HeroofTime55

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281747374' post='2415133'] You guys do realize that the only reason the "ulterior motives" talk came up was because the professed motives ("You sent 6M! Oh No! WAR NOW!") don't make any sense, right? It is of course possible that the "act of war" silliness wasn't given much heed because RoK had just knowingly and apparently deliberately committed an act of war against us thirty minutes earlier. The aid wasn't the right response, but, well, bad diplomacy does tend to beget bad diplomacy. [/quote]"Yes heft but HOO TOLD YOU! you should have known better!" There, how am I doing? Just trying to save the other side a little effort in posting the same thing as a response to every point.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281745241' post='2415086'] Yeah, him attacking nations that did not spy on him surely makes it a defensive war. [/quote] What if it was a government sanctioned spy attack? Then wouldn't it be so by the same logic that Heft's action is viewed as that of the NSO? From what I heard, it was, but I am uncertain on that point.

The only truly valid cause for war is if your allies (written treaties required) go to war and they ask for your help. This is valid in all cases regardless of the initial reasons for war. Only the instigating alliance should take heat for wide scale conflicts. Barring that, if you attempt good faith diplomacy to resolve an issue, and diplomacy fails (ie, the other party straight up tells you that they won't give you what they want, they are non-compliant), then you usually have a pretty legit claim, depending on how badly they violated your sovereignty. Yes, war for it's own sake is fun, it makes the game go round, so on and so forth. What's funny is people didn't have this attitude back in the past when they lost wars, it was always "Oh X is driving people from the game!" (Also, war for it's own sake isn't going to get you very far IC, and it annoys me when people argue 'fun' as a valid reason for this recent war, or any war. IC, it's not a valid reason, because IC, the world isn't a game. IC it just makes you look purely evil; Imagine if the US declared on Canada 'for fun') Right now, we've entered an era where it's still a little fresh, but eventually it's going to get stale, and the same old parties keeping the same people down, well it's not going to be as fun anymore for the folks on the losing end. Ultimately, that's what's going to flip the world on it's head again. I'd say it would probably take a year or two yet for that to happen.

You know, I want to say something, but I just can't. My mind is numb from the sheer idiocy in this thread. Also slamming my head against a wall at everything Deathistan says does not help. I don't know how much longer I can humor you people and argue in circles with you. You say X Someone refutes it by demonstrating Y You say "Yeah, but X" I just can't go on like this.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281739044' post='2414943'] They don't. They are at war with NSO. Any alliance can do whatever it wants as long as it got enough allies to back it up. That's all there's ever been to having "justification" in CN for any action, and that's all there will ever be. [/quote]So wonderful to see the "might makes right" argument resurface. How little things do change.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281737669' post='2414914'] Let's just cut to the chase, NSO is getting an $@! kicking, none of your sniveling will change that fact. [/quote]Yes, but it would be nice if RoK would just admit to that instead of trying to hide behind a weak excuse for their actions. I mean, they threw their protectorate into harms way just to have this little war, they wanted it that bad.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281735342' post='2414856'] Oh yeah, unless this guy admits to stealing a million bucks it never happened... silly us for forgeting this important law of the universe [/quote]Nice, uh, straw man? Again? Is there like a scoreboard over where you are, where the guy who makes the most straw man arguments wins? [b]There is no proof.[/b] Zero. Not just the lack of an admission, but the lack of any other form of proof.

[quote name='chris8967' timestamp='1281734609' post='2414836'] You would be correct, except Sedrick spied first (which was a successful spy attack). He told TENE he was going to attack them and then spied on one of their members. Said TENE member then spied on Sedrick (which failed), then came the battle. Sedrick then ran to MHA for protection and MHA said "I don't think so", then he ran to NSO and they said "sure come on in, we don't care that your in a war or not". NSO was contacted and informed of what Sedrick had done and they didn't care. The rest is in the OP read it. [/quote]Unless Sedrick admits to this, it is merely circumstantial, as Moldavi has said. It is not proof.

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281733172' post='2414782'] No, seriously. It's not that common to admit someone with active wars regardless of the circumstances. I've been here four years and that is pretty much a constant. You work out the issues on behalf of the applicant before admission, admittance before solution has historically led to problems. That's why they make "XXX Applicant" alliance affiliations. [/quote]The irony is that the same bunch of folks criticizing this policy today are, in general, the ones who hailed it when it was initially implemented. Funny how standards change.

