Jump to content

Standing athwart the absurdity of treaties


Rooman33

Recommended Posts

[center][b][SIZE=7]Standing athwart the absurdity of treaties[/SIZE][/b]
The GOP turns Two Years Old
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/darooman/GOPOWFBanner.png[/IMG][/center]


Presently, the planet has been shaken by a series of events that have left alliances the world round uncertain of, and apprehensive about, the future. The casual, rational observer can easily see that the past several years of treaty politics have been a failure. The entire premise – or at least the overtly stated one – of political treaties is to promote peace through strength. Clearly, they do nothing of the sort.

We in the Green Old Party (GOP) do not heedlessly disregard the hardships and worries that accompany foreign policy on Bob. Alliances certainly have a right to form their own friendships in whatever formalities they choose.

What we call into question is the wisdom of chaining treaties – the notion that an alliance ought to be obligated to act on behalf or in defense of another, irrespective of free will. This runs counter to the nature of man, and so it is no surprise that chaining treaties have proven themselves unstable in the laboratory of history.

We are aware that the chaining nature of treaties, by in large, has been rejected on Bob. Yet, in this present conflict, we see alliances that are several degrees removed from the initial conflict, heavily involved in a war that started – allegedly – because one alliance sent one person to spy on another alliance. And for that, how many alliances are now at war?

For two years now, the GOP has engaged a foreign policy approach that has aligned us with our own self interests – not with the politics of other alliances. By aligning ourselves with features of the world (neutrality, conservatism and the green sphere), and reserving our own right to defend those spheres of interest, it is not possible for us to be forced into a conflict not of our choosing unless we are attacked outright – and there is no foreign policy on the planet which can prevent that from happening if it is the aggressor’s will to make it transpire.

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=14356]The War on Peace – of which, I was a part[/url] three years ago – was a perfect example of this. Doomhouse’s recent declaration of war on the NPO is yet another affirmation that alliances can and will declare wars if they really want to. What’s dangerous about the recent precedent set by Doomhouse is that it throws out the conventional wisdom that an alliance has to have recently gone athwart the status quo of foreign relations. What this means is that any alliance can declare on any other alliance “just because.”

We contend that this is nothing new. It has always been the case that alliances picked up treaties, dropped treaties, declared war or avoided war according to their own political agenda. Only now, the perception that a "just" declaration of war needs to be feigned in an attempt to rationalize the conflict relative to the status quo of political affairs on this planet has been completely uprooted.

Almost any given alliance leadership and membership are amorphous by their very nature. We in the GOP contend that it makes for unsound social contracts to form a treaty with a body of people who, in a political context, are constantly in flux. The leadership who signs a given treaty may be impeached the next day. The membership who espouses values one week may change their minds the next.

Better, we contend, to align yourself with objective aspects of the game than the subjective values of your peers. That way, your stance on a given issue is never in doubt, your allegiances are never in question, and you are for all who care to observe a beacon of consistency in a world of far too much political uncertainty.

That’s why, in our second year of existence, we came forward with the [URL=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=85436&st=0]“Don’t Tread on Me"[/URL] Doctrine, whereupon we reserved the right to defend our three spheres of interest from any unfounded actual or perceived attack. Shortly thereafter, The Conservative Underground adopted the DTOM language in their own legislation.

Today, we encourage others to do the same. To break the bonds of the status quo, and surge forward with new breath to defend your own interests – not the interests of the powers that be.

We believe that the nature of treaty politics is tantamount to collectivism. That really begs the fundamental question: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon our autonomy and sovereignty and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

How many wars have been fought for the egos of a few alliance leaders?

How many nations have been pounded to rubble in defense of a flag that was not their own?

How many times will smaller alliances rally under the banner of the mighty sanctioned gods, only to serve as meat shields for the supposedly “greater good?”

Who benefits from this madness? Certainly not those who’ve been driven from the face of this planet for no other reason than to soothe the hurt feelings of a friend of a friend of a friend.

The reality is that we truly must find peace through strength. Not the strength of the collective, but the strength of the individual.

We must never forget that no government scheme is going to be perfect. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined to oppose it with all our might when we encounter it. The great glory of this planet has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of its past. The evolutionary nature of culture relativism has seen natural selection weed out the failing ideologies. On today’s Bob, there is no room for racism, sexism or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred.

The free will of man is sufficient to reject that which would compromise his basic rights. Treaties are not needed for this, let alone chaining treaties.

Yet, the leaders of the current powers that be have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause. They repudiate all morality or ideas that are outside their own class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to their own interests of class war. And everything, for them, is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of their perceived enemy, exploiting social order for their own benefit.

A casual observation of this planet’s history, however, shows that there has been uprising after uprising in rejection of this elementary doctrine, illustrating a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We’ve seen this phenomenon in almost every global war that’s scarred the planet.

Neutral alliances around the globe have made every effort to make the power blocs understand that we will never compromise our principles and standards and we will never give away our freedom.

The greatest evil is not done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that our would-be overlords love to paint. It is, instead, conceived and ordered; moved, seconded, carried and minuted in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

Because these quiet men do not raise their voices, because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're always making "their final territorial demand," some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses.

But if history teaches us anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom, and the rejection of sovereignty.

So today, on our second anniversary, we urge you to speak out against those who would place your alliance in a position of military and moral inferiority.

Throughout our existence, many have been questioned, "Has the Green Old Party the courage and resolve to sustain the discipline for long enough to break through to success?"

Yes. We have and we shall. We are determined to stay with our policy of soft-line neutrality and see it through to its conclusion, and that is what marks the GOP as one of the truly radical ministries of Bob.

To those waiting with baited breath for that favorite catchphrase, "U-turn," I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to: The GOP’s not for turning.

We truly believe that the world is coming slowly, painfully to an autumn of understanding. It is our hope it will be followed by a winter of common sense. Even if it isn’t, we shall not be diverted from our course.

This doesn't mean we contend that alliances should isolate themselves and refuse to seek an understanding with others. We instead contend that an alliance ought to do everything it can to persuade others of their peaceful intent. If persuasion does not take, look to your own defenses. The frenzied scramble to look beyond your own border walls for support – while sometimes warranted by the reality of pending conflicts – ultimately only detracts from your own sovereignty. Every foreign Soldier on your land, whether purportedly fighting for your present cause or not, is a usurper of your liberty.

The collectivist approach to foreign affairs dominating Bob today is ideologically, politically, and morally bankrupt.

Some of the predominate warmongering ideologues of Bob today seem to believe that your nations are nothing more than numbers in a Bloc computer. We believe they should be individuals.

We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the collectivists of Bob may pretend otherwise. We believe that every alliance has the right to be unequal – despite the recent outcries to smite or absorb the aptly dubbed “micro alliances” of the world.

Freedom to choose is something too many alliances take for granted — until it is in danger of being taken away from them. We contend that the Collectivist governments of Bob have set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice of their subordinates. As a Conservative government, we aim to increase choice for all.

We believe that you become a responsible alliance by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.

But, as the long history of the planet Bob has shown time and time again, the Collectivists are better at demolition than construction. We Conservatives do not accept that because some people prefer protection over choice, that the two must be mutually inclusive for everyone else.

We, ourselves, have acquired protection from the signatories of the United Jungle Accords - but done so without surrendering one iota of choice or autonomy. They agree to protect us because we add value to the sphere, but we've made it clear that we will absolve them from their responsibility to protect us should we engage in policies with which they do not agree. We signed no ODP, no MDoAP, no political treaty of any kind. We've sworn to protect any alliance's right to exist on Green, and we combat roguery and ghosting in the sphere. For our efforts, others in the sphere have decided we're worth protecting - and we remain ever grateful. However, should they change their minds, our policies would remain the same regardless.

What we wonder is: how is it that other alliances can not reach similarly amicable arrangements whereupon they protect their overlapping interests but do not bind themselves to each other's fate?

Let us extend choice on Bob, the will to choose, and the chance to choose.

Today, on the GOP’s second anniversary, we officially petition the alliances of Bob to once and for all reject all chaining clauses in treaties. And, if you see fit, reject treaties altogether. Put to death, for once and for all, the needless involvement of ancillary alliances in conflicts that don’t concern them. Reject, as the laboratory of history suggests you ought, the notion that you need big brother to make your decisions for you. Acknowledge the reality that a promise to lend help in back channels has the potential to stand the test of time as well as any arbitrary treaty scribbled in digits.

Free yourselves from the bonds of political obligation to amorphous bodies of people who may or may not share your values. Seek protection, seek friendship but do not seek them at the expense of choice, autonomy or sovereignty. Go forth boldly in defense of your values, whether or not you have a horde of treaty partners behind you.

Consider a world where the fat cats have to fight their own wars by themselves. Consider a world where people fight in defense of principle, not policy. Consider a world where your alliance is beholden only to itself. What a world that would be.

