United Nations of Kerbin meeting invitation

I see. Your government is in fact very prone to unanimously accept a savage and undemocratic act as a declaration of war, but then squabble and divides himself when the size of their error dawns on them and is apparently willing to sacrifice his People for their imperialistic views.

I think says a lot about your government and their stance.

We find it hard not to question the fact that all of the discussion seems to be taking place here, as opposed to doing so at the actual meeting. Perhaps the current topic would be better if saved until then?

We believe that sensitive topics such as these must be discussed at the earliest opportunity. By the time of the meeting, the situation may have escalated further, and we are sure that our various diplomats are happy with doing what they are paid to do.

There is no situation that could escalate. All comments shall be made at the meeting.

We disagree that this situation cannot escalate further, and we hope to resolve it as soon as possible. We hope to if possible enter the meeting with a 'clean slate', and we believe such an event would be much more productive and frankly less dangerous, (since this is one of the few occasions when the world can be ruined in an afternoon) if such major quarrels were out of the way before the time of the meeting. We are not willing to drop such an important matter in any case. Now, please, in the interests of international peace and stability, withdraw your request. You have our word that our military forces will only act if provoked.

Matters of such a severity are always best discussed in person. To hide behind the written word when debating such things is a great dishonour to one's countrymen.

This is in ternational diplomacy, not a neighbor squabble. We have invented long range communications for a reason.

Also, hiding behind cultural traditions to avoid a confrontation is embarassing, I have to say.

We believe that there is truth in what you are saying--personal discussion can be more production. However, we do not say how we are hiding behind the written word--in fact, we are not sure what you mean--and we also believe that personal discussion can be dangerous, as it allows emotions to get the better of one's judgement. When one has time to reflect on what the other kerb has said and in turn consider his own answer, the situation is less likely to get out of control. While personal conversation means that more, of course, can be said, we believe the quality of speech is important in this case as well as the quantity. Regardless, we are not here to debate philosophy, and putting all such debates aside, we wish for this situation be resolved as quickly as possible and without the need for face-to-face interaction, lest rash words be spoken to the detriment of all involved.

The request to the UN for an international garrison is still going ahead as planned. If WPRP says there is nothing for us to worry about (your forces only attacking if provoked), then surely that means it has nothing to hide, and a garrision shouldn't interfere with any of it's plans.

borisperrons wrote:This is in ternational diplomacy, not a neighbor squabble. We have invented long range communications for a reason.

Also, hiding behind cultural traditions to avoid a confrontation is embarassing, I have to say.

I must apologise, my grasp of Kortugan must not be what I believed it to be. After all, it cannot possibly be the case that a diplomat such at yourself would stoop so low as to try and indeed [i]fail]/i] to turn around that was just used against them? We seek to postpone this "confrontation" until such a time as it can be settled in person, as opposed to through the medium of script. This time has already, we believe, been set and so by postponing this debate until then could not possibly be construed as "hiding" in the sense that I had used it.
I was led to believe that the term referred to protecting oneself from criticism or punishment, especially in a way considered cowardly. Am I incorrect?

Yuriski wrote:The treaty states that we will allow WPRP to station it's forces in Aquitae.

It doesn't even do that! It just says that they will, and doesn't give any actions you are required to take about this. There is no requirement for you to allow them to stay, to supply them with provisions, or anything else.

borisperrons wrote:Yes, they chickened out when the foe they believed an easy prey turned out to be backed by the Internationalist Friendship of the WPRP.

Anyway, our point stands as it was presented.

We thought it was the Interventionalist Friendship, seeing as you interfere with the affairs of everyone and use your power to bully smaller nations.

Warriorbulb wrote:We thought it was the Interventionalist Friendship, seeing as you interfere with the affairs of everyone and use your power to bully smaller nations.

Can we know what have you based that upon? As far as we know, being part of the WPRP, we havent yet bullied any smaller nation, nor interferred with one's internal affairs.

Aquitae, Terripania, Osonia, CICS, a few others but you get our point. You may not have done anything wrong, but others of your group have.

Warriorbulb wrote:Aquitae, Terripania, Osonia, CICS, a few others but you get our point.  You may not have done anything wrong, but others of your group have.

Yes, we get the point that you are making accusations unsupported by any kind of real proof.
It would be like someone accusing you to have burned innocent women and children to force a government into surrender, if there wasn't any proof of it.

Well, for one you prevented the CICS from helping a possible ally by threatening to blow our fleet out of the water!

twinky827 wrote:Well, for one you prevented the CICS from helping a possible ally by threatening to blow our fleet out of the water!

Help that was both unneded and unrequested, and that appeared to be aimed at gaining personal advantages.

borisperrons wrote:

Help that was both unneded and unrequested, and that appeared to be aimed at gaining personal advantages.

considering we had an alliance with Segerline at the time...

I see no mention of it whatsoever in any of the official documents. Please, stop bringing up arguments unsupported by any kind of material proof.

Expect Marshal Stultus Superbus, Captain Canis Grenium and four subordinate legionaries. They will be arriving by the LTS Ignios.

borisperrons wrote:I see no mention of it whatsoever in any of the official documents. Please, stop bringing up arguments unsupported by any kind of material proof.

The Kabundakan representative is correct. Leave our country. The senate made a poor decision - you have no right to occupy and oppress our people.

Just as you had no right to invade the people in Iyartae. We also never oppressed your people. Are there any reports of people dying or being attacked by our military? No.

*I have papers*

"I am affraid that our equipment is currently not for sale but will be in the future. However we would accept an alliance and the embassy."

You were saying?

The Iyartaen people were not going to be in any way oppressed. Iyartae would have been granted semi-autonomy, alike every member state in the Empire. Leave our lands. The treaty does not state that your military needs to be in our country.

The treaty gives you no right to permanently station troops within their territory. Staying will be a de facto declaration of war and will be treated as such.