Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?

[EmuGod]

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]

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]

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

[tanelorn]

Iron Curtain- Public statement

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]

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]

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]

Yeah your right about that conmcb25!

[Iron Chancellor]

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]

Iron Curtain- Statement of protest!

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]

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

[EmuGod]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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.