I am not insinuating that it is required, I have, in fact, proven why it is required, at least if you want your casus belli to be valid. You can rush in without diplomacy, but that means you just want war for war's sake.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281723360' post='2414574'] Because it was... and since all that conspiracy spinning didnt work, you have moved on to more lies edit: Speeling [/quote] .... ... .... Wow. And I'm accused of reaching? Keep making unsubstantiated claims, anyway, maybe they'll become true.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281722645' post='2414548'] much much better than "RoK is doing this to get to NPO" [/quote] You know I haven't even mentioned that for several days now, why do you still cling to that as if it's my only argument? In fact, I haven't said that since the very beginning, as it has become rapidly apparent that the aggressors in this conflict haven't the wits to plan ahead that far. You guys, on the other hand, sure do love mentioning Pacifica at every chance you get.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281722050' post='2414534'] Or ... it is the "you are not involved in the situation and no matter what you demand and no matter how often you post, you still won't be" argument. [/quote]Seriously? This is the best you've got? Well, I guess when you're wrong, you don't have much of a choice if you want to save as much PR as you can. Because if you were right I can't see why you wouldn't try to show that. Especially if you're saying I've gotten my facts wrong this whole time. That would seem to me like an easy way to shut me up and end the debate. So why don't you stop hiding this proof that you negotiated between the aid being sent and when you declared war.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281721340' post='2414516'] Both sides are aware of the number of conversations that were held and the timing of said conversations. If the Sith dispute this, then they are free to contact me. I'm not sure why anyone needs to provide proof to an uninvolved third party. [/quote] Ah, the classic "Oh you're so insignificant that I don't need to provide any facts to you" argument. Brilliant. Then, you can just claim I got the facts wrong, since you're keeping them all to yourself, apparently. Bravo, well done. I'll just continue to say that RoK is completely unjustified then. Lucky you, being a member of the by far largest gaggle of alliances in the world, that you don't have to justify your actions. Except, suddenly, that involves me, because if you can haphazardly declare war without justifying your actions, it becomes a real threat to me and every other alliance not somehow tied into your group.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281721326' post='2414515'] no not really... just that over the course of this DoW discussion, you REALLY have been digging yourself a nice hole... [/quote]Are you implying that I might get attacked over my words? I was under the impression that we had entered a 'new era' of 'free speech' where people don't get attacked for their words... Well, then again, RoK withdrew a peace agreement because they didn't like what the Sith were saying, so I guess that's hardly true anymore...

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281721000' post='2414510'] You should really stop digging when you hit 6 feet under, no real point in going further down... [/quote]Is that a threat? 'Cause, you know, you should really leave those things to the people in charge. [quote]Doesn't the second log of the OP show communication after the aid was sent? [/quote]Well, I suppose it does, but it hardly counts as negotiation, and certainly not with a party other than Heft.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281712690' post='2414344'] It is relevant because this is what I was told by the Sith after Heft sent the aid. I keep seeing all these posts about how the NSO came and quickly apologized, stated they were wrong, and offered to pay reps ... this is not true. The "apology", if you can call it that, amounted to "Well, it isn't what I would have done, not without thinking about it first anyway. We'll talk it over, but we have a no reps policy." [/quote]I don't recall you talking with the Sith after the aid was sent. I recall you making yourself scarce up until the DoW. So pray tell how the Sith could have told you anything? Or perhaps I have my information wrong... Can you provide proof that you were in talks between when the aid was sent and when you declared war?

