Zan wrote: Spot on VP. I still can't see what differences Pyro can see in our views, or is he a separatist
Viewpoint wrote: I want to remove the obstacles of isolation, return of property rights, reduction of army a leveling out procedure, what ever you see fit for yourselves you should fit for the other side. Now do you get it?
Then we can negotiate as 2 equals...is that a problem?
andri_cy wrote:How did you come to the conclusion he doesn't like the thought of you being equals just by reading a question he asked which by the way is fair to ask either way? After all the things you talked about i.e. remove the obstacles of isolation, return of property rights, reduction of army a leveling out procedure, what ever you see fit for yourselves you should fit for the other side, would you sit down to negotiate for partition or for unification. Where does it say in his question he doesn't want to negotiate?
My question is not answered however. You consistently go on abot how the present strategy the GC's are following is not working. Why would you care if this is not working if you do not wish the outcome of unification?
If you don't want the result why question the method and not encourage the method since the non-result it is bringing is what you yourself want? (hope that makes sense)
You should be the biggest supporter of TPap and his strategy since according to you he is leading us to partition.
Unless you wish to raise the isolation, get recognised as a state and go about our different ways, in which case this goes against the objective of the GC side and is a strategy that will not be followed.
Pyrpolizer wrote:I REPEAT:
Do you Zan agree with what VP said yes or no? Do you agree to negotiate after this leveling out as proposed by VP yes or no? And what do YOU (in singular) expect those negotiations to aim at, and what VP expects those negotiations to aim at? Go on guys discuss this matter , and prove us you do not have any differences in your views.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests