New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

2nd Bab warning/threat towards Persia (it replaces the 1st warning (red/orange areas), which is void from now)

Our new declaration is a pure equivalent of Persian warnings and threats ("punk" in 2550, "we will regard ourselves as under attack" in 2440 and several threats in 2390). Now all these warnings and threats are valid also in reverse direction, except we don't say The Disputed Areas (i.e. The Spine, Al-Kabir and lands between) is Babylon.

In short:
1) If you want to avoid war, you must remove your units from The Disputed Areas. (We could tolerate skirmishers there for a limited time, but in case they create ZOCs we will have to bribe them.) I suggest that you announce your intentions before Babylonian turn.
If you do not remove your troops now, you face possible war at any time. Yes, this is a threat. A very old, simple threat. Stay out!!
(you may ask what "any time" stands for, but we don't answer dumb questions. Any time is any time)

2) You have decreed that you will attack if Babylonian troops or scouts enter/stay in The Disputed Areas. Thus we will regard ourselves as under attack and in a state of war as soon as that occurs. If this was not your intention, you'd better hire a new spokesman and clarify.

3) Feel lucky, punk?

---

A Pers-Bab future

Sinbad, you claimed Persia occupied The Disputed Areas because you wanted 'to defend against Babylonian invasion'. If you think best way how 'to defend' and to reach security is to start a war then go on.
But I constantly believe best method how to obtain security is to have neutral/demilitarized zones. It would be very simple to declare all The Disputed Areas to be neutral and to declare neutral/DMZ areas (2-4 miles wide) also along accredited parts of borders. No negotiations are needed (but they may follow).
And I repeat: if you insist on a war we can agree on some civilized way how to start it and to avoid sneak attacks (to warn in advance, to avoid the firts-strike side gets an advantage (for example limited number of hits) etc.).
I expect if you ever want to talk about these points you will do it right now.

edit: "all" (The Disputed Areas)

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
We hired a very educated translator, his name is Kukl. He came to us with a reference to a notorious man called Kepls. It is interesting today we had this man in mind too.

Just don't forget another one of his sayings: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia..."

[SlowThinker]

We thought Kepls only repeated 1000 times "your bribery was a sneak attack". (In Babylon we are not very educated about western affairs and we are lazy to ask Kukl again.)

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

3) Feel lucky, punk?

Finally, the doubletalk is at an end. Pharoah requests that all members of the Alliance announce to Babylon that naked aggression of this kind will immediately be met (and I mean RIGHT NOW, before Babs next turn), with a complete cessation of trade.

Pharoah cannot possibly overemphasize the critical nature of this new turn of events. Didanu sits upon the throne of Babylon and has now announced that he will attack all Persian units occupying the Persian Border. And once he has stripped the border bare, nothing remains to defend the Persians except Babylonian "goodwill", and all of us have seen how dubious and fickle THAT is.

This new "Operation Locust" announcement needs to be met with all the firmness and unity that followed the last one, otherwise we are living in a world in which the largest nation has turned the second largest into a puppet state. And then the clocks will truly begin to tick for us all.

[SlowThinker]

Mr. Kepls, I can't comment, I must laugh. It was/is all SO transparent...

[Zedd]

Kull I have to disagree, It sounds to me like Immo did a good job of emphasizing his frustrations in the pero-bab negotiations.
Peaster has been able to do this as well, now if the two sides can concentrate more on finding positive ground to build from rather than constantly digging up negativity to keep the situation aggravated we can get away from meaningless postings of rhetoric and snappy come-backs or accusations so that this thread can once again be INTERESTING to read.

[Peaster]

Zedd: Haven't you noticed that Persia has gone to the bargaining table several times, but Babylon always runs away? What else can one do with such folk ?

Persia is not too interested in the conversations between the Bab King and his imaginary friends, but it appears none of them have declared war yet, so we proceed with our own business. It also appears that they imagine some kind of symmetry between Babylon and Persia; they can keep such illusions for now.

