You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

41

Tuesday, December 1st 2009, 5:52pm

Per the Lithuanian Crisis. They should still be the same:

permanent (10 Countries):
SAE => Player (HoomAn)
US => Player (Hrolf) Aye
Nordmark => Player (????) Nay
Atlantis => Player (Smily) Aye
UK => Player (Hood) Nay
Italy => Player (RedAdmiral) Abstain
Japan => Player (Rooijen) Nay
France => Player (Agent148 ) Aye
Russia => Player (AdmKuznet) Aye
Germany => Player (Hrolf) Nay

non-permanent (10 Countries):
Argentina => Player (Hood) Aye
Australlia => Player (Desert) Nay
Chile => Player (Brock) Aye
Denmark => Player (CG) Abstain
Iberia => Player (CG) Nay
Mexico => Player (Desert) Nay
Poland => Player (Canadian) Aye
India => Player (perdedor) Nay
China => Player (parador) Nay
Canada => Player (ShinRa) Nay

That is the voting so far for the Council of Twenty. let me know your votes and will change accordingly. Will post results around the end of April in the news.

I counted Nordmark as nay and France as aye with the logic that they will follow their allies in the voting.

This post has been edited 12 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Dec 4th 2009, 4:45am)


42

Wednesday, December 2nd 2009, 5:57pm

Great Britain votes Nay (not so much because it doesn't agree with the LoN but sees the situation well in hand having already sizable forces in the region and in action)

Argentina votes Aye

43

Thursday, December 3rd 2009, 5:01pm

Germany, following the lead of it's British ally, votes Nay.


The US votes Aye.

44

Thursday, December 3rd 2009, 10:35pm

China votes ................ NAY !

45

Thursday, December 3rd 2009, 11:25pm

Canada:

46

Thursday, December 3rd 2009, 11:30pm

Japan votes:







47

Friday, December 4th 2009, 12:30am

Denmark - ABSTAIN (having had dealings with Persia, Denmark is staying out of it!!)

Iberia - Nay (sufficient forces are already in the area, no need to get involved)

48

Friday, December 4th 2009, 3:08pm

The motion as presented, with the SAE vote being the only one missing, seems to have fail to past. I will post in either the Persian or Indian news the results and reaction to this vote with a date late in April.

49

Friday, December 4th 2009, 3:14pm

Chile will floor a new motion condemning Persian attacks on neutral merchant ships. ("Ensign, prepare the testy letter!" / "Oh no sir, not the rough stuff!!")

[SIZE=1]I find it extremely odd that every one of the countries actually FIGHTING the Persian Nationalists voted Nay, refusing to take advantage of denying the rebels foreign financial and military support. This indicates to Azerbaijan (and to a lesser extent, Bulgaria) the desire to see the war dragged out. Azerbaijan views this with disgust, and their opinion, particularly of India and China and to a lesser extent Britain, takes a nosedive. Azeri opinion of Russia and Turkey improves thanks to their 'Aye' vote.[/SIZE]

50

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:10pm

Do we have confirmation on Nordmarks vote?

51

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:26pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Chile will floor a new motion condemning Persian attacks on neutral merchant ships. ("Ensign, prepare the testy letter!" / "Oh no sir, not the rough stuff!!")

[SIZE=1]I find it extremely odd that every one of the countries actually FIGHTING the Persian Nationalists voted Nay, refusing to take advantage of denying the rebels foreign financial and military support. This indicates to Azerbaijan (and to a lesser extent, Bulgaria) the desire to see the war dragged out. Azerbaijan views this with disgust, and their opinion, particularly of India and China and to a lesser extent Britain, takes a nosedive. Azeri opinion of Russia and Turkey improves thanks to their 'Aye' vote.[/SIZE]


In the case of the Atlantean vote it's just as equally meant to deny the nationalists support as it is to make a statement to all party's that the war should be ended as quickly as possible.