Sincerely,
The Green Old Party

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/darooman/GOPBanner.png[/img]


OOC Disclaimer: This post obviously and intentionally pulls whole comments and ideas from RL Reagan and Thatcher speeches. They have not been cited here so as to maintain the OOC/IC distinction. Below are the inspirations for much of the above text:

Ronald Reagan: [URL=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganevilempire.htm]"The Evil Empire"[/URL]
Ronald Reagan: [URL=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm]"A Time for Choosing"[/URL]
Margaret Thatcher: [URL=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jpVWxoFdQwIJ:www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102777+site:http://www.margaretthatcher.org/+%22thank+heavens%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk]"Free Society"[/URL]
Margaret Thatcher: [URL=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretthatchernotforturning.htm]"The Lady's Not For Turning"[/URL]

tl;dr: GOP is two years old today. Treaties - and chaining treaties in particular suck - reject them :smug:

Edited by Rooman33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296449379' post='2612063']
Congrats on turning two. I'll pass on dropping our treaties though. :P
[/quote]
Sounds like a good plan to me. :awesome:

Congrats though. :ph34r:

[color="#808080"][size="1"]
ooc: haha... Reagan and Thatcher. Glad I skipped to the tl;dr... [/size][/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest- I like the idea. It'll never happen. And for many that are heavily involved it would be suicide to even attempt it. They drop their treaties and they become targets for everyone that did not.

But, congrats. Anyone in this world using the GOP tag is going to be outnumbered and probably face some issues from the majority of citizens of Bob that are well left of center. I'm glad to see that the principles of personal responsibility and conservatism are still alive in well on the green sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that GOP is an alliance which fights for what it believes in, yet you are not in this current war. In fact, you've never been in any war. Two years and you haven't fought, so when exactly are you guys going to enter a war to fight for what you believe in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1296449975' post='2612082']
You say that GOP is an alliance which fights for what it believes in, yet you are not in this current war. In fact, you've never been in any war. Two years and you haven't fought, so when exactly are you guys going to enter a war to fight for what you believe in?
[/quote]
Good question. What's the word, green birds? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1296449975' post='2612082']
You say that GOP is an alliance which fights for what it believes in, yet you are not in this current war. In fact, you've never been in any war. Two years and you haven't fought, so when exactly are you guys going to enter a war to fight for what you believe in?[/quote]

As we said when we issued our DTOM doctrine, we'll fight when someone tries to deny a neutral alliance its right to be neutral, a green alliance its right to be Green, or a conservative alliance its right to be Conservative. Since our inception, no one has declared on a neutral alliance just because it's neutral. No one's declared on a self-proclaimed conservative alliance just because it's conservative. And no one's tried to push any green alliance off our sphere (though we've had debates with other alliances in our sphere about the wisdom of supporting certain green alliances' inclusion into the UJA). If we'd been around during the War on Peace, we most certainly would have jumped into the fray (and been butchered, but still would have gone).

With regard to the current war, we've been watching closely looking to see if any of our spheres of interest were coming under unwarranted attack. They haven't yet. Specifically, we were watching to see if INT was going to prolong their hostilities with TCU simply because the INT is chalked full of commies and TCU is, obviously, conservative. But INT peaced out with all of TCU's other attackers. They were also careful, in their DoW, to say that they were going to war because of their treaty obligations - not because of ideological motivations. So, we had no role in that conflict.

MK's declaration on the CCC also raised some eyebrows, but Christianity is not tantamount to conservatism. What's more, despite the fiery rhetoric in that MK DoW, they still said they were declaring because of a treaty obligation - making the nature of the DoW relative to CN politics. But had someone posted a similar DoW on TCU or CPAC or maybe even NoR without the justification of doing it to honor a treaty, it would likely make us want to get involved.

We're also diligently watching out for anyone who might take the opportunity in this mayhem to start picking on any neutral alliances. Should someone decide now would be the perfect time to hit the Grey council, for example, we'd be all over that - defending neutrality's right to exist.

Similarly, by way of example, if VE surrendered (which I know won't happen) and NpO tried to make one of the terms "you must join the Blue sphere," we'd involve ourselves at that point.

In short, we don't meddle in the political affairs of other alliances. We think treaties are arbitrary, and that an alliance (as evidenced by Doomhouse) has the capacity to declare war (or not) for whatever reason it wants. You don't need a treaty to go to war, or to bring friends with you.

We do, however, keep a watchful eye over the Green Old Party's spheres of interests. In the event that someone decides to make life rough for neutrality, conservatism or the Green sphere - we'll be all over that like white on rice. But we're simply not interested in being chained down by the politics of other people. Treaties are too easily dropped or picked up and the leadership and membership of any given alliance is too amorphous to base a sound foreign policy upon them.

Suffice it to say, we're defensive in nature. We only go to war to defend ourselves or our way of life (our spheres of interest).

That's our approach any way. It's been working thus far. Our not having gone to war in two years, in our minds, is evidence of a successful foreign policy.

Edited by Rooman33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1296449150' post='2612054']

Free yourselves from the bonds of political obligation to amorphous bodies of people who may or may not share your values. Seek protection, seek friendship but do not seek them at the expense of choice, autonomy or sovereignty. Go forth boldly in defense of your values, whether or not you have a horde of treaty partners behind you.

Consider a world where the fat cats have to fight their own wars by themselves. Consider a world where people fight in defense of principle, not policy. Consider a world where your alliance is beholden only to itself. What a world that would be.

[/quote]


This is something I could really get into. :awesome:


btw Happy Birthday o/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1296450480' post='2612126']
As we said when we issued our DTOM doctrine, we'll fight when someone tries to deny a neutral alliance its right to be neutral, a green alliance its right to be Green, or a conservative alliance its right to be Conservative. Since our inception, no one has declared on a neutral alliance just because it's neutral. No one's declared on a self-proclaimed conservative alliance just because it's conservative. And no one's tried to push any green alliance off our sphere (though we've had debates with other alliances in our sphere about the wisdom of supporting certain green alliances' inclusion into the UJA). If we'd been around during the War on Peace, we most certainly would have jumped into the fray (and been butchered, but still would have gone).

With regard to the current war, we've been watching closely looking to see if any of our spheres of interest were coming under unwarranted attack. They haven't yet. Specifically, we were watching to see if INT was going to prolong their hostilities with TCU simply because the INT is chalked full of commies and TCU is, obviously, conservative. But INT peaced out with all of TCU's other attackers. They were also careful, in their DoW, to say that they were going to war because of their treaty obligations - not because of ideological motivations. So, we had no role in that conflict.

MK's declaration on the CCC also raised some eyebrows, but Christianity is not tantamount to conservatism. What's more, despite the fiery rhetoric in that MK DoW, they still said they were declaring because of a treaty obligation - making the nature of the DoW relative to CN politics. But had someone posted a similar DoW on TCU or CPAC or maybe even NoR without the justification of doing it to honor a treaty, it would likely make us want to get involved.

We're also diligently watching out for anyone who might take the opportunity in this mayhem to start picking on any neutral alliances. Should someone decide now would be the perfect time to hit the Grey council, for example, we'd be all over that - defending neutrality's right to exist.

Similarly, by way of example, if VE surrendered (which I know won't happen) and NpO tried to make one of the terms "you must join the Blue sphere," we'd involve ourselves at that point.

In short, we don't meddle in the political affairs of other alliances. We think treaties are arbitrary, and that an alliance (as evidenced by Doomhouse) has the capacity to declare war (or not) for whatever reason it wants. You don't need a treaty to go to war, or to bring friends with you.

We do, however, keep a watchful eye over the Green Old Party's spheres of interests. In the event that someone decides to make life rough for neutrality, conservatism or the Green sphere - we'll be all over that like white on rice. But we're simply not interested in being chained down by the politics of other people. Treaties are too easily dropped or picked up and the leadership and membership of any given alliance is too amorphous to base a sound foreign policy upon them.

Suffice it to say, we're defensive in nature. We only go to war to defend ourselves or our way of life (our spheres of interest).

That's our approach any way. It's been working thus far. Our not having gone to war in two years, in our minds, is evidence of a successful foreign policy.
[/quote]

I suppose you have a point, and have answered my question completely. I'll be waiting for the day when you guys come in out of nowhere and roll someone though, it will be epic :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1296453730' post='2612492']
Neutrality.... how very [s]cowardly[/s] [i]Conservative [/i]of you.

Congrats on 2 years and best of luck moving forward.
[/quote]

Abstaining from war is only cowardly if you presume we share the same values as you.

We don't.

Thank you for the well wishes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GOP, congrats, I like your alliance.

You know, I can kind of understand this whole neutrality thing. One thing I've come to realize in my life is that war is like a bagel. You may be able to stick your dick in it, but that doesn't mean you should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...