[Alinestra Covelia]

First posted, way too long ago, by Germanos: (Feb. 2005, in fact)

Assyria has invested in Babylonia in the early years of SlowThinkers reign, when the country was devastated by the rule of CivFan and his courtisane Alinestra Incontinentia.

For the record, I deny everything. And besides, I wasn't his courtesan...

He never paid me.

[SlowThinker]

Alinestra, do you study old world annals so carefully? Or ... did you search for your name conceitedly?

BTW, how much do you charge? I would pay in advance, bussiness just started to go well.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
Persia is not too interested in the conversations between the Bab King and his imaginary friends, but it appears none of them have declared war yet, so we proceed with our own business.

Last you state Persia is ready to attack anytime, and now you pose nothing happens? We are on an edge of a war, especially after the newest Persian provocation: a Persian stack descended from The Spine:


Therefore I suppose you will answer my proposal about neutral areas or at least the one about a 'fair start of war' (in the paragraph A Pers-Bab future), unless you anticipate a war that will start 'anytime'.

---

Clarifications, less important
(Lycastus should forgive, as usual I only clarify a non-concrete Persian propaganda: )

It also appears that they imagine some kind of symmetry between Babylon and Persia; they can keep such illusions for now.

I am sure there is no symmetry between Babylon and Persia. The crucial difference is:
The one that wants peace naturally asks disputed areas stay neutral and non-militarized until an agreement is reached.
The other one sends military forces and builds installations there.

Originally posted by Sinbad
Zedd: Haven't you noticed that Persia has gone to the bargaining table several times, but Babylon always runs away?

One bargaining table ended just now, and I am sure people can make their inferences themselves.
Concerning the previous bargaining table, this is about 7th time you indicate it was Babylon that ran away, and you never showed a proof. On the contrary it is about 5th time I show it was Persia that stopped to talk: a post about "T-line"

[kengel]

No news in greece... Enjoy!

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Alinestra, do you study old world annals so carefully? Or ... did you search for your name conceitedly?

BTW, how much do you charge? I would pay in advance, bussiness just started to go well.

I have to make sure my reputation isn't being unfairly misrepresented on these threads, y'know.

As for payment plans, I have signed up with this nifty little online payment system which I am told will one day be bigger than Paypal.

The only problem is that if you use it to receive payments garnered while performing as a courtesan, it makes for a certain degree of circular redundancy. :/

*sigh*

[Looks around sheepishly.]

Erm... move along... nothing to see here... hee hee hee hurrmzzz...

[Peaster]

Zedd: Your turn! Peasteress won't wait long!

ST: Your refusal to negotiate in the past, and your disturbed rants, leave Persia thinking that we'd rather negotiate with drunken monkeys than Babylonians. Even better, a neutral King. I have invited the neutrals to mediate, but none have stepped forward yet. [BTW Egypt's diplo-inbox is full]

What do you mean by "I suppose you will answer my proposal about neutral areas." ? Last time I checked, you had run away, because I wouldn't answer two questions (unrelated to neutral zones). Are you back now? Have you sobered up ? Are you ready to bargain in good faith ? Do you still have pre-conditions, or more demands coming from out of the blue?

Yes, readers CAN draw their own conclusions, and they have. Unfortunately, you ignore them.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
we'd rather negotiate with drunken monkeys than Babylonians...Are you back now? Have you sobered up? ...

I consider the talks about my 2390 proposal to be closed, there is nothing you should foil now and so your new insults are needless.

A Pers-Bab future
This is a name of a paragraph of #3496, so far I didn't get any Persian response. I edited the para now (one word added) so that it is more clear for you.

An immediate problem
Last cycle you stated Persia would attack Babylon anytime, now you moved a stack from The Spine downhill to the Babylonian side. Is it a beginning of the announced attack? If not what is a purpose of this manoeuvre?

[Straybow]

Even better, a neutral King. I have invited the neutrals to mediate, but none have stepped forward yet.

I have given mediatory advice to both sides, and it has been ignored by both sides. Persia built roads and forts on the spine and moves units south of the spine, which I advised would be inflamatory.