a "liberated" nation should be run.

Anyways, the "absorbing liberated lands" (and that other quote you provided) is a portion of the old charter, which apparently hasn't been updated on the OOC thread. The new charter, designed by me and Phonencia, doesn't have that, leaving it, again, open to interpretation for member states (apologies for the non-updated charter). That's why no ICE colonial bureau was ever made; it was proposed on multiple occasions, but not everyone could agree to its provisions since everyone has a distinctly different vision for the lands they conquer. Opponents to the proposals just had a very good, reasonable argument that led people to vote against them.

And finally, since Phonencia's the head of ICE, he'll look into such a partnership if he deems it good enough. If not but everyone else thinks we should then I'll look into it.

I'd just like to say that the Coalition ALLOWS expansion and colonization as Quendi has said but we do not enforce it as standard policy. We actually enforce VERY little as standard policy. We let individual member states do what they want. I for instance, would likely colonize a liberated nation (unless the populace was STRONGLY against it) whereas others might NEVER colonize a liberated nation. ICE can't be judged just by a few sections of its (now replaced) charter. We judge and act on things on a case-by-case basis. Using broad, sweeping umbrella terms/policies for anything ensures justice isn't served 100% of the time. Our goal is 100% of nations free from oppression, 100% of the world's population free from hungry, 100% peace (after the others have been achieved through force) and to achieve our goals we pledge 100% support to the coalition. Honestly I can't logically comprehend your (IC) beef with ICE other than their/our unorthodox and militant methods (which we've only actually used once against Old Beringia so...)

[Greater Belkan Reich]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203351

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=203596

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=202527

[Phonencia]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203351

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=203596

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=202527

Hmmm. I'm still not sure. You seem okay. You can have a Probationary Membership wherein we'll observe you closely while you RP with us and if you make any slip ups you'll be very quickly kicked from the Coalition. If you prove yourself a decent RPer willing to learn you'll be granted a full membership.

Do you accept the Probationary Membership?

[Finorskia]

Castilla Doctrine is definitely an offensive policy, and there's no doubt about it; I never did anything to hide that. But it does include a clause that might come at your satisfaction, "that [we] will support the principles of popular sovereignty wherever a tyrannical government has been uprooted or otherwise defeated." That's just how I view a "liberated" nation should be run.

Anyways, the "absorbing liberated lands" (and that other quote you provided) is a portion of the old charter, which apparently hasn't been updated on the OOC thread. The new charter, designed by me and Phonencia, doesn't have that, leaving it, again, open to interpretation for member states (apologies for the non-updated charter). That's why no ICE colonial bureau was ever made; it was proposed on multiple occasions, but not everyone could agree to its provisions since everyone has a distinctly different vision for the lands they conquer. Opponents to the proposals just had a very good, reasonable argument that led people to vote against them.

And finally, since Phonencia's the head of ICE, he'll look into such a partnership if he deems it good enough. If not but everyone else thinks we should then I'll look into it.

I'd just like to say that the Coalition ALLOWS expansion and colonization as Quendi has said but we do not enforce it as standard policy. We actually enforce VERY little as standard policy. We let individual member states do what they want. I for instance, would likely colonize a liberated nation (unless the populace was STRONGLY against it) whereas others might NEVER colonize a liberated nation. ICE can't be judged just by a few sections of its (now replaced) charter. We judge and act on things on a case-by-case basis. Using broad, sweeping umbrella terms/policies for anything ensures justice isn't served 100% of the time. Our goal is 100% of nations free from oppression, 100% of the world's population free from hungry, 100% peace (after the others have been achieved through force) and to achieve our goals we pledge 100% support to the coalition. Honestly I can't logically comprehend your (IC) beef with ICE other than their/our unorthodox and militant methods (which we've only actually used once against Old Beringia so...)

My nation will absorb the acquired nation for a short period so that we can rebuild the nation, help the people set up their own government, and train and arm a military force. When all reconstruction objectives are achieved we turn them loose as an antonymous region.

Also I propose a ban on the use of chemical and nuclear weapons during ICE operations (if your nation is in a war by its self with out the backing of ICE than this ban won't apply). My reason for this ban relates to the purpose of this organization. The purpose of ICE is to secure peace and freedom for the people of oppressed nations. I do not see how attacking the people of an oppressed nation with chemical or nuclear weapons is in support of the previous stated clause. Chemical and Nuclear weapons are terror weapons and server no other purpose than to terrorize the citizens of a nation. When we use Nuclear and Chemical weapons we stoop down to the level of the terrorists of which we forsake. In fact I propose that all attacks on civilian populaces be condemned by ICE. Soldiers fight wars so the the People don't have to.

