International Forums.   Posted by Referee.Group: 0
Germany
 player, 296 posts
Fri 10 Mar 2017
at 15:22
Ships to Order
In reply to USA (msg # 90):

Likewise, Germany offers the selling of 1 Freude class ship (details in ESA HP) to sell. Any interested party can contact Germany by PM.
Indonesia
 player, 2 posts
 Presiden Agus Yani
 aka AY (pron: Ah Yeah)
Mon 13 Mar 2017
at 05:56
Ships to Order
Indonesia is looking to purchase uplift capacity for the upcoming five year period. We are also looking to expand our native uplift capacity for the future.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 25 posts
Tue 27 Jun 2017
at 03:42
Ships to Order
From news section:
quote:
“After years of work, and with the situation finally improving, Iraq is being divided up by it’s neighbours like some sweet treat while the world looks on. The Saudi’s have spent years stirring up trouble in the south and now their tanks roll into Iraq, to the north the Persians work to destabilise us and take our lands. I fear you will look away from these fiends who wield knives to carve my nation up for their own gain. You cannot abandon us”
Address by President Tarir of Iraq to the UN General Assembly


Saudi Ambassor answer:

Saudi Arabia has not being stirring trouble in Iraq, but trying to stabilize it and fighting the Calipahte there (something we still have to see the Iraqui Army doing, BTW). Now we have seen that Iraq is a failed state, unable to care for its own people, nor to fight the Calipahte in its own territory, and its people in some zones have asked us for protection.

Should we have left them alone, forgotten by their own government, or even worse, in the Caliphate hands?

Saudi troops are now protecting them, still fighting to oust the Caliphate and stabilize the zone, and then let the people decide who do they want to rule over them, in a UN sponsored vote.
Canada
 player, 2 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 04:39
Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

Those are the excuses of the blood soaked conquer, and Canada will not stand for it. Canada calls upon all nations to reflect that as the evil that is the Islamic Caliphate fades we cannot allow a new darkness to arise in it's place. Saudi forces must remove themselves from Iraq now, or they should be removed.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 26 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 13:42
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

Those are the excuses of the blood soaked conquer, and Canada will not stand for it. Canada calls upon all nations to reflect that as the evil that is the Islamic Caliphate fades we cannot allow a new darkness to arise in it's place. Saudi forces must remove themselves from Iraq now, or they should be removed.


And exactly what do you see as a new darkness?

  • Fighting the IC (as we said, we're still to see Iraquí tropos helping on this)?
  • Trying to stabilize the zone?
  • Failing to ignore the plead of a people neglected (when not outright misstreated) by a sectarian failing government?
  • trying to avoid this to develop into a longer civil war?
  • Asking for this same people to vote what status do they want?


See that Saudi Arabia does not even suggest we organize this vote, we asked UN (or the current coaltition) to organize it, so that we will remain as neutral on it as we can. Of course, we can do it, if  it is so decided and no one lese want to.

Saudi Arabia vows to accept the result of this vote. Will Iraqí government also vow that?
Canada
 player, 3 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 04:32
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 95):

More the same excuses, it does not even come close to a validating an invasion. Withdraw your forces from the sovereign territory of Iraq.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 27 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 14:22
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 95):

More the same excuses, it does not even come close to a validating an invasion.


No doubt your troops there have a different vision than ours.

Oh, wait... You have no troops there fighting IC nor helping to stabilize the zone, so you sure have a diferent vision than we have.

Canada:
Withdraw your forces from the sovereign territory of Iraq.


Do you mean to stop fighting IC and trying to stabilize the zone?

Because this is the main mission Saudi troops are preforming there...
USA
 player, 54 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 09:39
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 97):

Saudi Arabia has been fighting against the IC in the area for a long time, and having worked with them we understand their feelings on this matter.

That being said, the reports we have seen suggest this is an invasion of Iraq rather than continuing the fight against IC. That being said we are always concerned about the partiality of these reports.

If anything about Iraq's future is certain, it is that it's future is uncertain - but we agree the people of Iraq should be free to make that choice. If Iraq is to be split along ethnic or religious lines then if it is the will of the Iraqi people, so be it.

This should not, however, be being helped along by Saudi forces occupying the region - the United States will be watching developments closely and would ask Saudi Arabia to withdraw its forces from the areas of Iraq where it is not currently working with coalition forces to drive IC out of the region.