Turkey's vote really doesn't matter, as she is not part of the 20. Its almost exclusively a diplomatic statement to India and Persia, having little faith in the former to prevent hostility's from effecting non-combatants and telling the latter that it does not support the nationalist camp.

52

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:34pm

I do find it funny that all the South Americans voted Aye.

53

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:47pm

It's not really odd considering the fact that ALL the major nations in South America have now experienced war to some degree and would like to see another conflict elsewhere ended. I am surprised however that Canada would vote Nay. Its also interesting to note that Germany is following others rather than dictating their own path.

54

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:48pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Do we have confirmation on Nordmarks vote?


No or from the French. I just calculated they will follow their alliances. Nordmark the British-German block and France the Atlantis-Russia one.

55

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:50pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
It's not really odd considering the fact that ALL the major nations in South America have now experienced war to some degree and would like to see another conflict elsewhere ended. I am surprised however that Canada would vote Nay. Its also interesting to note that Germany is following others rather than dictating their own path.


Canada being part of the British Commonwealth I guess they follow the path of the British and Australians plus now they have ships in the region.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Dec 4th 2009, 4:56pm)


56

Friday, December 4th 2009, 4:56pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Chile will floor a new motion condemning Persian attacks on neutral merchant ships. ("Ensign, prepare the testy letter!" / "Oh no sir, not the rough stuff!!")

[SIZE=1]I find it extremely odd that every one of the countries actually FIGHTING the Persian Nationalists voted Nay, refusing to take advantage of denying the rebels foreign financial and military support. This indicates to Azerbaijan (and to a lesser extent, Bulgaria) the desire to see the war dragged out. Azerbaijan views this with disgust, and their opinion, particularly of India and China and to a lesser extent Britain, takes a nosedive. Azeri opinion of Russia and Turkey improves thanks to their 'Aye' vote.[/SIZE]


Bharat don't have a lot of faith in the League. They have seen how the War in Bolivia dragged for years without any intervention while the Lithuanian Crisis turned into foreign forces entering Lithuanian soil.

The nay vote by Bharat was a result of the discussions preceding the vote asking for more troops entering the region as part of the approval of the motion. The British have explained already that was the reason they voted Nay also. There is no need for further troops entering the region plus Bharat as I stated don't want further foreign troops in the region.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Dec 4th 2009, 4:57pm)


57

Friday, December 4th 2009, 5:15pm

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
The nay vote by Bharat was a result of the discussions preceding the vote asking for more troops entering the region as part of the approval of the motion. The British have explained already that was the reason they voted Nay also. There is no need for further troops entering the region plus Bharat as I stated don't want further foreign troops in the region.

Sending LoN troops had absolutely no part of the resolution, and if people think it did, I'm going to ask that we double-check the votes. The motion I brought forward stated:
- Condemnation of intentional Nationalist attacks on neutral merchant shipping
- Recognition of the Persian Loyalists as the legitimate government
- Requesting nations not to sell military supplies to the Persian Nationalists
- Nationalist overseas money would be seized and returned to the Loyalists.

That clearly has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with troops, and it's VERY CLEARLY in the interest of the belligerent powers, including Britain and India. Realistically, this is a motion that India could have (and should have) suggested from the start, and their "Nay" vote can only be taken as an indication of their desire for the war to continue for the Nationalist's benefit.

China's Nay vote at least I understand, because they're apparently backing the Nationalists. But surely India and Britain want to limit the Nationalists from spending the Persian gold reserves on new weapons to continue the war.

There is absolutely nothing in the original motion that discusses LoN troops, and if anyone motioned to add that point to mine, I'd vote no. Let's summarize: THIS is the proposal I demanded a vote on:

Quoted

- Condemnation of intentional Nationalist attacks on neutral merchant shipping
- Recognition of the Persian Loyalists as the legitimate government
- Requesting nations not to sell military supplies to the Persian Nationalists
- Nationalist overseas money would be seized and returned to the Loyalists.


Is THIS the proposal people have voted on?