[Greater Belkan Reich]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=203351

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=203596

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=202527

Hmmm. I'm still not sure. You seem okay. You can have a Probationary Membership wherein we'll observe you closely while you RP with us and if you make any slip ups you'll be very quickly kicked from the Coalition. If you prove yourself a decent RPer willing to learn you'll be granted a full membership.

Do you accept the Probationary Membership?

Yes,sir.

Just let me know where the fire is at skipper and I'll be there.

[Phonencia]

What ya'll think of the official seal of the Phonencian Department of War?
(see if you can find the hidden symbols by clicking around randomly with the "fill with colour" tool on MSPaint. I recommend you use the colour yellow or blue.)

I'd just like to say that the Coalition ALLOWS expansion and colonization as Quendi has said but we do not enforce it as standard policy. We actually enforce VERY little as standard policy. We let individual member states do what they want. I for instance, would likely colonize a liberated nation (unless the populace was STRONGLY against it) whereas others might NEVER colonize a liberated nation. ICE can't be judged just by a few sections of its (now replaced) charter. We judge and act on things on a case-by-case basis. Using broad, sweeping umbrella terms/policies for anything ensures justice isn't served 100% of the time. Our goal is 100% of nations free from oppression, 100% of the world's population free from hungry, 100% peace (after the others have been achieved through force) and to achieve our goals we pledge 100% support to the coalition. Honestly I can't logically comprehend your (IC) beef with ICE other than their/our unorthodox and militant methods (which we've only actually used once against Old Beringia so...)

My nation will absorb the acquired nation for a short period so that we can rebuild the nation, help the people set up their own government, and train and arm a military force. When all reconstruction objectives are achieved we turn them loose as an antonymous region.

Also I propose a ban on the use of chemical and nuclear weapons during ICE operations (if your nation is in a war by its self with out the backing of ICE than this ban won't apply). My reason for this ban relates to the purpose of this organization. The purpose of ICE is to secure peace and freedom for the people of oppressed nations. I do not see how attacking the people of an oppressed nation with chemical or nuclear weapons is in support of the previous stated clause. Chemical and Nuclear weapons are terror weapons and server no other purpose than to terrorize the citizens of a nation. When we use Nuclear and Chemical weapons we stoop down to the level of the terrorists of which we forsake. In fact I propose that all attacks on civilian populaces be condemned by ICE. Soldiers fight wars so the the People don't have to.

ICE kinda' condemns and prohibits attacks on civilains in its charter so...

and Chem/Bio weapons are already unofficially banned for use in ICE operations (unless of course the enemy starts using them) and nukes will only be used in rare cases. Likely, if we deploy one it'll be as an EMP weapon (ie, detonating it in space over the target nation) this will likely disable most of that country's military hardware and will almost definately (and permanently) fry its power grid and everything connected to it as well as a lot of civilain cars.

Unless of course they're national preppers like me who have EMP-hardened power plants and military equipment (courtesy of Lyras for the latter)

[United Nations Alliance]

Okay, since Virana wants to see what I can come up with I'll do something up soon. And as for banning chemical weapons...does that mean I wont be allowed to use incediary weapons. All of my ammo is incendiary.

[Phonencia]

Okay, since Virana wants to see what I can come up with I'll do something up soon. And as for banning chemical weapons...does that mean I wont be allowed to use incediary weapons. All of my ammo is incendiary.

Why?

[United Nations Alliance]

Why what? Why si it incendiary ammo? Umm...no reason >.> <.< *totally isn't kind of a pyromaniac, no not at all*

And if you mean why would I write up something for a ICE military department, because I can and because I want to. And because I'm your bro.

[Phonencia]

Why what? Why si it incendiary ammo? Umm...no reason >.> <.< *totally isn't kind of a pyromaniac, no not at all*

And if you mean why would I write up something for a ICE military department, because I can and because I want to. And because I'm your bro.

Incendiary Ammo. Why would your regular infantry use such a thing?

[United Nations Alliance]

Umm...come to think about it I'm not really sure. Maybe because I wanted something unique. And I've always liked incendiary weapons for some reason...could be my fire loving, semi-pyromaniac tendencies. Anyway, who doesn't want to watch thier enemies bases and battlions burn!

[Phonencia]

Umm...come to think about it I'm not really sure. Maybe because I wanted something unique. And I've always liked incendiary weapons for some reason...could be my fire loving, semi-pyromaniac tendencies. Anyway, who doesn't want to watch thier enemies bases and battlions burn!

The same people that also don't want to watch THEIR bases and supply caches burn...