As ever, we would appeal for calm.

I think we have to accept, given the reported sentiments of the Iraqi people, that the future of Iraq is a topic that needs serious consideration, the stability of Iraq's government has fluctuated significantly and it's legitimacy is being questioned by its own people. A conversation must take place - but that conversation must not take place under the barrel of a tank's gun.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 28 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 16:37
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
USA:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 97):

Saudi Arabia has been fighting against the IC in the area for a long time, and having worked with them we understand their feelings on this matter.

That being said, the reports we have seen suggest this is an invasion of Iraq rather than continuing the fight against IC. That being said we are always concerned about the partiality of these reports.


See tht most Saudi foreces where already there fighting IC, so it can hardly be named an invasion...

Fighting IC is not only a matter of military force. Unless we stabilize the zone and beat them in the political/ideological front, it will never be defeated. If we seem to be just returning the zone (and its people) to a governemnt that mistreats them instead of caring, they will be reinforced, no matter what the battle result is.

USA:
If anything about Iraq's future is certain, it is that it's future is uncertain - but we agree the people of Iraq should be free to make that choice. If Iraq is to be split along ethnic or religious lines then if it is the will of the Iraqi people, so be it.


Agreed

USA:
This should not, however, be being helped along by Saudi forces occupying the region - the United States will be watching developments closely and would ask Saudi Arabia to withdraw its forces from the areas of Iraq where it is not currently working with coalition forces to drive IC out of the region.


Saudi forces are not actively helping to split Iraq. They are, though, helping to stabilize and reconstruct the zone, and if this makes people more attached to them than to Iraqi forces that were only misstreating them due to their confession instead of htelping them as it should be their duty, that's, in our eyes, Iraq's fault, not ours.

Since IC creation, Iraqi forces have not been able or willing to help their own people in any way, and, in the case of the sunni population, made them to feel trapped among IC and the sectarion Iraqi government, to the point they had to ask for halp to us.

In Saudi borders there are thousends of Iraqi refugees, and they don't flee only due to IC, but also the sectarian abuses of its government and army. Situation must be stabilized for them to be able to return home and live in peace, under whatever government they choose and cares for them.

USA:
As ever, we would appeal for calm.


Wise appeal is that

USA:
I think we have to accept, given the reported sentiments of the Iraqi people, that the future of Iraq is a topic that needs serious consideration, the stability of Iraq's government has fluctuated significantly and it's legitimacy is being questioned by its own people. A conversation must take place - but that conversation must not take place under the barrel of a tank's gun.


You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.

In the meanwhile, Saudi troops will keep the area as secure as they are able to, and we will continue the reconstruction and stabilization of the área to the best of our capabilities, with the main goals of caring for its people, defeating IC also in the political front and allow the refugees to return home to live their lifes in peace and security.
USA
 player, 55 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 17:04
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Saudi Arabia:
You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.


Given what has been said so far, and that the Saudi's have agreed that this is a time for calm and careful measures, we would then suggest that all Saudi troops in non combat zones be withdrawn and replaced by other forces, let us say Canadian led international forces under the auspices of a UN peacekeeping mission - to assist local communities with security and rebuilding.

This would have the dual benefit of freeing up Saudi forces for the fight against the IC and also reassure the Iraqi government that Saudi forces are not there to occupy what is still Iraqi territory.

I trust, from what both Canada and Saudi Arabia have said, this would be an equitable arrangement for them, and I hope for the Iraqi government also, as this all would, of course, be subject to their agreement - we only propose this as a potential way of achieving a better situation that current.

We would further suggest that additional international aid be given to help the areas affected recover from the IC occupation, and consider this matter in a more formal and less tense time - the US is prepared to provided material aid, but given the feeling towards US troops in the region we will decline to send forces to help in the peace keeping unless completely unavoidable and only if the Iraqi government were to specifically request US forces.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 29 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 17:47
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
USA:
Saudi Arabia:
You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.


Given what has been said so far, and that the Saudi's have agreed that this is a time for calm and careful measures, we would then suggest that all Saudi troops in non combat zones be withdrawn and replaced by other forces, let us say Canadian led international forces under the auspices of a UN peacekeeping mission - to assist local communities with security and rebuilding.


Combat zones are quite fluid right now, as your own troops can tell you, and this same zone kept by Saudi troops is the one where our (and some other colatition countries') supply lines go through.

We warn you that Saudi troops, aside from be better acclimatated, now have the trust of the people in the zone, a benefit that Canadian forces will not have.

We will wellcome Canadian (or US, or any UN decided country) advisors and observers to see that Saudi troops are not playing dirty i nthis matter, but we keep thinking our troops are the best suited for the misión.

If our troops leave, Iraqi ones will probably reneter in the zone (and, as Canada has been expresing themselves to now, they can hardly oppose to that. Are you naive enough to think they will now change their attitude, or do you believe a revenge range is more likely (even if its government tries to avoid it)?


USA:
This would have the dual benefit of freeing up Saudi forces for the fight against the IC and also reassure the Iraqi government that Saudi forces are not there to occupy what is still Iraqi territory.


Is Saudi opinion that while the colaition has enough troops for a military victory against IC, what we need now i the trust of the people, and we're afraid that would be lost in this case.

USA:
I trust, from what both Canada and Saudi Arabia have said, this would be an equitable arrangement for them, and I hope for the Iraqi government also, as this all would, of course, be subject to their agreement - we only propose this as a potential way of achieving a better situation that current.


DO you say you trust us? then do it. Send advisors and observers (yours or from any other trusted country), help us to stabilize the zone, and help to organize the vote for people living there to decide.

USA:
We would further suggest that additional international aid be given to help the areas affected recover from the IC occupation, and consider this matter in a more formal and less tense time - the US is prepared to provided material aid, but given the feeling towards US troops in the region we will decline to send forces to help in the peace keeping unless completely unavoidable and only if the Iraqi government were to specifically request US forces.


Wise suggestion again. To now, little has been done in this way, as little has been done to help the refugees, apaprently being seen by the international community at large (excepting some good willing NGOs) as "Saudi problem". If this has made them to trust us more tan others, again we don't see as our fault.

Again, send UN advisors and observers, and let the Saudi troops to keep the área as secure as they can for the good of its people.

EDIT: (of course OOC): I really fumbled with a private comment, ignoring those it was intended to go for instead of adding them. Please if you read it and now don't see it, disregard what was on it. Now it's for those intended.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:31, Tue 04 July.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 32 posts
Tue 22 Aug 2017
at 11:59
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
After many years of war and oppression by the sectarian governemnt of Iraq, and after the Iraqi refugees crisis Saudi Arabia has been suffereing for nearly 10 years now, we feel it's time for the Iraqi sunnis to decide their own future and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection.

Saudi Arabia formally ask international organizations (mostly UN and OECD, but also others) help in the reconstruction to the zone and in organizing the vote that should decide their future.

To this goals, we invite NGOs as well to help in reconstruction as son as the zone is secured from IC to allow the refugees to return home before their champs become the permanent cities they have in other cases.

We specifically ask for UN help in the refugees return and to conduct a census for the vote, that we suggest (we're open to other options) to be held (as son as the refugees are at home and the census is finished) in two rounds:

In the first round there could be several options. We'd suggest 3 of them:
  • rejoin Iraq
  • independence
  • joining Saudi Arabia

In the second round, and assuming such a decisión may not be taken with less than 50% support, we's suggest the two most voted options to confront themselves (quite akin the French, among others, elections).

THis sould be done as quick as possible, and with a date limit of 2049 (we hope, with international help, not to take that long, though). After the vote, unless the result is for joining Arabia Saudi, Saudi tropos will withdraw and leave them to be the masters of their own lives.

As all crisis, they are opportunities too, and it may be time to begin to fix the historical errors commited after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire first, and the decolonization latter, by making artificial borders without hearing the opinion of the dwellers.

EDIT (OOC): I changed the date I put 2045 for 2049, as what I meant was before the end of next turn, but don't wanted to put it in those trems when talking IC

This message was last edited by the player at 15:27, Fri 25 Aug.

Canada
 player, 4 posts
Thu 24 Aug 2017
at 17:03
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 102):

>...and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection. <snip> ... joining Saudi Arabia

Really? You want to go with that? Thank you I suppose. Thank you for admitting that this was never a mercy mission, that you lied to us when you said it was about stabilizing the region, that you do not care if our forces are Christian. This was only ever another memetic campaign to tell us to go to hell and make us anticipate the trip.

