Jump to content

Announcement from The Archangel


Hadrian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Allow me to present to you the fruits of an idea that has long been cooking on some random stove in some random corner of my rather unrandom mind. First, a little pre-amble, if you will.

For what seems like millenia, the alliances of our world have operated on pathetic pieces of paper, allowing them to dictate to us our exterior actions, and even the format of some internal policies. I refer of course, to the abominations that are treaties. Many, if not all of you, will at this point denounce my speech as nothing more than the ramblings of a 'rogue'. I'm asking you to, for the sake of the future of this world, put aside your label on me for the entire five or ten minutes it might take you to hear me out, and to look at the bigger picture.

Imagine a world without treaties. Where wars were not defined by these MDoAPs, these ODPs and MDPs. Where your allegiance was not defined by the strength of a simple piece of paper, on which some mandatory or compulsory agreement was written. Where you could freely defend whoever you wished to do so, without the conflict of chaining and non-chaining treaties, without the potential of pissing off one party and pleasing another. Imagine a world where allies were actually [i]allies[/i], defined by a real, palpable relationship with one another, not by a treaty.

Many will say that treaties are made and defined by the relationship, not the other way around. I disagree. If this were the case, there would be no need for PIATs or ODPs or ToAs or any other similarly-leveled treaty. Perhaps there is no need for them. Perhaps people are simply indulging in treaty nostalgia, making a treaty for the hell of it, for the accomplishment of it. Never-the-less, it's safe to say that our planet and by extension, our politics, are dominated by the mechanics of what is known as the treaty web.

The prodigal forerunners of this machine, the New Pacific Order, ensured that the future structure of politics would be decided by this web. I imagine that, at the time, treaties looked like a damn sexy idea. Order, definition, practicable, functional purpose. Who the hell wouldn't want a treaty? They had a function and they served it well- still do, in some cases. But if anyone thought to look deeper past the veil, at the machination that was slowly being constructed, I imagine there would have been an outcry, albeit one which hardly anyone would have paid attention to, being too engrossed in the growing politics and the treaties that supported it.

Now, you may ask at this point, "yeah, okay, sure...so what? what's the point of this? why the hell are you wasting my time with this nonsense?" The point of all this, is to generate an idea in your minds. An idea, remember, is like a virus, as Vox Populi proved to a great extent and as Pacifica learned so painfully in her final days of imperial glory. This particular virus has one job and one job only: to tell you that the treaty web is no longer functional, being long past its sell-by date. And it is, isn't it? You smart folks at the back there- you saw the havoc wreaked by the nature of Ragnarok's treaties last war, did you not? The relationships that subsequently soured, the harm done? This is just one piece of evidence in support of why every piece of treaty paper should be thrown into a fireplace, and a general movement away from the treaty web created. Agreed, we've seen certain alliances move away and isolate themselves of the treaty machine in the past, but never has this been complete, nor permanent.

But I've spent too long on this pre-amble, and now I move to my main piece of this announcement. Allow me to present to you...



[center][img]http://s628.photobucket.com/albums/uu8/AlexanderTheGreat2009/TPD.png[/img]

[quote][u][b]Article One[/b][/u]
ACKNOWLEDGING the functionality, utility and services that treaties and the treaty web have done for us, we take stock of the history of treaties and all their workings, how they have influenced the rich history of our glorious planet.

[u][b]Article Two[/b][/u]
NOTING that a complete, instantaneous move away from treaties and the treaty web itself at this point in time is not feasible, and that many alliances and individuals may not see the theory as entirely necessary or even damaging to present and future poltical prospects.

[u][b]Article Three[/b][/u]
PROPOSING therefore, that the changes be implemented over time, given sufficient notification and political manoeuvering, both internally and externally, whilst continually outlining and formatting prospects and proposals for further devolution and detraction of treaties.

[u][b]Article Four[/b][/u]
INFORMED by this document, further special attention can be given to blocs and spheres of political influence and/or allegiance, supported by additional doctrines or similar proposals if necessary.

