IRON is the new ODN?

[Dochartaigh]

What I got from this is that IRON are untrustworthy but that NG is fucking morons. They had a chance to peace out on LoSS so that they could concentrate on other alliances better and were stupid about it. LoSS ends up going elsewhere anyways because NG is getting crushed regardless so NG gains nothing. 

 

In the end, the two alliances involved have shown some rather glaring incompetence.

[Delta1212]

 
Yes, it is definitely a non-chaining treaty, but non-chaining doesn't mean there are no obligations once a war breaks out.  They mean that obligations under a particular treaty become optional when they arise out of obligations from another, separate treaty; there can still be obligations under treaties with non-chaining clauses when they don't arise in this way.  For example, in this case, since LoSS didn't have to attack NG, and for that matter, neither did VE, there are no separate treaty obligations at work here, just an attack, plain and simple.  Thus, IRON is obligated to defend NG against LoSS upon the request of NG; in the logs, NG requested, and IRON refused to honor said request, ergo a violation of the treaty occurred.  
 
For those interested, the current text of the IRON-NG MnDoAP can be found here.  The text says that the treaty is non-chaining, although it doesn't specify further on that front, but to interpret a non-chaining clause in the way some in this thread have interpreted them would go against both the spirit and the very point behind non-chaining clauses.  They're intended to prevent alliances from being bound by treaties which they didn't sign (through their obligations to one of the signatories), they're not intended to make MDP treaties optional.  There are still plenty of circumstances in which defense is mandatory even in treaties with non-chaining clauses, and these circumstances are one of them.

And this is why I don't really understand the modern "everyone just hits whoever with no particular justification" strategy of coalition warfare.

I mean, I do understand it, because I know exactly how frustrating it is to finagle a bunch of treaties to get an outcome that works properly and then wrangle the alliances involved into actually going along with the plan. I'm sure it's much less work to say "I need 3 mil NS on this alliance, and that alliance has 3 mil NS I'll just use them regardless of whether there's a treaty we can use to put them there" but there was a reason that we put ourselves through that hair pulling when organizing coalitions back in the day.

[Samus]

I find it interesting that Aaron claims IRON to be on the 'other side' (e.g., mine), yet in my experience IRON's greatest desire during this war has been to do absolutely no fighting at all.

 

IRON is on no one's side except their own, and that's awfully similar to the viewpoints that put NG in their current radioactive pickle.

This is suppossed to be one of Polar/TOP's (our) coalition leaders.

 

I'd be so happy if we did a bipolar and hit your alliance instead.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Samus

[Icewolf]

Stop lying. LoSS agreed to end it's conflict with NG. There was absolutely no deal reached, nor offered, on a full pullout with no reengagement. Why on earth would we let LoSS peace out with us only to declare on NSO? On NPO? No sane alliance leadership would accept that deal and you know it.

The conversation in the IRON embassy stated that it was a full withdrawal without hitting Non-Grata or a direct ally of Non-Grata again. Without wishing to go and drag quotes of a private forum, Non-Grata's response was that was unacceptable to you as they would still hit other parts of your coalition. 

Wtf are you talking about. Treaty's are written in EXTENSIVE detail. They are worded very clearly for a reason so there can be no ambiguity about situations such as this. Again. Stop lying.

Have you bothered to read the relevant treaty? Of the many things that can be said about it, detail is not the word that springs to mind. I appreciate that you want to paint me in the worst light possible but accusing me of lying for pointing out that a treaty, which doesn't provide a definition for any of its key clauses, is not written in any detail is taking that to desperate extremes.
 

Yes, it is definitely a non-chaining treaty, but non-chaining doesn't mean there are no obligations once a war breaks out.  They mean that obligations under a particular treaty become optional when they arise out of obligations from another, separate treaty; there can still be obligations under treaties with non-chaining clauses when they don't arise in this way.  For example, in this case, since LoSS didn't have to attack NG, and for that matter, neither did VE, there are no separate treaty obligations at work here, just an attack, plain and simple.  Thus, IRON is obligated to defend NG against LoSS upon the request of NG; in the logs, NG requested, and IRON refused to honor said request, ergo a violation of the treaty occurred.  
 
For those interested, the current text of the IRON-NG MnDoAP can be found here.  The text says that the treaty is non-chaining, although it doesn't specify further on that front, but to interpret a non-chaining clause in the way some in this thread have interpreted them would go against both the spirit and the very point behind non-chaining clauses.  They're intended to prevent alliances from being bound by treaties which they didn't sign (through their obligations to one of the signatories), they're not intended to make MDP treaties optional.  There are still plenty of circumstances in which defense is mandatory even in treaties with non-chaining clauses, and these circumstances are one of them.

This entire war arises out of Non-Grata's treaty with NSO. So how is it to go against the spirit to state that it means IRON does not remain obliged to defend Non-Grata from the result of the activation of that treaty?
 

Furthermore, there are intel sharing obligations in treaties. So, IRON's mere presence in the coalition is a huge conflict in and of itself. IRON must have violated that portion of the treaty with NG as well. If they did honor that portion, then they violated the trust placed in them with the coalition, which is also awful. IRON should not have joined the coalition in the first place. If they hadn't this war would probably not be happening right now, because no one would know that IRON wasn't supportive of NG and lots of people are afraid of IRON.

We were in opposite coalitions last war after Non-Grata made a similar determination regarding its treaty obligations. The standard procedure is to reach a mutual understanding about how this thing is going to go down and get on with life.

[Rush Sykes]

Wasn't all the embassy talk enough?

 

I'd have expected better from you

 

As he expected better from you. I ask again.. how many long-time prominent members and former have to bail on you overt his, before someone over there says .... " Are we really doing both the right and smart thing?"

[Ardus]

This is suppossed to be one of Polar/TOP's (our) coalition leaders.
 
I'd be so happy if we did a bipolar and hit your alliance instead.

In a coalition of this breadth and diversity there is bound to be differences of opinion and, particularly applicable here, souls of... well we'll call it great spirit. It is not only Chimaera's coalition. It is Goldie's coalition. It is Cable's coalition. It is Dajobo's coalition. Don't be so eager to harm them.

I have every confidence that you will fight valiantly.

[Samus]

As he expected better from you. I ask again.. how many long-time prominent members and former have to bail on you overt his, before someone over there says .... " Are we really doing both the right and smart thing?"

2 members left  - 2 members who had already retired - out of the 350 we have as a result of this war.

 

That's less than 1% of our member nations

 

Try harder please

[Gibsonator21]

This is suppossed to be one of Polar/TOP's (our) coalition leaders.

 

I'd be so happy if we did a bipolar and hit your alliance instead.

But you won't. You'll sit there and talk like you have the entire war.

[HM Solomon I]

This entire war arises out of Non-Grata's treaty with NSO. So how is it to go against the spirit to state that it means IRON does not remain obliged to defend Non-Grata from the result of the activation of that treaty?

 

VE does not have a treaty with TOP; the only treaty they had was [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/104392-an-announcement-from-the-viridian-entente-and-the-order-of-the-paradox/]this one[/url], which was only an ODoAP and was subsequently [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/110848-announcement-from-the-order-of-the-paradox/]cancelled[/url].  LoSS does not have a treaty with TOP either.  The only alliance that NG has attacked is TOP; VE and LoSS may have attacked NG because of NG's attack on TOP, but it was certainly not due to treaty obligations.  They just wanted to attack them; the reasons are irrelevant here because they weren't treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are the only things that matter as far as non-chaining clauses go.  Thus, it falls to NG to make a request for military assistance, which they did, and which IRON refused to honor.  I'm not sure it can be much clearer than that; it just is what is: a violation of a treaty.  Maybe NG is partially at fault, but it wasn't NG that violated the treaty, it was IRON.

