Before I proceed, I want to thank all of you who commented on this, mostly in a well thought out manner too! That makes writing such a text worth it.
Now, I will try to answer you all, but please forgive me if I forget you or don't answer directly as I will try to focus on the main counterpoints offered by people.
And you're not alone in that.
Thank you for the compliment White Chocolate, but understand that provocation is necessary to spark debate.
That's all true, we're limited in the way we can fight wars and rule our nations. For those who don't want to be involved in politics and war there are neutral alliances though, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It just means the rest of the story doesn't apply to you, since this was meant for those who do participate in politics on Bob.
What is justice to you is injustice to someone else. I can understand that people hold other values then mine in high regard, and I certainly don't think I can say one is better then the other (or "good" or "evil"), but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that there is anything else besides the quest for power, even for the "moralists" among us, ingame. To quote myself from another topic on this issue:
"Morality comes into play when one feels there's a need to appeal to the emotions of others. Moralists basically use the weakness of others to further their own political goals. They themselves think their cause is 'just', or even 'holy', but what moralists forget is that they, much like those who they are criticizing, are simply trying to make the rest of the world submit to their norms. Their method to gain power is thus simply more of a deceitful one."
Alright, a couple of points to consider.
The reason why war is inevitable for those who participate in politics (please keep this one condition in mind, because that's an important one that I included in the original text) is that politics is about wielding and increasing one's power. The probability that you'll go to war will only increase the longer you don't, as eventually your interests will clash with those of others.
Only neutrals have no interests in the political game, and thus run the least of risk (yes, there still is a risk!) being dragged into a war.
Furthermore, you have to disconnect justice from action. The point of this blog was to attack the idea that aggression equals injustice and is "bad", while defending equals justice and is "good". So I made the point that aggression is not per se war: it can be lots of things besides that. War only doesn't determine whether one is an aggressor or defender. This all means that there's also the possibility of justifiable aggression, and injustifiable defense.
As to your example, since you declared war, they have everything to do with you. You simply skipped the diplomacy part, or more accurate, switched position of the two events in the timeline. But even before that, it holds true. It is simple, as an alliance you have to consider everyone not allied or befriended to you as hostile. The party you attacked in this case has failed to recognize a future threat to their alliance and act accordingly, so that means they have failed in their diplomacy and wielding their power. The statement stands.
Yes, there are different standards as to what is a (legit) CB, not one that all can agree on. You just reinforced my point. Because of this fact, it means that there isn't something like "good or evil" that one can objectively labeled as, or a particular action that can objectively been seen as either "aggressive or defensive". We only have perception.
Aggression does make the politics go round, remember the one condition I told you of earlier?
In politics, it is impossible to be all defensive because you have interests you want to look after. This by definition will obstruct others in their abilities and interests, and thus is aggressive to them.
Arguing is a kind of warfare. You try to master your opponent, and convince him to agree with you.
For the first point, see my reply to Haf.
Second, I think that isn't a wrong comparison to be quite honest, but even during musical chairs you have to put in some effort to gain what you want. You can't expect to be granted a seat don't you agree?
I wouldn't argue this myself in this specific case (DH-NPO), but I think it's important to note that if you accept that previous history counts, then that's enough to say the attack wasn't "unprovoked".
Third, you are making the same mistake White_chocolate did. Aggression does not equal solely violence, does not equal war. See my reply to her (I assume W_C is female).
I will agree with you however that the bad label it now has is because of the history and tradition on Planet Bob. Personally, I hope that'll change, that we'll get rid of that taboo.
I hear you.
Unfortunately I have only experienced the Karma war of those you mentioned, but it was possibly the best time I have ever had in this game. The whole lead up to it and the climax, it simply had everything I think what makes CN the unique game it can be.