[u][b]Article Five[/b][/u]
SUPPORTED by the difficulty and harm brought by standard treaties to inter-political relationships and their continuing involvement and influence in macro and micro wars, this document is brought into being by the Archangel Hadrian, on this day of our Lord, the Twenty-Seventh of May, Two-Thousand and Eleven.[/quote]

[left]
I personally believe that this moment has been a long time coming. Too long have we stuck by the traditional, authoritarian safety of treaties. Too long have we allowed our relationships to be defined by these [i]pieces of paper[/i]. It's time to make some serious changes, folks.
[/left][/center]

Edited by Hadrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1306494469' post='2718932']
Just because you can press the Start New Topic button doesn't mean you should.[/quote]
Just because you can say something here doesn't mean you should. :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope that this isn't that big thing you kept talking about, because if so, I'm sorely disappointed.

[OOC]Also, the style in which you wrote the quoted part reminds me of NS WA resolutions.[OOC]

Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1306495114' post='2718936']
I really hope that this isn't that big thing you kept talking about, because if so, I'm sorely disappointed.

[OOC]Also, the style in which you wrote the quoted part reminds me of NS WA resolutions.[OOC][/quote]
Come now Hereno, this is nothing compared to what I've got cooking on other stoves. :v:

(OOC: Yep, that's where the inspiration comes from.)

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1306500073' post='2718959']
This is really dumb. Stop attention whoring[/quote]
A. I'm not an attention whore.

B. You're the one who comes in and replies to my announcements, which are there purely because I wish to make them, sometimes with a purpose, sometimes without, it's not like I expect people to respond. But whaddya know, they do anyway.


[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1306500639' post='2718961']
^^^^^^^^ This... You read my mind pal...[/quote]
B applies to you too, so keep that mouth schtum my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1306494908' post='2718935']
Just because you can say something here doesn't mean you should. :smug:[/quote]

Treaties are like handguns. They allow you to sleep better at night...if you own one. The more you own, however, the more immobilized you become. Still, no one wants to be the first to drop theirs. Even those that claim that they "don't need them" have understandings with those who do that if they need protection, they'll show up to provide protection.

This bucket of ice water in your face is provided for your awakening. You are alone in this world and people who are alone are like thistle seed--taken along by the wind and under constant threat of being crushed.

Get right with life and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1306503375' post='2718972']
Did not read. [s]Probably [/s Definitely]a bad idea if Hadrian is involved. Can someone peace out one of his defensive slots now so I can get in on the fun?[/quote]
I have a FOK raider and Charlie boy taking up my other two slots. Needless to say, I've been ignoring their peace offers. :smug:


[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1306504010' post='2718977']
People might've taken this more seriously if you weren't such a joke.[/quote]
Whether they take it seriously or not is a 'meh' case. The whole objective of this thing is to plant that idea in their heads and cultivate a detachment culture to move away from treaties. If people want to take it seriously, good for them, if they want to laugh at it, fine by me.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1306504038' post='2718978']
Treaties are like handguns. They allow you to sleep better at night...if you own one. The more you own, however, the more immobilized you become. Still, no one wants to be the first to drop theirs. Even those that claim that they "don't need them" have understandings with those who do that if they need protection, they'll show up to provide protection.

This bucket of ice water in your face is provided for your awakening. You are alone in this world and people who are alone are like thistle seed--taken along by the wind and under constant threat of being crushed.

Get right with life and good luck.[/quote]
Being slaves to treaties is not good for the lifespan of this world. If people can't actually trust each other enough that they can expel their treaties, safe in the knowledge that their true allies will cover for them, then what's the point of having a treaty in the first place, when the foundations on which it is based are in fact, false?

Of course I'm alone in this world, and in the wake of recent events, I wouldn't have it any other way; I'm no martyr but there's no chance in hell I'm going to ruin the nations/political careers of my friends in regards to my own freedom run. Those few friends, acquaintances and supporters I do have, I wish them the very best of luck in their endeavours. I will do what I came here to do, and then I will, as you so carefully put it, get right with life. Good luck to you too.


[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1306504336' post='2718981']
And here I was hoping somebody had made a Garrus Vakarian-themed alliance.

But no, it's a Hadrian thread.


[i]Another one.[/i][/quote]
Why on Bob would you hope somebody had done such a thing?

Plenty more to come old Chiefey.

Edited by Hadrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1306505732' post='2718987']
A Ramirus follower.[/quote]
Not really. I don't agree with nor support most of Ramirus' previous actions, but he certainly had the right idea in mind when he began chopping down Gramlin treaties. Sadly, he didn't take it far enough. Case in point: Harmlins Accords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1306509608' post='2719016']
I motion that we reopen the WPE competition we had a month ago so.
[/quote]
Seriously.


Oh wow, a world without treaties? What a novel idea, thank you for bringing it to us Hadrian. Because nobody has ever, ever thought of this before, and we certainly don't already have alliances doing it right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1306504038' post='2718978']
Treaties are like handguns. They allow you to sleep better at night...if you own one. The more you own, however, the more immobilized you become.
[/quote]

I have this image of you, staggering bow legged down a corridor, under the weight of about 75 revolvers, moaning "I made a [i]huuuuge[/i] mistake!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just took another look at this doctrine, and unless I'm missing something you don't actually resolve to do anything. You have an awful lot of hanging clauses and no resolution. As far as I can see, the only thing that your document resolves upon doing is bringing itself into existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1306517401' post='2719057']
I just took another look at this doctrine, and unless I'm missing something you don't actually resolve to do anything. You have an awful lot of hanging clauses and no resolution. As far as I can see, the only thing that your document resolves upon doing is bringing itself into existence.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's just a statement of beliefs. Not that it matters... It likely won't get any signatories besides Hadrian, who nobody would treaty even if he wanted them to.

Hadrian, you seem to think that railing against the treaty web is something new, but it really isn't. Nor is the idea of going paperless. The truth is, though, that most non-neutral paperless alliances do not conduct their FA in a radically different manner than anyone else. They still come to agreements with other alliances saying that they will defend each other, they simply don't announce them as formal treaties. Perhaps it makes them feel like they're revolutionary or [i]against the grain[/i], but it is not a radical difference in policy. They are still committing themselves to the defense of another alliance in exchange for that alliance's matching commitment. They are still connected to the treaty web to some degree (yes, their agreements might be non-chaining, but this is true of many formal treaties as well). A world of such pseudo-paperless alliances would not be radically different from today, except it would require slightly more work to find out who is tied to who.

Only neutral or "independent" alliances truly stand outside the web, and they do this by not committing themselves to anyone's defense. As a result they rarely involve themselves in wars. I do not think that a world composed of such alliances is desirable nor attainable.

Furthermore, with the rise of non-chaining treaties, the treaty web is much less constricting than before. Alliances and groups of alliances can choose to avoid fights that they do not wish to join, as opposed to the old paradigm in which everyone had to choose a side or risk being universally branded as cowards. Non-chaining treaties give alliances a choice to avoid fighting for someone several chains away. Witness Duckroll's decision to avoid the recent war. Less-constricting treaties are the answer. The end of treaties is not.

As for ODPs, I think it's kind of amusing how some people hate them. If they don't do anything, positive or negative, then what's so bad about them? I believe in using these treaties to formalize relations and commit to working towards increasing the relationship, with the goal of eventually signing a higher treaty. This is how I and others in TOOL have used them. If the relationship continues to grow, upgrade. If it doesn't pan out and relations fall off, cancel. I don't consider them worthless, but if they are, what's the problem? They don't hurt anything.

-Bama

Edited by BamaBuc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1306517086' post='2719056']
I have this image of you, staggering bow legged down a corridor, under the weight of about 75 revolvers, moaning "I made a [i]huuuuge[/i] mistake!"
[/quote]

Well that would be a bit silly. Actually I never carry more than three: two Glock Model 22 .40 cals and a Springfield XD-SC also in .40 as a backup, though if I have the assault rifle or shotgun up, I cut back to two handguns.

FAN and I agree on much.

But back to the point...

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1306506571' post='2718994']
Being slaves to treaties is not good for the lifespan of this world. If people can't actually trust each other enough that they can expel their treaties, safe in the knowledge that their true allies will cover for them, then what's the point of having a treaty in the first place, when the foundations on which it is based are in fact, false?[/quote]

I suggest a re-read of the history of the planet. You can complain about the treaty web and how it strangles competition, but on the flip side it on occasion causes reluctant allies to step forward when they should, and frankly, the lack of a treaty has allowed alliances to promise one thing in private, and then deliver quite the opposite in public. So long as that continues to be true, people will trust, but want it writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[color="#0000FF"]I tried reading it, but I couldn't. When you're unable to succeed at flowery rhetoric, take a hint and don't even bother. A half handed attempt at it won't make your dribblings anymore heeded than they would have been otherwise. Which to be fair isn't saying much. Bah.

Anyway, that said, I must laugh at the irony of your proposed treaty to end all treaties. Very rich.[/color]

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...