58

Friday, December 4th 2009, 5:27pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
The nay vote by Bharat was a result of the discussions preceding the vote asking for more troops entering the region as part of the approval of the motion. The British have explained already that was the reason they voted Nay also. There is no need for further troops entering the region plus Bharat as I stated don't want further foreign troops in the region.

Sending LoN troops had absolutely no part of the resolution, and if people think it did, I'm going to ask that we double-check the votes. The motion I brought forward stated:
- Condemnation of intentional Nationalist attacks on neutral merchant shipping
- Recognition of the Persian Loyalists as the legitimate government
- Requesting nations not to sell military supplies to the Persian Nationalists
- Nationalist overseas money would be seized and returned to the Loyalists.

That clearly has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with troops, and it's VERY CLEARLY in the interest of the belligerent powers, including Britain and India. Realistically, this is a motion that India could have (and should have) suggested from the start, and their "Nay" vote can only be taken as an indication of their desire for the war to continue for the Nationalist's benefit.

China's Nay vote at least I understand, because they're apparently backing the Nationalists. But surely India and Britain want to limit the Nationalists from spending the Persian gold reserves on new weapons to continue the war.

There is absolutely nothing in the original motion that discusses LoN troops, and if anyone motioned to add that point to mine, I'd vote no. Let's summarize: THIS is the proposal I demanded a vote on:

Quoted

- Condemnation of intentional Nationalist attacks on neutral merchant shipping
- Recognition of the Persian Loyalists as the legitimate government
- Requesting nations not to sell military supplies to the Persian Nationalists
- Nationalist overseas money would be seized and returned to the Loyalists.


That was the proposal but discussions were made by certain nations to sent troops and ships to the region. Remember? That is part of the procedures before the vote. A discussion that if I recall stated about Bulgarian ships joining in convoy operations or a Romanian request to create an International command. That discussion was the one that killed the motion not the motion itself.

And yes, I would have voted Aye to the original motion as most likely the British would had. It was the on-floor discussion in the General Assembly that ensued before the voting that moved the members of the Council of Twenty against the motion.

I agree that Chile could present the motion again to vote with modifications.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Dec 4th 2009, 5:31pm)


59

Friday, December 4th 2009, 5:36pm

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
That was the proposal but discussions were made by certain nations to sent troops and ships to the region.

They were never put into the proposal, and it's a clear violation of procedure to include discussions and related proposals in the language of a resolution in this fashion.

If we wanted to include the Romanian request for LoN troops and overall command (something not in the original resolution), then either Bulgaria would have needed to float an amended resolution (which I did NOT do), or the Council of Twenty would have to vote to append a rider to the original proposition, and THEN vote on accepting it (which did NOT happen). So as far as I'm concerned, the terms of the resolution ONLY covered what I originally requested, and a bunch of people voted Nay due to a point which never was in the resolution to start with!

60

Friday, December 4th 2009, 5:43pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
That was the proposal but discussions were made by certain nations to sent troops and ships to the region.

They were never put into the proposal, and it's a clear violation of procedure to include discussions and related proposals in the language of a resolution in this fashion.

If we wanted to include the Romanian request for LoN troops and overall command (something not in the original resolution), then either Bulgaria would have needed to float an amended resolution (which I did NOT do), or the Council of Twenty would have to vote to append a rider to the original proposition, and THEN vote on accepting it (which did NOT happen). So as far as I'm concerned, the terms of the resolution ONLY covered what I originally requested.


Procedure is fine but but the perception already was put on the mind of the voters, especially when Bulgaria stated as soon as they presented the motion that their ships would attack Nationalist ships. How they knew which ships were Nationalist and which not?

The Council voted against the motion because the discussion on the General-Assembly floor that followed the motion, not the motion itself. Votes are not taken inmediatly after a motion is presented. Nations need to study the situation before reaching a decision.

Like I said put the motion forward again with modifications and a vote could be taken again.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Dec 4th 2009, 5:46pm)