United Nations of Kerbin meeting invitation

Although we do not seek open confrontation with the World People's Republic of the Proletariat, we would like to voice our concerns about having a massive military presence in both of our neighboring nations.

I thought you read the treaty?

"In a interest to defend the Imperium Aquitus and its people, the World People's Republic will station its armed forces in the lands of Imperium Aquitus. Aquitian war industries shall aid in producing needed equipment and ammunition for these armed forces."

As i point out:

" the World People's Republic will station its armed forces in the lands of Imperium Aquitus"

And point out again to make sure those who dont believe:

"World People's Republic will station its armed forces"

How do you abse your statement upon?

Never in the treaty does it state the intention of a permanent presence in Aquitae. Indefinitely stationing your troops there will be viewed as a violation of their sovereignty if you continue to misinterpret your own treaty.

We agree with the Kabundakan statement and we also see it as an act of war.

cziken20 wrote:I thought you read the treaty?

"In a interest to defend the Imperium Aquitus and its people, the World People's Republic will station its armed forces in the lands of Imperium Aquitus. Aquitian war industries shall aid in producing needed equipment and ammunition for these armed forces."

As i point out:

" the World People's Republic will station its armed forces in the lands of Imperium Aquitus"

And point out again to make sure those who dont believe:

"World People's Republic will station its armed forces"

How do you abse your statement upon?

None of those statements require Aquitae to allow these forces to remain, or indeed to enter the country. It states their arrival as a matter of fact, and does not include anything for Aquitae to actually agree to.

As as aside, we recommend you fire whoever drafted this treaty. It has more holes than old cheesecloth.

Its a statement which Aquitae agreed upon, by signing the treaty. Nowhere in it does it state that Aquitae may not agree to a part of it, it has to be whole.

Members of the senate agreed to it. Other members do not. We are those members.

cziken20 wrote:Its a statement which Aquitae agreed upon, by signing the treaty. Nowhere in it does it state that Aquitae may not agree to a part of it, it has to be whole.

It's not a statement that can be agreed to, as it doesn't say that Aquitae will do anything. It only states what you will do. Did you write this treaty?

It states that Aquitae will help in managing these forces and equping them with ammunition and supplies. No, we did not write this treaty by our hand, but we did have a look into it. We unfortunately didnt saw the tiny mistakes written in there at the time, as they seemed to small to be seen.

They're large enough to mean they don't have to harbour these forces. Are you at least willing to admit that?

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

The Kabundakan representative is wrong. The senate made a poor decision by deciding to attack Iyartae without being provoked in any way, and then they more wisely decided to end the war in a diplomatic way. By signing the treaty, they implicitly agreed on the stated terms and committed themselves to honor said terms.
Also, I ask you in what way your people is actually oppressed. I have no words of acts of violence towards the Aquitan People coming from our troops, although I have words of your police purposedly letting riotous elements of the population to endulge in violence towards the WPRP forces. As you are well aware, we have permitted the existence of an unarmed civilian police force after the dismembrement of the Aquitan military, and I wonder why they are not keeping the order in their own country.

Yuriski wrote:Members of the senate agreed to it. Other members do not. We are those members.

Nice to meet you. I'll be glad to personally explain to you how the democratic process works, and that you are the decisional minority, that is entitled in no way to pose as the majority to artificiously subvert a legitimate vote of the Senate.
Senate that, as a democratic organ, works as a single legislating body, and whose decisions are attributed to the own Senate, not on the single senators.

Yuriski wrote: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 Iyartaen people were not going to be in any way oppressed" is a statement to dissent upon. How is, in your opinion, being forced upon themselves a foreign government by military means not being oppressed? Maybe because the People of Iyartae called for your intervention to liberate themselves? Or because they were currently oppressed by their own government? Even if those eventualities turned out to be true, you'll have not a single moral justification to annex the country under your rule. Your act was one of pure imperialist and expansionist greed.

Crichton wrote: 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.

It will be interesting to show how wrong this and other similar statements are, and that you are clearly flexing reality at your will, purposedly misreading the terms. If we go read the Treaty of Aquitae, as I'm sure you haven't actually done, we'll find some interesting things.

Appe96 wrote:In a interest to defend the Imperium Aquitus and its people, the World People's Republic will station its armed forces in the lands of Imperium Aquitus. Aquitian war industries shall aid in producing needed equipment and ammunition for these armed forces.

I guess there's no doubt about what this paragraph means. WPRP forces will be stationed in Aquitae to provide for their protection, and they will be supplied by the Aquitan industries.

Appe96 wrote:The present treaty is concluded for an indefinite period

To rephrase it, the terms stated in the treaty are considered in place indefinitely, that is to say permanently.

Appe96 wrote:The governments of the Worlds People's Republic of the Proletariat and the Imperium Aquitus, in the interest of peace and prosperity of all has agreed to following terms:

This means that the government of the Imperium Aquitae agreed to the terms, that is to say they committed to respect them.

Now, forward onto what this treaty doesn't contain. It doesn't contain any mention of the possibility of the Aquitan government to recess from it, for any reason, after any time.

It doesn't contain any mention of an expiring date for the presence of WPRP forces on the Aquitan territory.

It doesn't contain any mention of a retire date for the WPRP forces or for the rebuilding of the Aquitan military forces.

In definitive, it doesn't contain any provision for any recession from it of any kind. That is another way to say that the treaty is permanently in place, that is to say the terms are permanently applied.

Also, I point out that you are acting in violation of the Treaty of Hammaguitan, and that, as a side note, you are blatantly lying.

Paradox wrote:Although we do not seek open confrontation with the World People's Republic of the Proletariat, we would like to voice our concerns about having a massive military presence in both of our neighboring nations.

We understand those concerns, but I want to point out that one of those nations is a sovereign Constituent Republic and it's in their full right to have a defence force, as is of every other nation on Kerbin whereas they haven't showed the clear intention to use that for imperialist expansion, and that the other is presidiated by a number of forces completely inadequate to carry on offensive operations on the Ricutan soil.

But, if it might serve to calm those concerns, I suggest that a non-aggression treaty between us could be signed.

Very well. The senate sees the previous senators as collaborators with the enemy - their senatorial positions have been revoked. Their votes are rendered void. This treaty, is to affect, now rendered useless.

The terms have not been stated in the treaty, it simply says that the WPRP will station troops. It gives no timeframe, and does not actually say that Aquitae has to allow these troops to enter or stay.

Yuriski wrote:Very well. The senate sees the previous senators as collaborators with the enemy - their senatorial positions have been revoked. Their votes are rendered void. This treaty, is to affect, now rendered useless.

Are you sure that you are speaking in name of the Aquitan government? Seems like I'm speaking with an escaped internee of a psychiatric hospital. An internee with little knowledge of the inner workings of a nation.

Crichton wrote: The terms have not been stated in the treaty, it simply says that the WPRP will station troops. It gives no timeframe, and does not actually say that Aquitae has to allow these troops to enter or stay.

But it say that it agreed on the terms, and one of the terms is about the WPRP stationing those troops. Stop spitting your blatant lies on all of us, please.

''Greetings'','the representative of Camponja says. ''As they say in colloquial language, what is up?''