| Welcome to The City State of Q102. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The United Opposition Coalition; [OOC UOC Party only] | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2005, 06:27 PM (3,700 Views) | |
| lamedud | Jan 26 2006, 03:30 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Councillor of Q102
![]()
|
Good WELCOME BT! Nice to have you on board. The UOC is truely growing!
:yes: Oh and on foreign policy, I believe our neutrality suits us at the moment. We've gone nothing to gain by getting into scraps with other countries. We use the weapon of diplomatic relations if anythings turning sour. (i.e the west pacific) which is possibly a reason to be worried. |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jan 26 2006, 03:34 PM Post #62 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
Thanks Nev!
:D edit: I agree with you LD. I think diplomatic relations are more important than out and out war. I think Q102 is too important to be risked. If someone wants a war, there's always RP. |
![]() |
|
| Blue Tiger | Jan 26 2006, 10:35 PM Post #63 |
|
The Bluest Memeber of Q102
![]()
|
I wasn't saying we go off and fight a bunch of wars, but we can't be neutral in everything. There are times and places where you need to stand up for something, and we need to define what we're willing to stand up for and why, so we can be ready to defend it when the time comes. While war should be avioded, there are times when it's best not to (imagnie if the U.S. never got involved in WW II). "Pray for Peace, prepare for War." |
![]() |
|
| lamedud | Jan 26 2006, 10:42 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Councillor of Q102
![]()
|
Ah. Well I think the term neutral isnt fixed. If a country gives itself a neutral position it means it won't go around invading and it won't get involved in arguements that dont affect it. However, if affected directly, it can take action. I'm still unsure about the whole stepping into other peoples arguement thing for Q102. If its not our problem - why should we get involved? However, if it is likely to affect us in the future then thats the time for questioning. We are not Nationstates police, but if threatened, we rear our teeth. like a dog. woof. |
![]() |
|
| Blue Tiger | Jan 27 2006, 02:03 AM Post #65 |
|
The Bluest Memeber of Q102
![]()
|
Oh, so we're a dog now? lol :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jan 27 2006, 08:07 PM Post #66 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
Erm, yes? lol I think the take home message is that we are generally neutral, and neutral as regards existing conflicts. If we were to come under attack, then 'neutral' is a term that could no longer be used as we have been made a foe by an invader. I'm not sure if that even makes sense. In the case of the US in WWII, they were only defending their trade interests. As trade is pretty much superfluous to the NS world, it's not an eventuality we are likely to face. However, to LD, or anyone that can answer, if an ally of ours came under attack, are we not required to assist them? If not, why do we use the term 'ally' at all? Although I would not support scrapping allegiances as they may as well exist. |
![]() |
|
| lamedud | Jan 27 2006, 08:25 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Councillor of Q102
![]()
|
Hmmm. Now theres a good point. But again, that breaks down the whole 'neutral' thing again. Surely if we have alliances, we should honour them. And we can't go around deleting them all. OK! NEW PLAN. Neutral means - -We dont openly attack any nation that we have nothing to do with -We remain impartial in disputes that dont affect us or our allies If ourselves or our allies come under attack - -We use diplomacy as far as it will go - military action is always a last resort |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jan 27 2006, 08:43 PM Post #68 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I fully support that LD. That's exactly what our stance should be. Diplomacy all the way!
:D Is that going to be added to our official manifesto? |
![]() |
|
| lamedud | Jan 27 2006, 11:46 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Councillor of Q102
![]()
|
Sure thing. uh.. Where shall I put it? I can't edit the old manifesto cos its from ages ago... |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Jan 27 2006, 11:51 PM Post #70 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
Post editing has been extended for all Citizens. Apologies this was not done before as we had a very complicated user group system. We simplified it a while back but this was overlooked[/admin] |
![]() |
|
| Blue Tiger | Jan 29 2006, 03:17 AM Post #71 |
|
The Bluest Memeber of Q102
![]()
|
Good idea LD! I apporve. :thumbsup: Just wanted to use that smilie. lol |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jan 29 2006, 12:53 PM Post #72 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
UOC stats: Membership increased 33% in the last week. 75% of members are judges. Represent players from 4 different RL nations. I cannot think of anymore, but these can be used in debates to sound clever! :P |
![]() |
|
| lamedud | Jan 29 2006, 05:09 PM Post #73 |
![]()
Councillor of Q102
![]()
|
Scotland, America, England x2 and Canada. Bitchin! |
![]() |
|
| Blue Tiger | Jan 30 2006, 02:54 AM Post #74 |
|
The Bluest Memeber of Q102
![]()
|
Yo! That's like, my fav. word. Bitchen dog. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jan 30 2006, 09:25 PM Post #75 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
5 members? :o Whoa! Who's this other one? I knew of me, CM, LD and Blue Tiger. Who is this mystery fifth person? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lobby · Next Topic » |






