| [Treaty Proposal/PASSED] Treaty of Capricorn (with The Pacific) |
I don't understand this catch-22 diplomatic fallout situation we're discussing. The regions who throw a fit about us being too much of doctrine driven defender region are going to be throw a fit if we become an ally with a non-defender region? I mean, assuming that is how they are going to react, why even consider their reaction to the treaty? We gain an ally, and they are still acting more or less the same.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
(03-13-2018, 08:00 PM)southern bellz Wrote: I don't understand this catch-22 diplomatic fallout situation we're discussing. The regions who throw a fit about us being too much of doctrine driven defender region are going to be throw a fit if we become an ally with a non-defender region? I mean, assuming that is how they are going to react, why even consider their reaction to the treaty? We gain an ally, and they are still acting more or less the same.It's cause they don't like us, since we're better than them.  Which one of the TWP-Laz-Osiris-Balder bloc would break first? I am also trying to get a start in FA, so how can I do it?? Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
I do think it's important that our stance on things is on GP for posterity, but in principle, if Balder/TWP don't like us, they'll continue to not like us and there's no reason to care whether they go off in GP or not.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(03-13-2018, 08:00 PM)southern bellz Wrote: I don't understand this catch-22 diplomatic fallout situation we're discussing. The regions who throw a fit about us being too much of doctrine driven defender region are going to be throw a fit if we become an ally with a non-defender region? I mean, assuming that is how they are going to react, why even consider their reaction to the treaty? We gain an ally, and they are still acting more or less the same. I don’t think anybody’s saying don’t pass the treaty because Balder and TWP will not like us even more. My posts have been calling on the Cabinet to stop playing coy and just admit that our FA program right now is about actively building a bloc against them. Roavin’s post basically did that, so no more complaints from me! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, skimming through this thread - am I correct to say all concerns have been addressed by someone in the Cabinet?
Want to make sure I'm not missing anything, and will answer any that I've missed.
I think we got everything, yes. Rebs' point is still open, but I think we could address that in the future through a memorandum of understanding as per VI.4.
I motion this treaty to vote.
Judging by the fact this was posted in the Private Halls, I suppose it could be considered a risk to reveal the treaty in the voting chambers before it is passed. Would the Cabinet prefer this to be voted on in the Private Halls?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |