WesWorld

Please vote in addtion to comments if member of the Council. Thanks.

Mexico votes nay. A nation's internal issues are that nation's issues alone. Otherwise we will see "peacekeeping" forces in nations that have done nothing wrong but are just disliked...

Australia will vote whatever the Brits vote, but feels the peacekeeping force should also operate on the Indian side to make sure they dont try anything funny.

The Latvian observer to the LoN notes this request with a sense of apathy.

The United States votes Aye, but has no intention of providing troops to the cause.
(Comment overheard from member of the US delegation: "Why the hell would we ever want to go to Afghanistan?")

Great Britain sees this issue in multi-facets.
First, it is clear to us that if Bharat doesn't get the outside help it requires it will send its own Army and then the country may end up like Persia as a Bharati puppet.
Second, If Afghanistan is so concerned by these bandits operating on its land then why don't they seek help directly.
Third, what is needed is not so much a peacekeeping force as an intervention force to destroy the rebel forces in hiding. Afghanistan is not in danger of toppling. It should be a pure military mission to disarm the Persian rebels in hiding. Not a political take-over or passive escorting of Red Crescent convoys.
Fourth, Afghanistan needs aid to become stronger. Britian is prepared to send funds and weapons to them if requested.
Fifth, Obviously the Irish and Czech Armies are not well equipped in modern warfare to seek out and destroy these rebels. While they could be used to maintain the peace if nothing active is done to root out the problem then the rebels will not go away but may in fact grow in strength. Britain abstains from sending troops out of deference to Bharat. But some kind of more experienced force would be needed to go in alongside the Irish and Czechs.
Sixth, We are sure some funds could be arranged to support the logistics of such a mission from the League. Britain is offering Irish use of Iraqi bases (land and air) for logistic support, R&R etc and training for minimal costs.
So its an Aye

Argentina,
What? Where? Who? *Looks over shoulder at occupation of Paraguay* Votes Nay (purely because we know such missions fail and lead to bloodshed and loss of men and widows and can lead to more dangerous wars with bigger neighbours).

Quoted

Originally posted by CanisD
The United States votes Aye, but has no intention of providing troops to the cause.
(Comment overheard from member of the US delegation: "Why the hell would we ever want to go to Afghanistan?")

Ah, the irony.....

The government of Atlantis echo's the concerns of its German counterpart but will reluctantly vote Aye as the alternative seems to be further Indian agression in the region.

But will permit logistics of Peacekeeping force to transit Russian territory.

And will stand ready to assist this force extricating itself in case of need.

June 29th 1940 Voting by the end of session:

permanent (10 Countries):
SAE => Player (HoomAn)
US => Player (Canis) Aye
Nordmark => Player (RB)
Atlantis => Player (Smily) Aye
UK => Player (Hood) Aye
Italy => Player (RedAdmiral) Abstain
Japan => Player (Rooijen) Aye
France => Player (Agent148 ) Aye
Russia => Player (AdmKuznet) Abstain
Germany => Player (Bruce) Nay

non-permanent (10 Countries):
Argentina => Player (Hood) Nay
Australlia => Player (Desert) Aye
Chile => Player (Brock) Aye
Denmark => Player (CG)
Iberia => Player (CG)
Mexico => Player (Desert) Nay
Poland => Player (Marek)
India => Player (perdedor) Aye
China => Player (parador)
Canada => Player (ShinRa)

France, while having some reservations about the situation, some of which have been voiced by allies Russia and Atlantis. The French government has decided to vote Aye for the establishment a League of Nations Afghanistan Field Force (LONAFF).

If the developing situation should require it, France is prepared to commit to the already offered Czech and Irish units, one regiment of La Legion Etrangere.

Aye.

Japan will send food and other supplies and funds (*) to support LONAFF. Japan could also send troops but the request was made to neutral European Nations so it will not happen unless both sides agree to it.

(*) In the unlikely event that Canadians join LONAFF, the Japanese will not commit funds to finance their escapades in the field... for obvious reasons.

Quoted

Otherwise we will see "peacekeeping" forces in nations that have done nothing wrong but are just disliked...

Nah, it's more to keep the citizens of the region and/or world safe, otherwise there would already be a sizeable peacekeeping force in Mexico.
*Votes "Aye" on a peacekeeping force in Manzo's home*

Britian sends two AA units to Mazo's home... to keep him grounded!

The Dutch/Belgians/Kongo don't sit on this council, but will point out to some of the members that the difference between war-zone Bolivia/Lithuania and Afghan bandits is martial law. Someone should clarify what the extent of the Police powers are before League troops are committed.

OOC: Overall, classifying Persian bandits as nationalist insurgents would have made a much better parallel to Lithuania.

Also, I doubt Bahrat views UKN troops as neutral. Correct me if I'm in error.

Lastly, the Dutch have a pair of mothballed liners and some cargo vessels bought from failing Belgian firms @1935, and will politely inquire of the Irish and Czechs if they would like to borrow them for transport & logistics support. If so, the Dutch will proceed to mobilize them.

KK, You're correct.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
KK, You're correct.

I was presuming that was so. Considering the nations of the UKN were major contributers to both the other missions, it does make a distinction between the Afgahn and Bolivia/Lithuanian missions.

Italy decides to abstain. On the one hand, she'd very much like not to see India take over even more of Afghanistan. On the other hand, the League is not the world's policeman to go and harangue countries that aren't liked.

July 3rd 1940 Voting by the end of session:

permanent (10 Countries):
SAE => Player (HoomAn)
US => Player (Canis) Aye
Nordmark => Player (RB)
Atlantis => Player (Smily) Aye
UK => Player (Hood) Aye
Italy => Player (RedAdmiral) Abstain
Japan => Player (Rooijen) Aye
France => Player (Agent148 ) Aye
Russia => Player (AdmKuznet) Abstain
Germany => Player (Bruce) Nay

non-permanent (10 Countries):
Argentina => Player (Hood) Nay
Australlia => Player (Desert) Aye
Chile => Player (Brock) Aye
Denmark => Player (CG)
Iberia => Player (CG)
Mexico => Player (Desert) Nay
Poland => Player (Marek)
India => Player (perdedor) Aye
China => Player (parador) Aye
Canada => Player (ShinRa)

After long internal discussions, China votes ........ YES !

July 5th 1940 Voting by the end of session:

permanent (10 Countries):
SAE => Player (HoomAn)
US => Player (Canis) Aye
Nordmark => Player (RB) Nay
Atlantis => Player (Smily) Aye
UK => Player (Hood) Aye
Italy => Player (RedAdmiral) Abstain
Japan => Player (Rooijen) Aye
France => Player (Agent148 ) Aye
Russia => Player (AdmKuznet) Abstain
Germany => Player (Bruce) Nay

non-permanent (10 Countries):
Argentina => Player (Hood) Nay
Australlia => Player (Desert) Aye
Chile => Player (Brock) Aye
Denmark => Player (CG)
Iberia => Player (CG)
Mexico => Player (Desert) Nay
Poland => Player (Marek)
India => Player (perdedor) Aye
China => Player (parador) Aye
Canada => Player (ShinRa)

Nordmark notes that the request of the Afghani and Bharati delegations is not, in fact, for a peacekeeping force, but for a peacemaking force. This, in the view of the Nordmarchian ambassador, is not the purview of the League of Nations.

Nordmark would be willing to send a force to oversee the peaceful withdrawal from western Afghanistan of Persian nationalist forces. However, Nordmark will not attempt to compel this withdrawal. Accordingly, Nordmark votes Nay to the current request.