Jump to content

HM Solomon I

Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HM Solomon I

  1. You can write a treaty any which way you like and interpret it for yourselves as you intended or see fit.  You cannot write reality or define STA's actions based on your treaty.

    Except that's not what I'm doing.  I'm saying that whatever STA does, this is a distinction without a difference.  Whether STA declares on the whole bloc or just one member, they will be at war with the whole bloc by the terms of the treaty.  And being at war isn't some thing you can just deny and interpret on your own, you're either at war or not.  If someone is at war with you due to their treaty obligations, then whether you want to believe it or not, you're at war.  For some reason, there's this notion that Oculus is under an obligation to declare war in response to this attack, but we already did ... by signing the treaty in the first place.

  2. Couldn't careless if was the pope who wrote it, already covered how it's only binding to the treaty partners and its ridiculous to try and dictate to non signatories how they should view their DoW upon an alliance holding said treaty.

    You could of added an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on the whole world and it would just be as ridiculous as saying an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on all.

    Playing slight of hand and claiming STA literally declared on all rather than just the one like they did, makes me wonder what the rest of Oculus is scared of to not post a DoW on STA?

    Maybe Rush a staunt ally calling the preemptive on TPF !@#$@#$ stupid holds more water than meets the eye.

     

    This line of reasoning is simply incorrect, it's a straw man and it holds precisely zero water.

  3. STA remains in full control of its own actions regardless of what the Oculus treaty says. The Oculus treaty defines the relationship between its constituents, not between itself and the world--it extends no further than the AAs that signed it.
    You may interpret STA's actions however you wish based in your relationship to each other, you cannot define STA's actions for them or make such boldly retarded statements as "STA can't determine..."

    Aside from your fundamentally wrong understanding of how treaties work, it is hilarious to watch the pathetic way you're trying to e-lawyer your position in a war between a huge bloc and 3 isolated AAs. What's got ya scared?

    Yes, the Oculus treaty does indeed bind only those who signed it.  That's obviously true, but this argument is based on a straw man, that because it only binds the signatories nobody else is even affected by it.  The treaty makes it clear that its signatories will automatically counter and provide support against anyone who attacks a signatory, so yes anyone can declare on only one bloc member but Oculus then must counter as a bloc, making any declaration of war on one of the signatories effectively no different than declaring war on the entire bloc.  The distinction between those two actions, declaring on one signatory versus declaring on the bloc, is rendered meaningless by this.

  4. This is what I've been trying to say. Each alliance has tough choices. Don't make the tough choices for them, MI6, TPF, and STA. Don't tell your allies in advance that you won't call them in. You didn't get them into this mess of conflicting treaties, their buddies in Oculus did when they jumped into a CB-Less purely aggressive war. The defense clauses SHOULD be firing off like a machine gun.

    Non-chaining clauses, not much else needs to be said in response to this.  And there is a CB, several in fact, that you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist.

  5. If one were to believe there were no shared ideology between these alliances, one would have to acknowledge that none of the alliances with an ideology were strong enough to establish this order. That alone shows you who is weak.

    Tywin will argue that he doesn't have to acknowledge that because of midi-chlorians or something.

  6. Depends on whether you by "dividing in half" mean "dividing into two equally-sized pieces" or "dividing into two symmetric pieces". The former could be done in a way not resulting in two right triangles.

    I took cut in half to mean with exactly one straight-line "cut".  But yes admittedly you could divide any shape into two pieces of equal surface area in any number of ways.

  7. It depends on how you cut it in half...

    No it really doesn't, any cut that would result in something other than two right triangles wouldn't be cutting it in half.

     

    Also how has this discussion been diverted to a discussion of geometry.  :psyduck:

  8.  

    How can ANYONE read this and not IMMEDIEATELY see the PROPAGANDA being SPEWED at us by this NPO lapdog.  You do not CREATE technology, you STEAL it from those who have rightfully worked to build it on their own.

     

    This occurs because they are not CAPABLE ofa ctually building any technology on their own.  as i said before, the SANCTION they have is a joke and should be immediately removed.

    Lapdog?  Oh you mean Imperator Emeritus Cortath, yeah real lapdog there. :|

  9. o/ Oculus
     

    Please avail yourself of an explanation for the true nature of entropy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSgPRj207uE
     
    o/ To the World Order. I hope to crack a few heads as a peace officer. 
     
    Also, hello ak47don. I miss your long discussions about my inadequacies. It felt like being a heckler at a Jimmy Carr concert. Sure, I was burned, but afterwards I felt clean and renewed like a babe. Of course, I often mistake criticism for affection. I blame Caustic.

    The professor in that video is literally Professor Moriarty. :D
     
     

    There are more than 8 members of Oculus.

    Or less, the world may never know (the world will in fact know eventually).

×
×
  • Create New...