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't Incendiary Ammo require more specialized storage methods compared to conventional ammo? Plus isn't it way more expensive?
*looks around*
VIRANA! GLASWEGISTAN! One of you better know about this subject!
*puts on headset*
alright, let me forward you to our roleplaying support services dude who just happens to be from Pakistan.
*patches you in to Virana*

[United Nations Alliance]

FINE! I'll use regular ammo *grumbles about having to re-equip my troops in Verktha, including my ships and tanks* I'll just have specialised troops with incendiary ammo *goes about planning said troops*

[Meritocratic States]

Umm...come to think about it I'm not really sure. Maybe because I wanted something unique. And I've always liked incendiary weapons for some reason...could be my fire loving, semi-pyromaniac tendencies. Anyway, who doesn't want to watch thier enemies bases and battlions burn!

The same people that also don't want to watch THEIR bases and supply caches burn...

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't Incendiary Ammo require more specialized storage methods compared to conventional ammo? Plus isn't it way more expensive?
*looks around*
VIRANA! GLASWEGISTAN! One of you better know about this subject!
*puts on headset*
alright, let me forward you to our roleplaying support services dude who just happens to be from Pakistan.
*patches you in to Virana*

There's always a webpage from global security.

TL;DR, incendiary ammunition is primarily used for armour penetration. And they do not burn targets... they. blow. shit. up.

EDIT: Remember frag rounds from BF3? (If you have BF3...) Yeah, it's basically those ones.

[United Nations Alliance]

Okay, I just ran the idea about incendiary weapons past my USMC friend (who I'm trying to convince to join NS). And he thinks it would be ahrd to do for regular bullets and tank shells for various reasons, one is it's lack of armour piercing capabilities (I even mentioned armour piercing incendiary shells and he said it would be a hard mix). Incendiary ammo is extremely fragile and against the new Kevlar (the Dragonskin kevlar) it would be useless. Older kevlar would catch on fire though and burn. It's a better AoE weapons since it becomes pretty much unstoppable, but the Genevia Convention forbids the use of napalm...as well as othe rincendiary weapons on or near the civilian population, not that I was going to do that anyway. He said I'd be better off having FMJ ammo for my troops and keeping incendiary weapons for bigger things...like tanks and artillary and ships and bomb....and ICBMs.

EDIT: My USMC friend joined! But I'm sad because he's pretty much a dictatorship when it comes to political freedoms.

[Of the Quendi]

Castilla Doctrine is definitely an offensive policy, and there's no doubt about it; I never did anything to hide that. But it does include a clause that might come at your satisfaction, "that [we] will support the principles of popular sovereignty wherever a tyrannical government has been uprooted or otherwise defeated." That's just how I view a "liberated" nation should be run.

Anyways, the "absorbing liberated lands" (and that other quote you provided) is a portion of the old charter, which apparently hasn't been updated on the OOC thread. The new charter, designed by me and Phonencia, doesn't have that, leaving it, again, open to interpretation for member states (apologies for the non-updated charter). That's why no ICE colonial bureau was ever made; it was proposed on multiple occasions, but not everyone could agree to its provisions since everyone has a distinctly different vision for the lands they conquer. Opponents to the proposals just had a very good, reasonable argument that led people to vote against them.

And finally, since Phonencia's the head of ICE, he'll look into such a partnership if he deems it good enough. If not but everyone else thinks we should then I'll look into it.

I'd just like to say that the Coalition ALLOWS expansion and colonization as Quendi has said but we do not enforce it as standard policy. We actually enforce VERY little as standard policy. We let individual member states do what they want. I for instance, would likely colonize a liberated nation (unless the populace was STRONGLY against it) whereas others might NEVER colonize a liberated nation. ICE can't be judged just by a few sections of its (now replaced) charter. We judge and act on things on a case-by-case basis. Using broad, sweeping umbrella terms/policies for anything ensures justice isn't served 100% of the time. Our goal is 100% of nations free from oppression, 100% of the world's population free from hungry, 100% peace (after the others have been achieved through force) and to achieve our goals we pledge 100% support to the coalition. Honestly I can't logically comprehend your (IC) beef with ICE other than their/our unorthodox and militant methods (which we've only actually used once against Old Beringia so...)

Indeed the self determination clause of the Castilla Doctrine was an improvement to what was (at least at the time) ICE policy on expansionism. My state took offense to most of the Castilla Doctrine (absolutte monarchy = dictatorship in particular) but that section was at least welcomed.

As for the new charter I must admit it seem quite tolerable and contain very little to which my state could object. It would seem that I will have to work a lot harder to find justification for my state's hostility now.

The way the ICE seems very prone to dealing in absolutes will however, as some other moral objections, continue to alienate the People and Senate.

[Veceria]

- Short Reply Form #Start -

The Royal Stratocracy of Veceria hereby resigns from the ICE, as we don't like the idea of being a member of this organization anymore.
We had a nice time in the coalition, but now it's time to go. However, if members of the ICE needs help of any sort,
they should feel free to contact us.

Yours,
Joseph Kraden

- Short Reply Form #End -