Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM? - Page 4

EmuGod · January 24, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by FiGu
The United States of America agrees with Nato.
We want that Soviet troops in Iran retreat to the Soviet Union immediately!
We are ready discuss this matter in the UN Security Council.

Tanelorn your PM box is full.. and its your turn.

USA to China : Sorry about thoose Warships. I'll withdraw them on my turn.

If the US does not withdraw from Vietnam, then Teheran remains in Soviet hands. You will not be allowed to expand your territory unless there is a balance. Either retreat from Vietnam and give up supporting dictatorial regimes while you speak to liberty, or we balance your hypocrisy and aggression. You installed the shah and eliminated the people's government in Iran, a government we are trying to help.

FiGu · January 24, 2003, 11:12

Quote:

If the US withdraws from Vietnam, then Teheran remains in Soviet hands. You will not be allowed to expand your territory unless there is a balance. Either retreat from Vietnam and give up supporting dictatorial regimes while you speak to liberty, or we balance your hypocrisy and aggression. You installed the shah and eliminated the people's government in Iran, a government we are trying to help.

We dont support Dictatorial Reigmes. We Support a Free Democratic Land of South Vietnam! Its not a French Coloni its a Free land.
We support them because they are getting attacked by an Communist Country.
It was the Goverment it self that asked for US Support.

EmuGod · January 24, 2003, 12:53

And you installed your pupper Diem there, who the people have been trying to get rid of since! You are hypocrites!

tanelorn · January 24, 2003, 15:07

Ok guys, my PM box is now empty

The Arab League states that it will support a UN resolution on the issue of Iran, whatever the outcome may be.
Then I'll do my turn, in compliance with it.
However we think that since both England and France are permanent security council members, NATO should get two votes.

I don't recall any SEATO country being a permanent member...
We could set a rotation system for non-permanent members of the council, as is the case with the UN.
IMPORTANT!
About SEATO's claim of having oilfields on islands, that's just not true. There are only 6 oilfield terrain tiles within city ranges in the map, of which I hold 2 (33%)- the same as the US-, one is held by the neutrals and one is Tehran, Iran. Letting anyone appropriate close to 17% of the worlds oil reserves without a referendum on the issue is naive, to say the least. Go check terrain values and you ll' see what I mean. Next to this, continental bonus is negligable.
And SEATO has no oilfield terrain tiles whatsoever on this map.
Besides, the Shah was a MOST critical US ally. So, if anyone has a claim on Tehran, that's USA, not the USSR.

I think that the Soviets should really answer to the Americans on this.
Yes, 17% of the worlds oil justifies nuclear retaliation. A city with oilfields is an economic/industrial powerhouse.

jim panse · January 24, 2003, 15:31

let me tell you one thing, ladies and gentlemen: NATO believes that Tehran or even Northern Iran is worth nuclear retaliation. i think also that the soviet union MUST withdraw from Tehran. Nato is willing to host a debate in Bonn, Germany to debate the topics. However, i think a compromis would be if Iran (1) will independent from any of the major groups or (2) that a fraction should take control over the wealth and prosperity of the iranian people.

this means Iran should be un-alligned or become at least a member of the Arab League (though i know that the iranian people are shiites and ethnic persian, not arab) because i think this would be a consensus.

esspecially to the USSR: i think neither Tehran nor Iran is worth a 3rd world war but we will inform you that we stand side by side with our allies and friends, the USA.
i also believe that we can settle the issue on Iran peacefully.

think about NATO´s proposals!

conmcb25 · January 24, 2003, 15:45

I say NUKE the Commies before they Nuke you! Use em or lose em! Kill a commie for mommie! Nuke em till they glow and shoot em in the dark. And last but not least: The only good commie is a dead commie!

FiGu · January 24, 2003, 16:03

Yeah your right about that conmcb25!

Iron Chancellor · January 24, 2003, 17:26

Oh, well, if you're going to judge the world's oil supplies by a few squares, go right ahead and do so. However, don't think that freights to Baghdad from Berlin, Paris and Moscow are more valuable than freights to Australia, the Philipines, Indonesia, or Singapore, then you are just plain wrong.

SEATO may not hold any permanent places on the council, however, to ignore it would be to disenfrachise an entire continent full of people. Therefore, we shall do as we said: listen, and uphold any resolution passed with the support of NATO and the USA and in the spirit of freedom and democracy.

Forget the Arabs. Israel will always be a thorn in their side, and they will not stop their pontificating and saber-rattling until they get what they want, which is the destruction of Israel and then the union of ALL Muslim peoples.

tanelorn · January 24, 2003, 17:50

For your information, this particular Arab leadership couldn't care less about Israel. It is 1964 and the six day war hasn't happened yet. So in theory I still hold East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. So a peaceful settlement is still feasible. And it has occured.
So, no six day war= no hard feelings, get it?
Besides, now Israel is my best friend, right? We can both prosper from the situation.
I 'll run a test to prove you wrong about the trade thing, too.

Iron Chancellor · January 24, 2003, 17:58

Feel free, and no hard feelings on my part if none on yours.

EmuGod · January 24, 2003, 18:09

If you want to play with nuclear weapons go ahead, the public in the US isn't supporting a war in Vietnam, so a I cannot imagine nuclear devastation as number one on their list. Consider the occupation of Teherana counter-balance to American expansion. You invaded Vietnam without consulting the UN, so we invaded Teheran, but at least we are helping the people there and not firebombing the city with napalms. You've repeated the junk about liberty that you dont even do so many times that you've actually started to believe it. We will not be pushed around by the west. You support democracy when it is convenient for you to. When it's not you abandon it like you did to the people of Iran, South Vietnam, and many other countries around the globe.

If you want the USSR to pull out of Iran and have Iran as a neutral area, remove yourselves from Vietnam and allow the Non-aligned to take over South Vietnam. But you wont do that, because you do not care for negotiation but only for getting your own way. If you want us to withdraw, make us a deal and we will negoitate but do not expect to get what you want without giving us a little bit back too.

tanelorn · January 24, 2003, 18:23

Err, ambivalence...what I actually meant was that there are no hard feelings between the Arabs and the Israelis because the 1967 war hasn't occured, and the opportunity for peace hasn't been lost, sort of.
Why on earth would there be hard feelings between players as you put it? It just escapes me.

tanelorn · January 24, 2003, 20:58

Just out of curiosity, to quote the house rule about regional conflicts, what would the geographic limits of an Iran/ Iraq conflict be? Suppose there is a communist insurgency in Iran and Iraq intervenes...

tanelorn · January 24, 2003, 21:04

[QUOTE] [SIZE=1] Originally posted by academia
4) Limited Warfare: In case of a war, players must establish the limits of the conflict: territory and weapons

I say Iran/ Iraq, conventional warfare.

Iron Chancellor · January 24, 2003, 23:09

I meant hard feelings between countries. I'd hate for SEATO to alienate another regional alliance merely over a few remarks.

I would think that an Iran-Iraq war would only involve units produced in Iran and Iraq, and to draw units from elsewhere would open those places up to attack. However, the US should be allowed to ship in troops to Saigon if need be without resulting in a Chinese nuclear strike. A little self-control and common sense is basically the only restraint, although perhaps we should establish international monitoring (i.e. reviewing someone's turn after it's been posted).

RE: US public opinion
This is 1964, the US public is still pro-war (or at least not anti-war). The US has not yet experienced the 1965 escalation, which raised the number of US troops up to 500,000 (five hundred thousand). The North is not being bombed, and the war is still limited primarily to South Vietnam.

Diem seized power in his own, non-US sponsered coup. The US never invaded, indeed, the whole point of the war was to prevent Northern-equipped Viet Cong from toppling the government, which in 1964 was no longer Diem anyway.

Invading a neutral nation and defending what you started the game with are not the same things.

jim panse · January 25, 2003, 05:48

NATO wants the UN Sceurity Council to make the following decisions:

(1) The free people of Iran were suddenly attacked by the forces of the Soviet Union. This attack was carried out without any reason and had nothing to do with the Right of Self-defense that is guaranteed by the UN. Therefore the United Nations condamn the outbreak of violence in Central Asia by the USSR.

(2) The UN Security Council wants the Armed Forces of the USSR to withdraw immediately and unconditioned from the territory of Iran. The people of Iran suffer due to the occupation by an atheist nation which is not only an enemy of Liberty but also an attacker.

(3) The UN also condamns the Attack War that the Soviet Army makes. The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg 1946 has not declared this kind of war as Crime to appease this kind of policy again.

(4) If the Soviet Union will not accept the conditions of the UN Security Council Resolution the International Community is given the right to discuss and debate further answers on this topic.

Ceteram · January 25, 2003, 07:16

[...]and the latest preposterous claims by NATO (jim panse) concerning the Iran-question and SEATO (iron chancellor) ideas on recruitment areas for regional conflicts is merely sand thrown into the eyes of the communist world that [...]
The Soviet Red Army was ordered to set foot in Teheran. There, it now prevents lawlessness and the international community should be gratefull for such costly operations and [...]
As to the Vietnam-question, China and the US have already agreed upon peaceful terms to the conflict. Besides the fact that our two nations don't need the help of other leaders to resolve their diplomacy, reraising the question could be considered as unnecessary clogging up of the public channels [...]
While evaluating fossile fuel sites in terms of "nuclear strikability" sounds desperate, just mentioning it rings alarms all over.
China will use its veto in any UN Council against URSS foreign politics.

OOC:

Quote:

we should establish international monitoring (i.e. reviewing someone's turn after it's been posted).

How come I don't like the idea? Anyway, if England was to have a fight for Hong Kong, wouldn't they try to ship troops there from elsewhere? Or didn't chinese troops fight in Korea, russian specialists (AA equipment etc) in Vietnam and Australians in the Bosphorus in WW1? Do I need to say more?

Tiantian modao laizhe bi jian. [Sharpening the knife day after day, intruders must be annihilated.]

Iron Chancellor · January 25, 2003, 08:44

Well, I guess you're right. It would work better in theory than in practice.

Chinese troops did fight in Korea, because they were supporting a Communist regime with which Mao sympathized. The reason the conflict stopped there and did not escalate was because it was no war, but a police action to enforce the independence of South Korea.

Russia never sent advisors to North Vietnam, weaponry yes, soldiers/advisors no.

Australia was a part of the British empire, and as the mother country was at war, so was the entire empire.

EmuGod · January 25, 2003, 10:14

Remember that a security council resolution needs aunanimous vote by all members to pass and there's no way I'm voting for my troops to withdraw so you might as well give it up. That was Truman's gamble in the Korean War. Had the Soviets not boycotted the Security Council, their vote would have stopped the resolution to fight in South Korea. The Chinese weren't members yet so they couldn't veto Truman's successful resolution. So sorry, but the UN resolution thing just cannot work.

Iron Chancellor · January 25, 2003, 11:30

Well, what I mean is that if the USA and NATO decide upon sanctions/military action vs. any nation, SEATO must aid and uphold there actions as a sister democracy.

FROM JANUARY 30-FEBRUARY 2 Prometheus WILL TAKE CONTROL OF SEATO

jim panse · January 25, 2003, 11:49

do not believe that the US and the NATO will step down. we are here to make the world more peaceful, to support Liberty, Freedom and Democracy together with our East Asian Allies. Do NOT believe that the West will accept this unilateral aggression against one of our friends and a member of the international community.

EmuGod · January 25, 2003, 22:44

After talks with te Arab Legue, the USSR has agreed to allow the Arab League to try and capture Shiraz from the remaining forces of the Shah in exchange for the full recognition of Teheran as part of Iran and the removal of all embargoes against the USSR. The Arab League may not attempt to capture Shiraz but the USSR will capture it if it is not in Arab League hands by the end of the month. Soviet diplomats are preparing to draw up a new border plan to divide Iran into two new countries. This was a mutual agreement that both powers have come to.

tanelorn · January 25, 2003, 23:20

True, but only if the international community agrees with this compromise. I do not wish to offend anybody. Consider Shiraz to be a humanitarian haven for those pious muslims that feel so in a secular Iran. The Siites rights will be thoroughly respected, international observers are wellcome.

FiGu · January 26, 2003, 04:44

The United States of America supports the Arab Leagues that UN should send International Observers.

And a Great Bump on Tanelorn. 5 days now....

EmuGod · January 26, 2003, 09:42

The USSR will not mind if Chinese observers come to watch the border, but no one else.

tanelorn · January 26, 2003, 11:59

The Arab league welcomes UN observers, irrespective of nationality. So, if the Chinese can find a way to get there in time, it is ok with me.

After a number of bombruns, the city of Shiraz was secured from rebel factions by an Elite Saudi paratrooper unit, that used Riyadh airfield to gain the 1 extra tile to paradrop next to Shiraz. Remember, airfields have the railroad move bonus in civ2, and paras can use airfields to paradrop. A tactical move Saudi generals feel exceptionaly proud for.

Iraqi mechanized divisions cleared the Zagros mountains of now hostile rebels, fleeing the Soviets.

Following the liberation of Shiraz, that was welcome by the majority of the population, the Rebel leader of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie threatened to invade Sudan (Rebel AI declared war on me). Sudanese and Yemenite forces swiftly encircled Addis Abeba. They will not enter the city however, unless they are fired uppon.

There they encountered a Somali detachment (AI Neutrals), already fighting against the Ethiopians (Damaged).

jim panse · January 27, 2003, 14:25

this is not a BUMP but a reminder: don´t let us all wait as long for your 2nd turn as for your 1st one

academia · January 27, 2003, 15:56

We had a problem with game.txt file versions in the CFC Iron Curtain PBEM #2
Just to be sure, everybody MUST download this file. ok?
For more info about the "problem", go here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...136#post734136
NEW GAME.TXT FILE

EmuGod · January 27, 2003, 19:01

I'll post it soon, and before I was waiting for the round of diplomacy to finish, that's all.

jim panse · January 28, 2003, 04:12

EmuGod (and all the others too): have you yet donwloaded the new game.txt?