[Chaoshawk]

In the Karma War, IRON was far more pissed about when ODN choose a side in that war than NG is about IRON in these logs. If NG removes IRON's embassy on their forums, then it's full on déjà vu. Then, again everyone, except maybe Shahenshah, in their council is someone entirely different now.

[HM Solomon I]

2 members left  - 2 members who had already retired - out of the 350 we have as a result of this war.
 
That's less than 1% of our member nations
 
Try harder please

 
To be fair to Rush (and I can't believe I've actually uttered those words :P ), MCRABT is not just another former member, he's the longest serving President in the history of IRON.  He may be in NG now, but that position more than qualifies him to comment authoritatively.

Edited November 15, 2013 by HM Solomon I

[Sunny Side King]

 We were in opposite coalitions last war after Non-Grata made a similar determination regarding its treaty obligations. The standard procedure is to reach a mutual understanding about how this thing is going to go down and get on with life.

We were the only reason why you guys weren't countered by TOP/MK/GOONS and the rest of Umbrella's allies you ungrateful fuck. With that being said, DBDC was a Umbrella splinter and YOU GUYS attacked Umbrella. Just because they had their own attention whoring DoE doesn't mean they weren't a Umbrella splinter. 

[Rush Sykes]

VE does not have a treaty with TOP; the only treaty they had was this one, which was only an ODoAP and was subsequently cancelled.  LoSS does not have a treaty with TOP either.  The only alliance that NG has attacked is TOP; VE and LoSS may have attacked NG because of NG's attack on TOP, but it was certainly not due to treaty obligations.  They just wanted to attack them; the reasons are irrelevant here because they weren't treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are the only things that matter as far as non-chaining clauses go.  Thus, it falls to NG to make a request for military assistance, which they did, and which IRON refused to honor.  I'm not sure it can be much clearer than that; it just is what is: a violation of a treaty.  Maybe NG is partially at fault, but it wasn't NG that violated the treaty, it was IRON.

 

You know... while I 100% agree with you on this.... I need to remind  you that your alliance recently came out of a war where the policy was "an attack on one is an attack on all." I thought this was a moronic strat, but your coalition thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. If any alliance (even IRON) wants to view the world in those terms going forward, then nobody who was a part of that nonsense can criticize that. Leave that to those of who think and thought it was a stupid policy.

[Gibsonator21]

You know... while I 100% agree with you on this.... I need to remind  you that your alliance recently came out of a war where the policy was "an attack on one is an attack on all." I thought this was a moronic strat, but your coalition thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. If any alliance (even IRON) wants to view the world in those terms going forward, then nobody who was a part of that nonsense can criticize that. Leave that to those of who think and thought it was a stupid policy.

Yes they can. This is Planet Bob, damnit.

[HM Solomon I]

You know... while I 100% agree with you on this.... I need to remind  you that your alliance recently came out of a war where the policy was "an attack on one is an attack on all." I thought this was a moronic strat, but your coalition thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. If any alliance (even IRON) wants to view the world in those terms going forward, then nobody who was a part of that nonsense can criticize that. Leave that to those of who think and thought it was a stupid policy.

 

Just because I was in the alliance at the time, doesn't mean I agreed with the policy (I wasn't in gov during that term).  And even if I did, it seems clear now that it broke down shortly after it was implemented.  

 

There is also a world of difference between that policy and inventing treaties, refusing to honor existing treaties, and the like that has happened during this war.  At least the Eq coalition was up front about it.

[Centurius]

To be fair to all the people claiming a treaty needs to be posted on the forums/wiki. FAN didn't do it for a pretty long time and it was almost always accepted.

[Samus]

 
To be fair to Rush (and I can't believe I've actually uttered those words :P ), MCRABT is not just another former member, he's the longest serving President in the history of IRON.  He may be in NG now, but that position more than qualifies him to comment authoritatively.

Rab left when as he retired from his presidency, which was at the end of eQ.