Let me guess, no matter what the outcome Saudi is going to make sure, intervening in force, that the Iraqi nation never again holds sway over the Sunni dominated lands. And how about that initial quick withdrawal of the Iraqi army...Saudi's doing too I presume? Actually, don't bother answering, we all already know what the truth is.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Saudi Arabia for admitting that. You have made the following so very much easier.

---------------------------
To Germany and the rest of the Western world, I understand, you are tired, you have been fighting for such a long time and Saudi has been so free with providing you oil in the times of shortfall. You started to make little moral compromises because it seemed like the easiest, again and again, hoping that all your problems would just go away you stuck your neck far out for Saudi...and Saudi just cut it off. You do not have to send in your armies, not yet, do what Canada is doing use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.

To the non-Western world, are you tired of the smugness of the West? How many times has it been proven to you that colonialism is not dead, it has just been re-branded. Well here is your chance, after so long of the West presuming that only the West can occupy the moral high ground, the West has tired of it. Prove to everyone that you can take that moral high ground. Use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 33 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 10:44
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 102):

>...and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection. <snip> ... joining Saudi Arabia


Please, when quoting another one's words be at least so honest as to quote all relevant parts. You only quote one of the options given (and, We remember, open to suggestions), carefully forgueting the other two: Rejoining Iraq and Independence.

So convinced were you that this will be the result in the vote?

Other countries representatives can read and are no idiots, and you feel like not entering in this description if you believe this manipulation will not be evident.

Canada:
Really? You want to go with that? Thank you I suppose. Thank you for admitting that this was never a mercy mission, that you lied to us when you said it was about stabilizing the region, that you do not care if our forces are Christian. This was only ever another memetic campaign to tell us to go to hell and make us anticipate the trip.


So, in your eyes, allowing the refugees to return home is not a mercy mission nor stabilizing the zone, while convincing someone to go to war is?

If your idea of marcy mission and stabilizing the zone is this one, then Saudi Arabia is not trying to. To us, the idea of mercy misión and stabilizing the zone is to avoid people being opressed by a sectarian government and to allow the refugees to return home by offering them a secure área to call so.

Why are you so afraid of a stable Middle east?

What has Arabian (in the larger sense, not only Saudis) people done to you to so desire to keep us at permanent war?

Why are you allying with the Caliphate by moveing others to fight a member of the Coalition?

Why are you so coward as not to join the coalition when you could, and now using others to fight for your dark interests of avoiding a stable Middle East?

Why are you so full of hate on the idea of people deciding their future and borders, instead of just accepting what colonial powers imposed without hearing the dwellers?

Why do you beleive force should prevail over vote?

Why this difference among this paceful operation to protect people who asked for it and the occupaation of Palestine, that was not so friendly and against the will of its dwellers?

Why this difference when the mercy operation is taken by NATO in Kosovo (then part of Serbia) or by Saudi Arabia in Sunni Iraq?

Was this your plan too if the Quebequois, that you allowed to vote for their Independence, had decided to become independent? Would you likewise had invaded them? Or they have the right ,as they are civilized instead of the babarian Arabain population?

Canada:
Let me guess, no matter what the outcome Saudi is going to make sure, intervening in force, that the Iraqi nation never again holds sway over the Sunni dominated lands. And how about that initial quick withdrawal of the Iraqi army...Saudi's doing too I presume? Actually, don't bother answering, we all already know what the truth is.


Saudi Arabia has pledged to respect the result of the vote, something you, as a representative of the democratic Western nations, seem not to, prefering to move your puppets to war before accepting people to decide in a vote.

Canada:
To Germany and the rest of the Western world, I understand, you are tired, you have been fighting for such a long time and Saudi has been so free with providing you oil in the times of shortfall. You started to make little moral compromises because it seemed like the easiest, again and again, hoping that all your problems would just go away you stuck your neck far out for Saudi...and Saudi just cut it off. You do not have to send in your armies, not yet, do what Canada is doing use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.


