The Multiverse Affairs OOC

[Deblar]

Socialism? SM has gotta be one of the most capitalistic nations in this whole roleplay

Democratic Socialism. I was a Bernie supporter before switching to Biden, you know.

Democratic Socialism implies that you aim to use democracy to give the state or the workers control over the means of production, but this isn’t the place to debate ideological theory

[Southeast Marajarbia]

Democratic Socialism. I was a Bernie supporter before switching to Biden, you know.

Democratic Socialism implies that you aim to use democracy to give the state or the workers control over the means of production, but this isn’t the place to debate ideological theory

Even so, that’s exactly what I am doing. Gov. Andrews is creating a tourist paradise with a mixed economy of both Capitalism and Democratic Socialism.

[Zarnicovia nova]

I'm exhausted from a new pile of school work so the RP on a power vaccum and the riots and church and army and non-cannon. I am just too exhausted to coutinue those RPs. We will remain a democracy and my plans to become a monarchy through RP have been destroyed by my Utah history teacher's project about citizenship. He would be proud.

[The Military State of the Galapagos]

Socialism? SM has gotta be one of the most capitalistic nations in this whole roleplay

Democratic Socialism. I was a Bernie supporter before switching to Biden, you know.

Meh your still a communist

[Zarnicovia nova]

Democratic Socialism. I was a Bernie supporter before switching to Biden, you know.

Meh your still a communist

Commie bastards taking over everything
Meh bit too far for my liking nor the companies

[The Military State of the Galapagos]

The Americans interfering with South American, now where have I seen this before. But on a serious note I would rather take domination by the Americans then domination by SM and their corrupt communist regime

[Zarnicovia nova]

The Americans interfering with South American, now where have I seen this before. But on a serious note I would rather take domination by the Americans then domination by SM and their corrupt communist regime

Yeah I would too if it we're for the fact that our nation was dominated and colonized/owned by the americans and look their went 15 million people to heaven I wonder why?

[The Military State of the Galapagos]

The Americans interfering with South American, now where have I seen this before. But on a serious note I would rather take domination by the Americans then domination by SM and their corrupt communist regime

Yeah I would too if it we're for the fact that our nation was dominated and colonized/owned by the americans and look their went 15 million people to heaven I wonder why?

I just hate SM

[Southeast Marajarbia]

Here is TIAN link: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=501707

[Zarnicovia nova]

I am thinking of having an international court session over 8 dudes who are chagred with causing a nuclear disaster on the scale of chernobyl causing unrepayable pain and suffering and breaking international nuclear safety regulations. Would anyone be interest?

[Deutschen Kaiserreichs]

I am thinking of having an international court session over 8 dudes who are chagred with causing a nuclear disaster on the scale of chernobyl causing unrepayable pain and suffering and breaking international nuclear safety regulations. Would anyone be interest?

I would.

[Southeast Marajarbia]

GreatOceania, if the attempt to capture some of your soldiers is successful, do you want to RP a diplomatic negotiation to get them back?

[Meretica]

Here is TIAN link: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=501707

I've just applied the MTC to join that.

[Zarnicovia nova]

The RP: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=512960

[Greatest States Of America]

We're not introducing full-blown socialism; SM is working to create decent jobs with decent wages in a bad economic situation. Though I'd prefer that a different economic plan was used, this is what we have to work with.

Also, the Peacekeepers aren't needed, and sending them will likely worsen tensions with the GLA. That has full potential to start a war. Am I the only one thinking about this??

You aren’t the only one. GreatOceania is pretty much sending troops doing a lot of aggressive actions at this point in the Galapagos, and that not only makes NATO look bad, but also makes sending “peacekeepers” (which is obviously not their intention in the first place) seem pointless.

Yeah? No. We don't say anything else other than that we mean. It isn't even possible for anyone to do a peacekeeping mission in the cover of war. So I'd highly suggest you and all the others who don't know about peacekeeping to bother themselves to read the definition of peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping comprises activities intended to create conditions that favour lasting peace. Research generally finds that peacekeeping reduces civilian and battlefield deaths, as well as reduces the risk of renewed warfare.
Within the United Nations (UN) group of nation-state governments and organisations, there is a general understanding that at the international level, peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas, and may assist ex-combatants in implementing peace agreement commitments that they have undertaken. Such assistance may come in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly, the UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Berets or Blue Helmets because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

The United Nations is not the only organisation to implement peacekeeping missions. Non-UN peacekeeping forces include the NATO mission in Kosovo (with United Nations authorisation) and the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula or the ones organised by the European Union (like EUFOR RCA, with UN authorisation) and the African Union (like the African Union Mission in Sudan). The Nonviolent Peaceforce is one NGO widely considered to have expertise in general peacemaking by non-governmental volunteers or activists.

