An annoucment from USN

[Mogar]

also, rodrod has to play LoL with me forever, it's a secret clause.

[Chuck Normis]

I'm always glad to see relations in maroon improve.

o/ RIA and USN

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322847408' post='2859451']
Because, let me point out exactly how it was explained by Krashnaia:



This was to imply that all MDP's function this way, when I can assure you many of the MDP's I know of do not have any sort of silly request clause. We try to completely avoid the Polaris RDoAP.

Edit: Yes, I'm aware there treaty [i]does[/i] have the request clause. However, in a line two previous to the request clause, the treaty also says that if attacked it is to be considered a valid CB, and action [i]must[/i] be taken. This contradiction of terminology has yet to be sufficiently addressed by either government.
[/quote]

Whether your ally wants it or not, everyone must obey MK. Dance puppets, dance!

[kerschbs]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322785160' post='2858653']

BTW, a MDP doesn't means that if party A is attacked, party B must inmediatley declare on their agressors. It means that if party A is attacked [u]AND[/u] he requests party B to counter, party B must comply. Notice the fact that, since no one at NpO complaints about RIA, NpO is likely to NOT have asked RIA to enter the conflict, yet.

Of course, do not let facts stop you. The OWF would be a very boring place if you do so.
[/quote]

Once upon a time CSN had a tremendous amount of honor. That group of people decided to come to GATO's defense, despite cancelling a treaty, and us asking you not to get involved.

The leaders of that CSN would be rolling in their graves if they could see the terrible alliance you have become.

Seriously, you all should change your name or something, because you tarnish a once great alliance every time one of you idiots opens your mouths.

[Locke]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322847408' post='2859451']
Because, let me point out exactly how it was explained by Krashnaia:



This was to imply that all MDP's function this way, when I can assure you many of the MDP's I know of do not have any sort of silly request clause. We try to completely avoid the Polaris RDoAP.

Edit: Yes, I'm aware there treaty [i]does[/i] have the request clause. However, in a line two previous to the request clause, the treaty also says that if attacked it is to be considered a valid CB, and action [i]must[/i] be taken. This contradiction of terminology has yet to be sufficiently addressed by either government.
[/quote]
I think it's generally accepted that when an ally asks other allies to stay out, they ought to do so. That particular wording may or may not exist in any particular treaty, but regardless allies remain so by mutual understanding, and if a treaty was poorly written and did not account for situations where one may not wish to activate a treaty, well, I see no reason to malign either party for not doing so. It does so happen that in this case the wording does exist, so I don't see the problem at all.

I'm not a member of either alliance, so take this as you will, but my personal interpretation of such is that action does not imply declaring war. Action could be whatever they want it to be, whether it be war, financial aid, diplomatic support, or a simple "I'm here when you need me." The action in this case being somewhere between the last two, with RIA taking a role in coalition planning.

It comes down to this: using a treaty to criticize an alliance is pointless to any outsider. They wrote it, they choose how to interpret it, they decide whether to follow it or not, and if by mutual agreement the treaty is disregarded in any way, it is still a joint decision. Unless there is any evidence that RIA's inaction is a unilateral decision, any attacks on their character are baseless.

[James Wilson]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322785160' post='2858653']
Congratz to both alliances
o/ USN
o/ RIA

BTW, a MDP doesn't means that if party A is attacked, party B must inmediatley declare on their agressors. It means that if party A is attacked [u]AND[/u] he requests party B to counter, party B must comply. Notice the fact that, since no one at NpO complaints about RIA, NpO is likely to NOT have asked RIA to enter the conflict, yet.

Of course, do not let facts stop you. The OWF would be a very boring place if you do so.
[/quote]


Is that why MDP's are usually worded "An attack on one party shall be seen as an attack on the other party"?

[o-dog]

It seems 'optional' works it's way in everywhere, without anyone noticing.

Edited December 2, 2011 by O-Dog

[Crymson]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322788300' post='2858692']
This is the treaty that will save Polaris. Better pack it up quick, TOP, or we'll RIA you.
[/quote]

We're in trouble!