PEACE: An Alliance of Peace
•
by Rangeley
As a founding member of PEACE GC, Austria has been with the alliance since its beginning. It was there with the establishment of the charter; a document outlining the noble goal to establish "a defensive alliance that will pursue peace in good faith." It was this charter that Austrian President Mappina signed onto, along with the people of Austria, who had seen aggressive alliances and the impact they could have on nations. Indeed - Austria had been occupied by such nations and alliances.
For PEACE to launch a war with the intent to occupy the United States and Canada, against the will of their people - not in defense, driving out aggressors and occupiers as in the past, but as the aggressor themselves - is a violation of its own mission as outlined in Article I of its charter.
As a founding member of PEACE GC, we should stay out of this war for two reasons. PEACE GC is not an alliance for all wars - it is a defensive alliance that will pursue peace in good faith. For this reason, we are not bound to support a war of aggression, even if it is supported by other members of PEACE GC. Secondly, we should stay out of this war because it is a flagrant violation of everything PEACE GC was founded to stand for - a defensive alliance that stands up to aggressors should never become the aggressor. This war is harmful to PEACE GC and its prospects as much as it is harmful to Austria's.
We must not take part in this war, and instead pursue peace in good faith.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
do we know each other Rangeley?
Let me refrase it..Stop beating on the same topic over and over.
If there will be an offensive from part of PEACE, and the people of eAustria decide that we should not take a part of it, then they will just not fight. It's simple..but I really think it's and opportunity to eAustria start to stand for itself.
eAustria can't stand this anymore.
In past times, ATLANTIS tried to TO eAustria.
It's time for the payback.
nicely put 😁
mappina, I don't believe so, however you were listed as the signatory for Austria in the Wiki page and were the President of Austria at the time of signing.
bobbySAURON, this article is more or less in response to another by Metallon, who quoted from the PEACE charter as an argument for joining in the war. I looked at the charter too, and noted that PEACE is actually a defensive alliance meant to secure the peace. An invasion of the United States and Canada is obviously not consistent with PEACE's mission.
The potential war is a huge issue with huge implications, and pretty much every country involved has people talking about it in the press. It isn't just me, and I doubt the issue will go away until its either over, or enough time passes without it happening.
Voted and subscribed x)
I think this is a vital point to be discussed now..
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/where-do-you-stand--855820/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/wher[..]1/20
People, ansewr the pool
rangeley, the peace charter changed some time ago.
If there will be a PEACE offensive somewhere, PEACE country are totally free to take part in it or not.
It is simple.
If people and congress of eAustria will want take part in it, they will say yes. If they wont, then it will be a no. But in both cases there is nothing to fear about.
Austria was one of the PEACE founders, and even if small and without a proper army will always have the protection of PEACE.
that's all 🙂
Is PEACE no longer "a defensive alliance that will pursue peace in good faith," then?
Voted!
I agree
The question is: Who cares? Two people already stated that it's totally up to every citzizen if he or she wants to fight or not, yet you keep droning on with the same boring BS over and over again. What's up with that, did PEACE kill your dog or insult your mother or what?
If you don't care about PEACE GC, and don't want to see it stay true to its founding principles, that's your choice. Others can disagree, and appear to be disagreeing by taking part in discussion.
You seem so upset that this could only be a personal issue with them. I think you should take it up with Peace leadership, not the local populace. Peace is not going to lose the war because of our potential absence, yet we'll miss experience and wellness boosts. Neither will the whole world come down upon us in the unlikely case that something goes wrong. That's gonna be the sad fate of the UK. We can only win by participating in this.
If anyone seems to have a personal problem, its you with me, as you continue to direct unwarranted personal attacks my way over what is a disagreement in a game.
My objection isn't personal, its not even against PEACE. I like what is outlined in the charter - it states the alliance is a defensive one, meant to pursue peace. It has in the past driven out aggressors and occupiers from nations, including Austria. I don't want to see PEACE turn into an aggressive alliance itself, and start to occupy others. I want PEACE, and Austria, to be the good guys. Good guys do good things, and invading/conquering Canada and the United States to occupy them isn't good.
So why should we against a possible atatck on USA or CANADA?
They did not try to attack france, mexico, they wanted to take Belgium and Netherlands apart.
So you defending them?
I don't defend wars of aggression, meant to conquer and occupy. That is why we should oppose the invasion of Canada and the United States.
We cant rebuild Austria through war ...making enemies ...we still are a small country.
"I don't defend wars of aggression, meant to conquer and occupy. That is why we should oppose the invasion of Canada and the United States."
While I am just a humble holding company with no means to fight I want to remind you of this: Not everyone shares this non-aggressive view. Many other countries will gladly conquer and occupy countries for their resources or just for the heck of it. If it wasn't for peace Europe wouldn't be as independent and culturally rich as it is today, with the military threat of the US looming over it all the time.
I realize that, and that PEACE has kept foreign aggression at bay - even driving out invaders at times - is quite honorable. That's what I would like to see PEACE continue to do. I don't want it to join in the aggression itself.
Why not? I think its time we go on the offensive... 🙂
The nations who invaded us probably thought the exact same thing. Why was it wrong only when they did it?
Metallon - Seconded. Why don't we just eliminate the threat itself? All this ruckus is just caused by the wording in the Peace Charta. So they should just change it to include some fancy writing about preemptive peace securing measures before the war and be done with it.
The invasion is not guaranteed to be successful in the first place, but even if it is, the people of Canada and the United States are unlikely to take it sitting down. They will likely rebel, meaning there would be continued strife.
While a successful invasion is possible, due to it being a relatively singular, collective push, the occupation will be much different and more difficult. Now, the people of Canada and America will have a legitimate gripe with PEACE - it will be they who are united, even more than members of PEACE are now, I suspect.
Clearly, launching an invasion will not eliminate a threat, but make people even more angry and more likely to strike us. Surrendering moral superiority will give it to them, and put everyone in PEACE, including us, at risk for repercussions.
Sadly your all right. You can't pass up a chance to strengthen your military, but you don't want to be burning bridges once this thing ends to maximize economic scales. I can't believe I am saying this as a eAmerican but you have to take part. The reality here is that no one is going to win this war except those who fight, the eUSA has too much money and is to big to be occupied totally, and the eUSA population is too large to ever be kept under resistence wars for long so in the end this thing will end with one outcome, everyone who participates gets stronger and the eUK is left friendless since they cant be trusted by anyone.
Of course I would love it if you send troops to eCanada or eUSA to cancel out your damage, so you all train and have no real impact, but thats probably unlikly...its an idea though.
ps if the eUSA loses, which I doubt it you can bet I will be in eAustria to hang, I like what you guys got going here.
There are other chances to strengthen without the consequences that invading America will come with...
"and even if small and without a proper army will always have the protection of PEACE.
that's all 🙂"
Uh, protection = stealing Austria's regions and dividing them up among non-German speaking Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia?
löl