The Multiverse Affairs OOC

[Free Metropolitan France]

Haha, what's the meaning of this? You can't use GSA as a scapegoat for everything, buddy.

SM and I offered to compromise, and GSA walked out empty-handed because the UF didn't want a deal that supported only NATO. What GSA offered wasn't a compromise, it was an attempt to increase GSA's power. You can't pretend like it's our fault when we explicitly said we wanted to compromise. We didn't throw a tantrum and walk out. GSA did.

No, they didn't. There were no tantrums thrown. You are unrightfully accusing them.

[Free Metropolitan France]

No deal can be achieved until GSA is present it'd be meaningless.

[The Territories of Sealand]

Should I just get the second attempt at negotiations started?

I believe I would approve of the attempt to get negotiations started on two conditions. The first is Meretica’s approval, and the second is if both sides write a treaty.

Meretica and GSA can both come, though they may not have to talk to each other if both alliances still agree to the treaty anyway. It would prove a major hurdle, and it could potentially cause the treaty to fail, but it might be overcome I suppose. As for the treaty, it could start empty, and both sides could add to the treaty by discussing what would be fair for both sides.

[Meretica]

I'm willing to work with every single member of NATO except GSA, unless GSA makes the following promises, which every other attending member will also have to keep:

1. Attending nations must stay until a compromise is reached or a majority of attending members votes that compromise is impossible.
2. Profanity and personal attacks are not to be used during negotiations.
3. The treaty must be agreed by a majority to be fair and accomplish these goals:
-Keeping the peace permanently
-Ending national sovereignty violations within NATO
-Providing benefits of this treaty to both NATO and the United Federation

[Free Metropolitan France]

I believe I would approve of the attempt to get negotiations started on two conditions. The first is Meretica’s approval, and the second is if both sides write a treaty.

Meretica and GSA can both come, though they may not have to talk to each other if both alliances still agree to the treaty anyway. It would prove a major hurdle, and it could potentially cause the treaty to fail, but it might be overcome I suppose. As for the treaty, it could start empty, and both sides could add to the treaty by discussing what would be fair for both sides.

How about indirect talks between them? Like US-Iran is having in Vienna.

[Meretica]

SM and I offered to compromise, and GSA walked out empty-handed because the UF didn't want a deal that supported only NATO. What GSA offered wasn't a compromise, it was an attempt to increase GSA's power. You can't pretend like it's our fault when we explicitly said we wanted to compromise. We didn't throw a tantrum and walk out. GSA did.

No, they didn't. There were no tantrums thrown. You are unrightfully accusing them.

Tantrums were literally thrown just a few pages ago. Don't see any reason to dig through a good half-dozen threads to find and link the other tantrums.

[Free Metropolitan France]

No, they didn't. There were no tantrums thrown. You are unrightfully accusing them.

Tantrums were literally thrown just a few pages ago. Don't see any reason to dig through a good half-dozen threads to find and link the other tantrums.

Everyone had got out bit of control you can't ignore that. Be it GSA, SM, Ellinikia Nisia

[The Territories of Sealand]

I'm willing to work with every single member of NATO except GSA, unless GSA makes the following promises, which every other attending member will also have to keep:

1. Attending nations must stay until a compromise is reached or a majority of attending members votes that compromise is impossible.
2. Profanity and personal attacks are not to be used during negotiations.
3. The treaty must be agreed by a majority to be fair and accomplish these goals:
-Keeping the peace permanently
-Ending national sovereignty violations within NATO
-Providing benefits of this treaty to both NATO and the United Federation

I agree with these rules.

[Free Metropolitan France]

I'm willing to work with every single member of NATO except GSA, unless GSA makes the following promises, which every other attending member will also have to keep:

1. Attending nations must stay until a compromise is reached or a majority of attending members votes that compromise is impossible.
2. Profanity and personal attacks are not to be used during negotiations.
3. The treaty must be agreed by a majority to be fair and accomplish these goals:
-Keeping the peace permanently
-Ending national sovereignty violations within NATO
-Providing benefits of this treaty to both NATO and the United Federation

I agree with these rules.

There is no violation of national sovereignty in NATO I disagree with that point. Other than that it's fine.

[Meretica]

I agree with these rules.

There is no violation of national sovereignty in NATO I disagree with that point. Other than that it's fine.

There are National Sovereignty violations in NATO. With there being so few alliances right now, nations that are seeking to join an alliance are stuck between NATO, the UF, the GA, or joining a purely economic alliance. No other alliance has taken off the same way as the aforementioned three. The GA is unappealing for a myriad of reasons, and the UF has prospered largely because of that fact. NATO, both then and now, has used flattery, threats, ethically questionable, and morally ambiguous means to accomplish goals. These things have continued after reform in NATO began taking place. The GSA is being allowed to violate the sovereignty of independent nations, both in NATO and outside of it. That can't continue if we are to achieve international peace.

[Janpia]

There is no violation of national sovereignty in NATO I disagree with that point. Other than that it's fine.

There are National Sovereignty violations in NATO. With there being so few alliances right now, nations that are seeking to join an alliance are stuck between NATO, the UF, the GA, or joining a purely economic alliance. No other alliance has taken off the same way as the aforementioned three. The GA is unappealing for a myriad of reasons, and the UF has prospered largely because of that fact. NATO, both then and now, has used flattery, threats, ethically questionable, and morally ambiguous means to accomplish goals. These things have continued after reform in NATO began taking place. The GSA is being allowed to violate the sovereignty of independent nations, both in NATO and outside of it. That can't continue if we are to achieve international peace.

May I ask atleast one incident that this happend?

[Southeast Marajarbia]

There is no violation of national sovereignty in NATO I disagree with that point. Other than that it's fine.

There are National Sovereignty violations in NATO. With there being so few alliances right now, nations that are seeking to join an alliance are stuck between NATO, the UF, the GA, or joining a purely economic alliance. No other alliance has taken off the same way as the aforementioned three. The GA is unappealing for a myriad of reasons, and the UF has prospered largely because of that fact. NATO, both then and now, has used flattery, threats, ethically questionable, and morally ambiguous means to accomplish goals. These things have continued after reform in NATO began taking place. The GSA is being allowed to violate the sovereignty of independent nations, both in NATO and outside of it. That can't continue if we are to achieve international peace.

I semi-agree with Meretica as the GA is unappealing, and yet is a merger between several different alliances including IDSF, my first alliance.

[Greatest States Of America]

There is no violation of national sovereignty in NATO I disagree with that point. Other than that it's fine.

There are National Sovereignty violations in NATO. With there being so few alliances right now, nations that are seeking to join an alliance are stuck between NATO, the UF, the GA, or joining a purely economic alliance. No other alliance has taken off the same way as the aforementioned three. The GA is unappealing for a myriad of reasons, and the UF has prospered largely because of that fact. NATO, both then and now, has used flattery, threats, ethically questionable, and morally ambiguous means to accomplish goals. These things have continued after reform in NATO began taking place. The GSA is being allowed to violate the sovereignty of independent nations, both in NATO and outside of it. That can't continue if we are to achieve international peace.

Do you even have hard solid evidence for that? You are just clung to the hopeless myth that there is a so-called violation. No nation in NATO has ever complained about it except for your edgy remarks. I'm not you. I have never barred anyone from joining UF, GA or any other alliance. Because many members of NATO are part of it and even is fighting alongside you in Galapagos that speaks for itself. And I haven't seen UF being prospering except in your utopia. You support nations like Laka which is a testimony. The only thing standing between peace is your accusations like these.

[The Territories of Sealand]

Reforms relating to national sovereignty could be ensured in the treaty: there is no harm in doing so, and they don't have to make NATO the HRE. While I disagree that there are any more national sovereignty violations made by NATO than by most great powers, both past and present, I'd say that reforms concerning national sovereignty can and should be made.

[Meretica]

There are National Sovereignty violations in NATO. With there being so few alliances right now, nations that are seeking to join an alliance are stuck between NATO, the UF, the GA, or joining a purely economic alliance. No other alliance has taken off the same way as the aforementioned three. The GA is unappealing for a myriad of reasons, and the UF has prospered largely because of that fact. NATO, both then and now, has used flattery, threats, ethically questionable, and morally ambiguous means to accomplish goals. These things have continued after reform in NATO began taking place. The GSA is being allowed to violate the sovereignty of independent nations, both in NATO and outside of it. That can't continue if we are to achieve international peace.

May I ask atleast one incident that this happend?

I'd argue that requiring that 2% GDP goes to military funding is the most basic form of this, but let's dig into some history, shall we?

[Free Metropolitan France]

Meretica cannot call for peace while hurling their counterparts with language of this kind and spineless accusations and assumptions.

[Free Metropolitan France]

May I ask atleast one incident that this happend?

I'd argue that requiring that 2% GDP goes to military funding is the most basic form of this, but let's dig into some history, shall we?

WOW!! 2 percent spending is national sovereignty?? Kudos!!

[English Realm]

Can somebody give me a brief overview of what's happening? A brief check tells me that this has gone from the Galapagos to a US-Meretican conflict.

[Greatest States Of America]

I'd argue that requiring that 2% GDP goes to military funding is the most basic form of this, but let's dig into some history, shall we?

WOW!! 2 percent spending is national sovereignty?? Kudos!!

hahaha

[Janpia]

May I ask atleast one incident that this happend?

I'd argue that requiring that 2% GDP goes to military funding is the most basic form of this, but let's dig into some history, shall we?

Isnt there like the same on UF? Infact, its much more higher because of that certain law afaik. Correct me if Im wrong on that one.
And just incase your gonna say whataboutism, the NATO 2% contribution is required incase theres a nation that joined, but cant defend itself. Think of it as a fee for your protection. NATO is an organization after all. You cant just join and do no contrubutions

And sure, what other accusations you have on NATO?

[The Territories of Sealand]

Can somebody give me a brief overview of what's happening? A brief check tells me that this has gone from the Galapagos to a US-Meretican conflict.

I'm trying to get another peace settlement going, but both sides are more content with arguing about which alliance is worse than achieving peace, though there is no conflict.

[English Realm]

Can somebody give me a brief overview of what's happening? A brief check tells me that this has gone from the Galapagos to a US-Meretican conflict.

I'm trying to get another peace settlement going, but both sides are more content with arguing about which alliance is worse than achieving peace, though there is no conflict.

Let's word it as 'dispute'. In fact, a very toxic dispute by the looks of it. I'm going to pick a side. Soon.

[Free Metropolitan France]

I'm trying to get another peace settlement going, but both sides are more content with arguing about which alliance is worse than achieving peace, though there is no conflict.

Let's word it as 'dispute'. In fact, a very toxic dispute by the looks of it. I'm going to pick a side. Soon.

[Great Scottish Empire]

I'm trying to get another peace settlement going, but both sides are more content with arguing about which alliance is worse than achieving peace, though there is no conflict.

Let's word it as 'dispute'. In fact, a very toxic dispute by the looks of it. I'm going to pick a side. Soon.

Hey England

[The Territories of Sealand]

So is it time for the peace negotiations to begin in Brunswick?