Under international law, peacekeepers are non-combatants due to their neutral stance in the conflict between two or more belligerent parties (to the same extent as neutral personnel and properties outside of peacekeeping duties) and are to be protected from attacks at all times.

But I think you are flat out denying it or you don't know about it. And if there is nothing wrong that you are doing in Galapagos why are you afraid of peacekeepers?

[Meretica]

You aren’t the only one. GreatOceania is pretty much sending troops doing a lot of aggressive actions at this point in the Galapagos, and that not only makes NATO look bad, but also makes sending “peacekeepers” (which is obviously not their intention in the first place) seem pointless.

Yeah? No. We don't say anything else other than that we mean. It isn't even possible for anyone to do a peacekeeping mission in the cover of war. So I'd highly suggest you and all the others who don't know about peacekeeping to bother themselves to read the definition of peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping comprises activities intended to create conditions that favour lasting peace. Research generally finds that peacekeeping reduces civilian and battlefield deaths, as well as reduces the risk of renewed warfare.
Within the United Nations (UN) group of nation-state governments and organisations, there is a general understanding that at the international level, peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas, and may assist ex-combatants in implementing peace agreement commitments that they have undertaken. Such assistance may come in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly, the UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Berets or Blue Helmets because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

The United Nations is not the only organisation to implement peacekeeping missions. Non-UN peacekeeping forces include the NATO mission in Kosovo (with United Nations authorisation) and the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula or the ones organised by the European Union (like EUFOR RCA, with UN authorisation) and the African Union (like the African Union Mission in Sudan). The Nonviolent Peaceforce is one NGO widely considered to have expertise in general peacemaking by non-governmental volunteers or activists.

Under international law, peacekeepers are non-combatants due to their neutral stance in the conflict between two or more belligerent parties (to the same extent as neutral personnel and properties outside of peacekeeping duties) and are to be protected from attacks at all times.

But I think you are flat out denying it or you don't know about it. And if there is nothing wrong that you are doing in Galapagos why are you afraid of peacekeepers?

I can't name a single nation other than you or France that acknowledges the existence of a UN. Most, such as myself, recognize the In-Game World Assembly and not the UN.

[Greatest States Of America]

Yeah? No. We don't say anything else other than that we mean. It isn't even possible for anyone to do a peacekeeping mission in the cover of war. So I'd highly suggest you and all the others who don't know about peacekeeping to bother themselves to read the definition of peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping comprises activities intended to create conditions that favour lasting peace. Research generally finds that peacekeeping reduces civilian and battlefield deaths, as well as reduces the risk of renewed warfare.
Within the United Nations (UN) group of nation-state governments and organisations, there is a general understanding that at the international level, peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas, and may assist ex-combatants in implementing peace agreement commitments that they have undertaken. Such assistance may come in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly, the UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Berets or Blue Helmets because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

The United Nations is not the only organisation to implement peacekeeping missions. Non-UN peacekeeping forces include the NATO mission in Kosovo (with United Nations authorisation) and the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula or the ones organised by the European Union (like EUFOR RCA, with UN authorisation) and the African Union (like the African Union Mission in Sudan). The Nonviolent Peaceforce is one NGO widely considered to have expertise in general peacemaking by non-governmental volunteers or activists.

Under international law, peacekeepers are non-combatants due to their neutral stance in the conflict between two or more belligerent parties (to the same extent as neutral personnel and properties outside of peacekeeping duties) and are to be protected from attacks at all times.

But I think you are flat out denying it or you don't know about it. And if there is nothing wrong that you are doing in Galapagos why are you afraid of peacekeepers?

I can't name a single nation other than you or France that acknowledges the existence of a UN. Most, such as myself, recognize the In-Game World Assembly and not the UN.

The topic wasn't about the UN. It is about giving a reference it's up to you which international body you follow.

[Janpia]

Im starting to feel the Boxer rebellion or the 55 Days of Peking vibes in Galapagos. But instead, the foreign powers are fighting amongst each other instead of being united

[Greatest States Of America]

Im starting to feel the Boxer rebellion or the 55 Days of Peking vibes in Galapagos. But instead, the foreign powers are fighting amongst each other instead of being united

I wouldn't call it similar to the boxer rebellion. In boxer, rebellion countries were fighting for the one main purpose of protecting their citizens in China.
You can draw parallels of Korean War. The only side fightings are SM and Oceania.

[Meretica]

I can't name a single nation other than you or France that acknowledges the existence of a UN. Most, such as myself, recognize the In-Game World Assembly and not the UN.

The topic wasn't about the UN. It is about giving a reference it's up to you which international body you follow.

But your wording implies that we are inherently wrong for not following the UN... which would mean following you without question as a permanent Security Council member.

[Greatest States Of America]

The topic wasn't about the UN. It is about giving a reference it's up to you which international body you follow.

But your wording implies that we are inherently wrong for not following the UN... which would mean following you without question as a permanent Security Council member.

There isn't a word that suggests I called out you or anyone for not following UN. But it's up to you how you interpret it otherwise there's no mention of anything like that.

[Vikanias]

I have a scenario planned where I send BÏG FÄT ŠÄÜŠÄGË to tell his life story from 1953 till now, in an attempt to lure out some GLA to kill him. Some military guys are also there to capture any GLA member and get information by any means.

[Southeast Marajarbia]

Yeah? No. We don't say anything else other than that we mean. It isn't even possible for anyone to do a peacekeeping mission in the cover of war. So I'd highly suggest you and all the others who don't know about peacekeeping to bother themselves to read the definition of peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping comprises activities intended to create conditions that favour lasting peace. Research generally finds that peacekeeping reduces civilian and battlefield deaths, as well as reduces the risk of renewed warfare.
Within the United Nations (UN) group of nation-state governments and organisations, there is a general understanding that at the international level, peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas, and may assist ex-combatants in implementing peace agreement commitments that they have undertaken. Such assistance may come in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly, the UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Berets or Blue Helmets because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

The United Nations is not the only organisation to implement peacekeeping missions. Non-UN peacekeeping forces include the NATO mission in Kosovo (with United Nations authorisation) and the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula or the ones organised by the European Union (like EUFOR RCA, with UN authorisation) and the African Union (like the African Union Mission in Sudan). The Nonviolent Peaceforce is one NGO widely considered to have expertise in general peacemaking by non-governmental volunteers or activists.

Under international law, peacekeepers are non-combatants due to their neutral stance in the conflict between two or more belligerent parties (to the same extent as neutral personnel and properties outside of peacekeeping duties) and are to be protected from attacks at all times.

But I think you are flat out denying it or you don't know about it. And if there is nothing wrong that you are doing in Galapagos why are you afraid of peacekeepers?

I can't name a single nation other than you or France that acknowledges the existence of a UN. Most, such as myself, recognize the In-Game World Assembly and not the UN.

I agree with Meretica here. The UN does not exist, the WA is the sole possible thing that could be a UN, and then you have UF and GA, both of which are WA successors. Since the UN doesn’t exist on NS officially, I have yet to see proof of why many recognize NATO when ICly, such a charter would not make sense to those who recognize the WA or it’s successors.

[Greatest States Of America]

I can't name a single nation other than you or France that acknowledges the existence of a UN. Most, such as myself, recognize the In-Game World Assembly and not the UN.

I agree with Meretica here. The UN does not exist, the WA is the sole possible thing that could be a UN, and then you have UF and GA, both of which are WA successors. Since the UN doesn’t exist on NS officially, I have yet to see proof of why many recognize NATO when ICly, such a charter would not make sense to those who recognize the WA or it’s successors.

Oh, yeah? Which GA? the one you left because of your interests? UF and GA haven't to a day implemented any resolution passed by WA General Assembly or Security Council. And don't force others to change their lore and story just because of your beliefs. And as far as your NATO concerns are related they have joined it because they have beliefs and their security interests.
Its Charter lights everything it stands for, unlike your alliances which have had no charter.

[Southeast Marajarbia]

I agree with Meretica here. The UN does not exist, the WA is the sole possible thing that could be a UN, and then you have UF and GA, both of which are WA successors. Since the UN doesn’t exist on NS officially, I have yet to see proof of why many recognize NATO when ICly, such a charter would not make sense to those who recognize the WA or it’s successors.

Oh, yeah? Which GA? the one you left because of your interests? UF and GA haven't to a day implemented any resolution passed by WA General Assembly or Security Council. And don't force others to change their lore and story just because of your beliefs. And as far as your NATO concerns are related they have joined it because they have beliefs and their security interests.
Its Charter lights everything it stands for, unlike your alliances which have had no charter.

(Bolding Mine) You do know that I rejoined GA, right? Not only that, but the reason why no WA legislation has been passed by UF or GA is because some members either do not like the WA and have lost faith in its democratic institutions, or because WA successors are successors, meaning that it is not required for them who abide by a majority of their predecessors laws if the members of said successor do not want to.

Also, wdym by "story and lore"? NATO has no story nor lore, because its a complete replica of the actual RL NATO. The link you posted on the NATO thread links to the RL charter. Hell, the first couple of pages of the NATO sign up thread just involves nations based off of RL with RL leaders. That's not story or lore unless you create it yourself, mate.