| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| OOC Ideas; Regarding Sinai and Israel | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 27 2006, 09:35 PM (631 Views) | |
| Rhadamanthus | Mar 31 2006, 12:19 PM Post #26 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
I think he meant nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. Or would that also be a problem? |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Mar 31 2006, 12:24 PM Post #27 |
|
Spammer
|
Like I said, it's against Church teaching ;) |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Mar 31 2006, 04:36 PM Post #28 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Frankly I don't think so. You've told me your main idea in this proposal is two split the land equally, but I'm afraid your plan simply doesn't do it.
Can't we do it in the current conference, after the UN resolution be approved? |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 04:39 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Oh, there can be a margin of error of 10%. I mean, how is it possible to calculate exactly 50%? |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Mar 31 2006, 04:50 PM Post #30 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course it can't be completely accurate, but obviously your proposal gives at least 60-65% of the land to the TC ;) And as I said, only the size of the UN sector and the north combined can equal to the TC's part. By taking off half of the UN sector, obviously you could never achieve that balance. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 04:54 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Yeah, but then again, important cities seem to be in the North. I think it's fair enough. |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Mar 31 2006, 05:30 PM Post #32 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, but since you can create as many cities as you like, it's really the size of the territory that really matters. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 05:33 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Yeah, but then again are you going to create religious cities or rather use the existing ones? |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 31 2006, 05:41 PM Post #34 |
|
Science and Industry
|
OOC Also important to the TC are the "religious lands." By this I mean core lands part of the ancient Hebrews kingdom: roughly everything north of Beersheba, south of Haifa, and west of Ammon (Ammon, Jordan, which is in RD). The most desirable cities are Jerusalem and Hebron. The evil master plan of the TC is to annex these lands. But I'm patient and I can hold off the evil master plan indefinitely, since there are other more important things going on such as the anti-BP effort. USOI - if you want, you can take the Negev and the south, and I'll go to the north. That way you can have the larger south. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 05:43 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Oh, finally we found a deal? |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 31 2006, 05:49 PM Post #36 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Here is a rough sketch of my proposal, I will do a neater one for IC discussions. I believe it is a more than fair deal, since in order to accomodate the USOI's concerns, the TC would have to sacrifice a lot of demands and interests stated during the Sinai Conference. Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 05:55 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Except for NE Gaza, it seems a pretty fair deal. USOI gets more land and TC gets more religious cities. Everyone is happy :) |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 31 2006, 06:01 PM Post #38 |
|
Science and Industry
|
OOC The TC requires that in any acceptable deal, NE needs to have a coastal enclave in Israel. The motive is of course that NE needs a presence in Israel as part of the IFP counterweight to the Baghdad Pact. Another point would be that many NE citizens already live here in the holy land, and they need a compensation. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 06:05 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
If NE gets Gaza, Paradise won't recognize it as a nagian-owned territory, but rather as a nagian-occupied territory. That means Paradise could legitimally invade nagian Gaza and set up a puppet state there. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 31 2006, 06:17 PM Post #40 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Resolution 591 the Sinai Accords transfers Gaza to Nag. I know you'll probably go veto it in the BP thread. The final treaty has to make a provision to give land to Nag. This problem will need to be solved later. Right now I need to get food! |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Mar 31 2006, 06:21 PM Post #41 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
It does transfer control to nag, but it doesn't specify ownership. |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Mar 31 2006, 07:15 PM Post #42 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
TC, dude, you got a serious biblical complex :blink: :) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 1 2006, 06:42 AM Post #43 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
This is the Middle East, what do you expect? Juresalem has less than no tactical value to NE. What reason could Paradise possbibly have for objecting to a Nagian presence in Gaza? Surely it's better than the TC - a vastly superior military power - set up there with Nag in Juresalem? |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 1 2006, 09:35 AM Post #44 |
|
Spammer
|
Or indeed Catholic Europe! ;) |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Apr 1 2006, 01:02 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
You're the leader of the IFP, a pact whose aim is to counter the BP. The emperor fears you for what you could do (diplomatically at least). The farthest NE is from Paradise, the safest is Paradise (in the head of the emperor). |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Apr 1 2006, 02:14 PM Post #46 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OOC: I might be willing to accept the TC's plan, on the condition that USOI will be given access to the Dead Sea and that USOI's norther coastal area will have a more secure boundaries - which means moving the line a few miles east. But I'm not sure yet. Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Apr 1 2006, 02:27 PM Post #47 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
OOC: In that proposal, is Sinai given to me, or what? |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 1 2006, 02:31 PM Post #48 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
OOC: Oh right, just because I found it I'm the leader :shy: Unlike the BP - I have no say over what the IFP/JP does. And Paradise is threatened by Nag Ehgoeg... pull the other one :P :lol: :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| United State of Israel | Apr 1 2006, 02:33 PM Post #49 |
|
A Light to the Gentiles
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yep, just like the TC's original proposal. This is just a refinement. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Apr 2 2006, 11:31 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Now we see the IFP's true flaw. While the Baghdad Pact promotes stability and true democracy, the International Freedom Pact promotes anarchy and would do nothing to prevent infighting between its members. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Middle East · Next Topic » |











9:12 AM Jul 11