|
Post by stilts on Jul 16, 2015 3:59:49 GMT
Gonna post -Tal's PM directly, since it's all relevant:
"Yes, as long as someone gives another $2 by the end of this third day the situation should be resolved. We would be happy to accept the United Kingdom's offer, as well as China's offer, all that should be necessary is to include your contribution to the Congo in your Day 3 Orders.
However, I would like to confirm the existing contributions. While it is possible that the situation was simply worse than expected, I was assured that $10 would match the original UN resolution's proposal.
To review the pledges:
Argentina: $2 Egypt: $3 South Africa: $3 Brazil: $2
Argentina and Egypt have confirmed their donations. This leaves South Africa and Brazil."
Unless there are any objections, I'm gonna edit my Day 3 orders to include sending $2 to Nigeria if the other two don't confirm.
|
|
|
Post by sirfabulous on Jul 16, 2015 4:03:23 GMT
Yes, but say we created 'retrieved documentation' outlining what our agent found and passed this on to other member states. If they expended resources verifying the retrieved documentation, would the hosts give them confirmation about whether the details enclosed were accurate or not? It is likely that another country which spends a little time and money digging around would find the same results that your agent did.
Is that sort of what you're asking?
|
|
|
Post by stilts on Jul 16, 2015 4:20:34 GMT
Also, BFL: if you're planning on revealing First Signs, you should do it sooner rather than later. Especially with all that's happening right now.
|
|
|
Post by stilts on Jul 16, 2015 4:29:45 GMT
I just got an invitation from Brazil to open up a diplomatic channel with SADPACT, as they claim to be concerned with Russia's recent actions.
Here is my proposed reply: "While we are intent on trying to make the recent alliance with the EU and Russia work to the best of our ability, we are also not naive enough to think that Russia is going to be a perfect angel; and their recent statements (along with their tendency to use threats) are troubling. We would be happy to open up diplomatic relations with SADPACT to discuss and share information on the current situation."
Any thoughts, or is this good to go?
|
|
|
Post by sirfabulous on Jul 16, 2015 4:30:04 GMT
I would appreciate if you didn't reveal anything about First Signs, as you technically haven't researched it yet. That was a mistake made on my part because I got confused about orders.
Obviously I can't ask you to just forget about it, but you really shouldn't tell other people about it until you've officially researched it.
|
|
|
Post by stilts on Jul 16, 2015 4:31:37 GMT
Oooooooh, okay.
|
|
|
Post by bfl on Jul 16, 2015 5:34:01 GMT
Yep, we do not know anything about First Signs
we do have Air Filters, though
those won't be too useful until troops start to move around, so they're not a great bargaining chip right now.
I'm going to make a research push towards stuff that will be immediately practical today. We'll be able to use that for maneuvering tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by discrider on Jul 16, 2015 11:16:56 GMT
Please note that in the Actions thread I have allocated $1 since the beginning of the day to the Congo situation. Diplomats should determine whether they are using this $1 as well as their own, or this $1 on top of their own.
|
|
|
Post by farangu on Jul 16, 2015 11:52:04 GMT
Honestly I'm this close to just telling Argentina that if they can pay up the bailout, they can freakin' have the Falklands. This talk is going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by discrider on Jul 16, 2015 11:59:25 GMT
Argentina claims it was Brazil (who stole the EU bailout fund).
|
|
|
Post by farangu on Jul 16, 2015 12:38:30 GMT
Of course they would. Unless we dig more with our agent that's all they need to say.
Our price for the Falklands should be the total sum that was stolen, and evidence of who committed the act. That they they can't just get the money from China to pay us off, someone has to take the actual fall from it. This weakens SADPACT as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by farangu on Jul 16, 2015 12:53:39 GMT
Yea, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. They say they have the political muscle to force us to have that resolution forced on us. I believe them. But they can't moralize about our "illegal" occupation when they are either personally responsible for or, at best, deeply entangled with the country responsible for stealing funds for Greece. They need to show that they have a sense of justice before they get the Falklands.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by bfl on Jul 16, 2015 13:22:07 GMT
Do they have the political muscle? They have their three SADPACT allies, we have our three EU allies. It depends on how China and Egypt vote.
I think we should be in contact with the EU, Chinese, and Egyptian governments to see how they feel. I think we shouldn't give up the Falklands unless we are certain that we have no hope of defeating Argentina's resolution.
And we can still try to use Brazil's desire to become a NATO observer as a weapon here. We should at least try to take advantage of that.
|
|
|
Post by farangu on Jul 16, 2015 14:11:41 GMT
China seconded their motion to bring the resolution to the UN. I can't think of a reason why they would do that that soeant involve them voting on Argentina's side. Brazil is de facto with them, and the two together can probably convince a large portion of the rest of SADPACT.
|
|
|
Post by bfl on Jul 16, 2015 16:42:54 GMT
I've been invited to join SADPACT's Proboard by Brazil's chief scientist.
I'll let you know what they tell me.
|
|