Way before this war started, so he doesn't count :P

[Rush Sykes]

To be fair to all the people claiming a treaty needs to be posted on the forums/wiki. FAN didn't do it for a pretty long time and it was almost always accepted.

 

I would love to see if you maintained that exact opinion if your coalition wasnt the beneficiary of the clearly moronic move by LOSS. Deep down, I know the answer. And you, my friend, try too hard.

[Icewolf]

VE does not have a treaty with TOP; the only treaty they had was this one, which was only an ODoAP and was subsequently cancelled.  LoSS does not have a treaty with TOP either.  The only alliance that NG has attacked is TOP; VE and LoSS may have attacked NG because of NG's attack on TOP, but it was certainly not due to treaty obligations.  They just wanted to attack them; the reasons are irrelevant here because they weren't treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are the only things that matter as far as non-chaining clauses go.  Thus, it falls to NG to make a request for military assistance, which they did, and which IRON refused to honor.  I'm not sure it can be much clearer than that; it just is what is: a violation of a treaty.  Maybe NG is partially at fault, but it wasn't NG that violated the treaty, it was IRON.

Its an undefined term in a treaty. We could debate back and forth how to interpret it but the bottom line is that there is a direct causal link between Non-Grata's actions that were in obedience to another treaty and this result, and we also worked to stop this war. Non-Grata chose then to continue military action effectively insisting that IRON join its side. That cannot possibly be within the spirit of the treaty.
 
 

To be fair to Rush (and I can't believe I've actually uttered those words :P ), MCRABT is not just another former member, he's the longest serving President in the history of IRON.  He may be in NG now, but that position more than qualifies him to comment authoritatively.

And he left months ago after making a total bollocks up of the end of his term.

[HM Solomon I]

Rab left when as he retired from his presidency, which was at the end of eQ.

Way before this war started, so he doesn't count :P

 

That should really make him count more, since he wasn't involved in this, he can be more objective about it; that, combined with his extensive experience, means his opinion should carry even more weight than most others.

[Steve Buscemi]

For the record, we were just seeking 100% confirmation of IRON's stance, one that we already aware they had been thinking of doing.  IRON has allies on both sides of this conflict.  They have their reasons and I understand that and sympathize with their situation.  It's a situation that most of us have been in, including NG.

 

NG has made it's bed and will lay in it (as a RIA poster pointed out correctly).  We are enjoying this war and will take the beating like the fancy boys were are.  And win-loss, who doesn't like a good war!

[MCRABT]

That should really make him count more, since he wasn't involved in this, he can be more objective about it; that, combined with his extensive experience, means his opinion should carry even more weight than most others.

 

Experience is largely irrelevant, what validates any view point is its ability to stand up to rebuttal, what disappoints me the most is the failure of the standing council to explain how its recent decisions are in the best interest of IRON. In failing to offer this rational they have simply failed to contest the validity of my view point at all. Manifested, this type of negligence results in extremely poor decisions and that is why we have this thread.

[Icewolf]

We were the only reason why you guys weren't countered by TOP/MK/GOONS and the rest of Umbrella's allies you ungrateful fuck. With that being said, DBDC was a Umbrella splinter and YOU GUYS attacked Umbrella. Just because they had their own attention whoring DoE doesn't mean they weren't a Umbrella splinter.

Did I criticise Non-Grata's actions last war? No. But it seems like there is some guilt over the DBDC-would you like to let it out?

[Icewolf]

Experience is largely irrelevant, what validates any view point is its ability to stand up to rebuttal, what disappoints me the most is the failure of the standing council to explain how its recent decisions are in the best interest of IRON. In failing to offer this rational they have simply failed to contest the validity of my view point at all. Manifested, this type of negligence results in extremely poor decisions and that is why we have this thread.

They don't owe you that explanation.

[Centurius]

It is hard to imagine how anybody could have handled this war worse than the IRON Council has.

You could have been in charge.