Yes, Western world, hear to Canadian Government and his hate filled words, and remember the Arabian people does not deserve to be heard. You made little moral compromises, as allowing refugees camps to become permanent cities in Jordan and Lebanon, and there's no reason not to act likelwise in Saudi Arabia. Those refugees don't deserve to be allowed to return home, better to keep on them the threat of their sectarian cogernment revenging on them, so they will keep their heads down.

Is really that what you think and want, or you want them to be able to return home and find a secure place where to live?

Saudi Arabia, unlike Canada, is involved in the stabilization of the zone, and has fought side with side with you to achieve it. We suggest a vote to allow people decide, not an indefinite military occupation, as others do.

And to Canadian poeple, proud of a nation that has been a democracy and welfare beacon, that has helped the less fortunate when needed; how can you support this morally corrupt government, that incites proxy wars to avoid an already unstable zone of the Word to stabilize?

Canada:
To the non-Western world, are you tired of the smugness of the West? How many times has it been proven to you that colonialism is not dead, it has just been re-branded. Well here is your chance, after so long of the West presuming that only the West can occupy the moral high ground, the West has tired of it. Prove to everyone that you can take that moral high ground. Use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.


Yes, Canada is right: colonialism is not over, and here we have an example. Canadian Government (because we don't believe thoir people agree) still believes their moral superiority allows them to decide what borders must be, even against the dwellers will, and to move people to war when peace could be in sight.

Remember to keep your heads down and bow before them, as they are the Masters and have the right to decide when something is an illegal occupation and what is not.

Remember, Israel has the right to keep Palestine occupied for a century against their people's will, but Saudi Arabia is evil because they hear Iraqi sunnis plea for help and defend them, and even worse, we give them voice and vote before making anything permanent. How do we dare, not being Westerners, to do so?

This message was last edited by the player at 11:43, Fri 25 Aug.

Russia
 player, 28 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 14:46
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.

OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.

This message was last edited by the player at 14:54, Fri 25 Aug.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 34 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 15:34
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
OOC
Russia:
OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.


This is just what Q1/A1 in the point 1.4 of the reules means, or at least how I understand it.

Russia:
(Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).


Memebers i ndispute in a UNSC meeting are, per UNSC rules, invited, regarless being memebers or not, with voice but without vote.


Russia:
---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.


IC

point 2.1: Canada is now helping IC terrorists by diverting some coalition ressources from the fight against it. It has also involved in the issue, so their forces might  never be peackeeping (as they should come from uninvolved nations) under UNSC. While recognizing Russian good intent on this, are also too involved in the zone to be considered neutral, so they are neither elegible as peacekeepers.

point 2.2: Saudi forces inetered in the zone to accomplish a UN mandate and to avoid the Iraqi government from commiting what began to seem a genocide. They will leave when asked by the people living there ask us so, as they asked us for help. UN (or PROTO, OSCD, Islamic Councel or other similar organizations) and NGOs observers observers are wellcome to witness Saudi operations in the zone (Canadian are excluded from this last sentence, and will be considered as hostile, as we don't want terrorosts, nor their friends and supporters).

point 2.3: The vote (we will use this more generic word) should be called only for the affected population, not the whole Iraq. Otherwise, UN would be falling in what UN itself has defined as minorization. That would have been as asking the whole Serbia for Kosovo or Montenegro, or as asking the whole Canada for Quebeq Independence, ot as if the whole URSS had voted in the various independences in the early 90's.

  Saudi Arabia has already asked UN (and other organizations) for help in this one, as first the refugees must return home and a census must be acomplished. We'll make all efforts to keep with the 20491 dataline.

  We suggest UN to take the effective administration of the zone for the refugees return ,reconstruction, census and vote, while Saudi Arabia forces will just keep the security for the zone.

This message was last edited by the player at 19:19, Fri 25 Aug.

Germany
 player, 317 posts
Sat 26 Aug 2017
at 11:36
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Russia:
Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.


German opinion:

Point 1:

We agree with the deploying of peacekeeping UN forces. If any party does not allow for it, then subject it to sanctions.

Point 2 (at large):

A cessfire must be implemented, efect immediate until the situation is decided.

We don't believe (as Saudi Arabia says) Canada to be friend of terrorists or IC, but we must agree right now they are the more benefited of their meddling. Canada (and everyone else) should stop immediatly to support any offensive operations (except against IC).

An investigation about the Saudi claims things were nearing a genocide, and we agree with Saudi proposal of a UN civilian administration until things are solved (akin with what NATO did in Kosovo).
Russia
 player, 29 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 19:49
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Germany (msg # 107):

Just in case: Russia votes "yes" to all propositions.
Also Russia sees German speech as reasonable but does not understand: Germany votes "yes", or "no", or "no, but here is our proposition"?
Germany
 player, 323 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 20:32
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 107):

Just in case: Russia votes "yes" to all propositions.
Also Russia sees German speech as reasonable but does not understand: Germany votes "yes", or "no", or "no, but here is our proposition"?


The boldened one in the quote: no, but here's our proposition.

We believe we'll all agree in the need of a ceasefire, and the only way we see it possible right now is along the current lines, hoping Saudi Arabia is true in its intent. If they prove otherwise, the will be time to act.

And in any case, if some peacekeepers are decided to be sent, they should be from uninvolved country, and this discards both Russian and Canadian (as well as German and many others, for what's worth).
Canada
 player, 5 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 05:51
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Israel? Quebec? Kosovo? Islamic Caliphate collaborators? Canadian manhood? On and on. You know what it means when when someone pulls this right? ...It means that they know they have done something heinous but they lack even the moral character to take ownership of it and instead invest in the forlorn hope that in pumping out enough distractions maybe someone is dumb enough to debate one of those distractions. The issue is simple, get out of Iraq you Saudi blood soaked conquer before you make the bad situation that you started even worse.

Resolutions? Investigations? Peacekeepers? ...Gooood M'rning everybody! Time to rise and shine! That cooked meat smell is not bacon, it is charred human flesh. That rock in your bunny slippers is blasted rubble. That sunshine peaking out on the start of a beautiful day is the light of bombs going off. It is war everybody! You tried to pretend that it would not happen but boy is it here with all of the death and spreading chaos I told you would happen if you did not do anything. Go ahead, blame Iraq and Canada for being part of it, we all know that a rape victim should just lean back, let it happen, not fight back; but here we are. There is no peace to keep and anyone without tank divisions (note the plural) cannot separate the combatants. You can either stand aside and let Saudi Arabia dismember Iraq, or you help Iraq to defend itself and be a stable and prosperous nation. I told you that these were your only two options and nobody believed me. More talking means you have gone for the first option.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 35 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 12:52
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Canada:
That cooked meat smell is not bacon, it is charred human flesh. That rock in your bunny slippers is blasted rubble. That sunshine peaking out on the start of a beautiful day is the light of bombs going off. It is war everybody!


You're right, and that's the result of Canadian mededling in what was being, while not a peaceful action, at least a bloodless one, until Cansda, i nwhat seem a bloodtrhist rage, convinced the Iraqis to fight.

Canada:
You tried to pretend that it would not happen but boy is it here with all of the death and spreading chaos I told you would happen if you did not do anything.


It's easy to foretell what will happen, when you're the one forcing it to happen...

Saudi Arabia will abide the ceasefire along current lines to dedícate its efforts to reconstruction, but will respond to any attack.
Australia
 player, 1 post
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 14:24
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
OOC: I request for GM to decide vote of Australia to Russian proposition in UNSC.
Nigeria
 player, 7 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 14:58
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
Russia:
---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.

OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.


About point 1: Nigeria is deploying a brigada of peacekeepers along with Australia, as Un has asked. As Turkey seems not to be collaborating, we suggest economic sanctions to it until they allow independent investigation.

About point 2 (at large too): while Nigeria does not like the Saudi action, we see some point in their claim of the troubles post-colonialism imposed borders (after all, Africa is not free of that, to say the least) and we see more realist the German proposal: ordering a ceasefire and a UN administration of the zone while looking for a more permanet solution.
Co-GM
 GM, 169 posts
Sun 3 Sep 2017
at 05:45
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Australia (msg # 112):

>OOC: I request for GM to decide vote of Australia to Russian proposition in UNSC.
Request denied. Until I say otherwise you are the player for Australia and will make the decisions for Australia.
Canada
 player, 6 posts
Sun 3 Sep 2017
at 05:46
Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 111):

To repeat; go ahead, blame Iraq and Canada for being part of it, we all know that a rape victim should just lean back, let it happen, not fight back.