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281681093' post='2414073'] Our attacks on that nation was at the request of TENE, so yes ... this was for TENE. Also, as I already pointed out, there were no reps for them as the Sith do not pay reps. This was conveyed to us before we ever posted a DoW. [/quote]You know, I love the personal character attacks, I really do. And it's hilarious when you tell me over IRC that I'm not taken seriously because I sprinkle my remarks such with biting words. But I think you should address the entirety of my post. You, by refusing to negotiate with the Sith, have absolutely no way of knowing what they might have offered to resolve the situation. So stop pretending you do.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281679571' post='2414057'] The NSO does not pay reparations and this policy was made clear to us pre-war. TENE would not have received a dime from the New Sith Order. Keep reaching though. [/quote] The NSO also does not aid new members who haven't yet resolved their conflicts. Except Heft ordered such in error. So I don't see why NSO would be unwilling to pay a small sum of cash to make the problem go away. Not to mention that this is not the only solution. RoK could have requested in place of reparations that the NSO put it's own nations on the line and attack Sedrick to ZI, or any number of alternate claims. You accuse me of reaching, but the fact is that it is [b]you[/b] who refused to negotiate with the Sith, and you therefore can have no idea as to what the Sith might have offered to solve the situation. It is [b]you[/b] who failed your protectorate by taking the aggressive route, in the hopes that you might spark a global conflict. Or maybe you really just do hate the Sith that much. Either way, TENE is suffering because of your hasty and ill thought actions. You have literally failed as a protector.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281678526' post='2414041'] I think you missed the point of my post. I was simply mimicking MM's response to the same question from me. Please see several of my other comments in this topic where I elaborate on exactly the points you make. I do not believe NSO is blameless. But I do believe that objectively both alliances had equally valid CBs for this to go down. RoK chose to act on it because they believed there would be escalation, at least that is my opinion. They have sacrificed a protectorate in the hopes of it. TENE and NSO are the only alliances that will bleed in this war that never had to be. [/quote]And it doesn't get much better than that. RoK caused far more harm to TENE by their actions. RoK could have negotiated to get TENE a huge chunk of cash in exchange for the nonexistent damages done onto them. Instead, TENE is thrust by RoK into a war and is receiving a crap load of damage. Good job looking out for TENE's best interests over your own! Oh, wait... If I were TENE, or any RoK protectorate, I would at this point start seriously considering whether it was in my best interests to stay with RoK.

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281675356' post='2413952'] I believe this is the part of the thread where Mia brutally slaughters and dismantles HoT and we all celebrate with coffee and donuts. [/quote]You wish. [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1281675031' post='2413946'] Bold is mine. You know, throughout this entire thread, you've sounded like a cheerleader for NSO, willing to twist [i]anything[/i] to get your own way and ignoring that doesn't match up to you. The facts are laid out in this thread, everyone knows them. It is up to people to choose their own interpretation. The facts are there but the implications and the behind the word twisting you're trying to do? That is you trying add your interpretation into it. We've moved beyond the facts already, you're just trying to twist the facts to your point of view of "NSO is innocent! NSO did nothing wrong!"[/quote]I'm going to go ahead and stop you right here, because that is not my position. I have repeatedly stated that Heft made an error in ordering the aid. I have said it over and over, countless times, and you have the nerve to distort my position for you own clever little rant. No. [quote]But to say NSO did no wrong is to paint a picture of sugar and plums and argue something that has long been lost. People do not debate the validity of the CB - that is accepted. A casus bellus is up to the alliance declaring that makes it valid to them. Whether the rest of us agree with it is up to us. [/quote]This is also not the case. The very act of posting our reasons on this forum throughout history is our attempt to justify our actions to the masses. That is why these matter have always been posted here, that is why these matters are brought up for debate. To argue that a [i]Casus Belli[/i] is valid simply because the declaring alliance claims it is, is an absurdity in the highest degree. It's a line of thought perpetuated by the "We don't care what you think" statements leaders always use to try and salvage some PR, when in fact it is proven they do care by declaring their acts before this anarchic court of the world. If RoK did not care, they would just have attacked and this thread would not exist. [quote]I've watched throughout this thread as you twisted everything to the side. RoK considers it an act of war against them so it is an act of war. This war proves that. You can't stop the fact they did declare. So it was an act of war and has been considered so in the past. [/quote]This war only proves that RoK was willing to go to war over the matter. The outcome of the war is going to prove that RoK is better tied into the web than NSO. This proves nothing about the validity of RoK's claims. [quote]I've also seen you argue that an attack on a protectorate is not an attack on a protector and that a piece of paper doesn't make it reality. Do you realize what standards you've been arguing will turn us back to the stone age? In order to win your "PR" battle for whatever reason, you discard everything that would make us recede boundaries. Treaties are accepted facts, an attack on a protectorate is an attack on a protector. You can't dictate someone's treaty to someone else.[/quote]You, like everyone else, fail to grasp the philosophical point. It's in the details. An attack on TENE is not an attack on RoK, however RoK is contractually obligated to treat the event [i]as if it was[/i] an attack on them, even if though is not. This is the reality of treaties behind their fancy text. If it wasn't, cowards wouldn't be able to cancel their treaties like they do when war breaks out, and NSO's allies would have had to charge in blindly against NSO's demands because a state of war would have existed absent any action on their part. And the kicker is that it is a moot point, because NSO attacked neither TENE nor RoK. The issue is an act of war in the sending of aid, not in a direct attack as specified by the text of the treaty. [quote]You can disagree but you're trying to shove your views and replace the facts with your slant on it. The facts are there already, you're just trying to put your own spin on it and in it - you're damaging things by running through standards we've already set. Do you really want to send the message it is okay for people to attack protectorates and protectors won't protect the protectorate? 64digits was a protectorate once upon a time, TPF protected you. An attack on you would've been an attack on TPF and TPF would've responded. [/quote]64Digits remains for the moment a protectorate under TPF, and we have held treaties that state tht "An attack on one is an attack on TPF" and such. Again, while the end result is essentially the same, that is just fanciful text. TPF is obligated by contract to treat an attack on us [i]as if it were[/i] an attack on them. This is also how many non-protectorate treaties function. There is not some metaphysical alteration of reality. Treaties are contracts between parties, where the parties agree to abide by certain terms. I can write down: "Article 8: TPF and 64Digits agree to the spontaneous creation of 1 million tech and 68 billion dollars, to be shared between the signatories." You tell me if that statement becomes true just because we signed it into a treaty. Hint: It doesn't. And with that, I've addressed the points of your post. I've omitted parts which are either redundant or to which I cannot respond because you got my position wrong.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281665102' post='2413664'] Sedrick was in a state of war with RoK prior to joining NSO. NSO does deserve to burn, burn to the ground. Maybe a viceroy is in order. [/quote]As I have established, this is a lie. RoK never declared a state of war prior to Sedrick joining NSO, and one did not exist through treaty technicalities (Even if you take the treaty literally to the exact letter, an act of war does not confer a state of war between the parties, as established by longstanding precedent of diplomacy in general).

[quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1281661813' post='2413557'] I've bolded this bit because I think it might aptly explain why there was a DoW. It seems to me that you just argued both sides of the coin. Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee today, but that's how I read it. [/quote]If you read the whole post and not just the section you bolded, you would discover that your assessment is incorrect. Had RoK simply attacked the nations sending aid, or even just attacked Heft, or both, they would be more justified than they are in attacking the whole of NSO. It's still up for debate, considering RoK attacked a NSO member without giving a heads up or a reason, but it definitely would not have been as bad had they taken that course of action. [quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281664772' post='2413650'] Sedrick was already at war, can't you grasp that? [/quote]Not with RoK he wasn't. As much as you people want to pretend Sedrick was at war with RoK the whole time, he wasn't. He was at war with TENE, until RoK actually attacked him. RoK should have gone to NSO. They didn't even need to get permission, they just had to go to NSO and say "Hey man, this guy did X, Y, Z bad things to our protectorate, and we're gonna go rough him up a bit." Had NSO not after that point released him to attack, NSO would indeed be accountable for Sedrick's actions anyway. But we'll never know what would have happened because RoK thinks diplomacy is optional, even though the world has always operated by diplomatic principles. Shunning diplomacy has always made an alliance the aggressor, I don't grasp why you people think this scenario is an exception to that rule. Instead of going to NSO, they simply attacked. In a knee-jerk reaction, Heft sent aid, which would have been OK had the guy not still had active wars with TENE, an oversight by Heft and technically an act of war on TENE. However Sedrick got into his situation is largely irrelevant. The point is to demonstrate that while Heft's actions were, in hindsight, incorrect, it was an easy mistake to make, when you look at it from his perspective. This in itself doesn't invalidate RoK's cause for war (Their lack of diplomacy after the aid was sent does), it merely illustrates just how hasty, rash, and sudden RoK's actions were.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281661147' post='2413531'] That is the most twisted logic I think I have ever read. [/quote]That attacking nations before you contact the alliance to give them a heads up is wrong, is to you twisted logic?

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1281658524' post='2413473'] So Rok commited an act of war by defending their protectorate from attack? Okay, got it. [/quote] In waiting until NSO accepted him as a member, in an incident which TENE probably could have handled themselves, and not informing NSO ahead of time (this last one being key), yes, yes they did.