Sir Humphrey Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 So it is permissable with the express permission of those parties, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muwen1234 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1358772710' post='3082157'] Nothing says competent like nuclear capable in the 15K range... I do appreciate the irony of your first statement though. Do your econ programs involve selling infra to buy nukes? [/quote] No, our economy program does not involve selling infra to buy nukes. We teach them to save money to buy MPs without relying on alliance aid. It's kind of sad you cannot sell infra to buy nukes unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1358782270' post='3082291'] The phrase "an attack on one is an attack on all" attempts to impute chaining to treaties that are either silent on the matter or explicitly non-chaining. That is an impermissible encroachment on alliance sovereignty and ultimately unenforceable without the express consent of the parties the words attempt to bind. Which is to say, they are without force anywhere they might actually need to be referenced. Either an alliance wouldn't care about the legalese and join the coalition, so the words are unnecessary, or reject your group and deny the words their intended meaning as a violation of their sovereignty. They're kind of like those superiority clauses some bloc treaties used to use. They were purely symbolic and any circumstance that called for their invocation meant the party seeking enforcement was already boned. [/quote] [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1358782270' post='3082291'] The phrase "an attack on one is an attack on all" attempts to impute chaining to treaties that are either silent on the matter or explicitly non-chaining. That is an impermissible encroachment on alliance sovereignty and ultimately unenforceable without the express consent of the parties the words attempt to bind. Which is to say, they are without force anywhere they might actually need to be referenced. Either an alliance wouldn't care about the legalese and join the coalition, so the words are unnecessary, or reject your group and deny the words their intended meaning as a violation of their sovereignty. They're kind of like those superiority clauses some bloc treaties used to use. They were purely symbolic and any circumstance that called for their invocation meant the party seeking enforcement was already boned. [/quote] It didn't have a secret meaning behind it. It meant what it said, When you attack one, expect the other to $%&@ you up. No need to look into it that much, save the conspiracy theories until post-war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1358782411' post='3082293'] So it is permissable with the express permission of those parties, then? [/quote] If on the eve of war A is bound to B and B is bound to C in a non-chaining manner, and A wishes to be bound to C (and vice-versa), nobody can really stop them. They can sign whatever agreements to one another they want. If you're really so concerned about legal technicalities, go sign some event-limited MADPs and declare yourself a singular coalition. But the whole "an attack on one is an attack on all" thing is merely symbolic and brings no new obligations or powers. Edited January 21, 2013 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilyn Caster Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1358782568' post='3082296'] It didn't have a secret meaning behind it. It meant what it said, When you attack one, expect the other to $%&@ you up. No need to look into it that much, save the conspiracy theories until post-war. [/quote] So nice you quoted twice? What ardus is saying is that stating it was irrelevant, either the alliances will refute the claim (impugning on sovereignty) or they will agree to it, in which case it was unnecessary to state it. It's attempting to put the onus on those of us with ties to both sides, and tbh it is a poor and incredibly laughable attempt to cause drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny N Karl Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Drinking game: every time we see a smarmy reply saying no one over here cares anyhow everytime Continuum , Initiative, or NPO's past ruling ways is mentioned to scared up support every complaint about the Coalition policy of "an attack on one is an attack on all" is not legitimate a lulzy threat of "don't counter attack or else" the cases of alcohol poisoning would be rampant. The original title should explain it all ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Those alliances stuck in the middle need to realize that the last few years have seen a deterioration of Bob. Thugs and fools bent of denigrating all who question their shallow leadership. The time is now to choose a new path and put these miscreants back in grovels they once came from. It is a sad little life, to live day by day with the arrogant and rude attitudes they have expressed over these past few years. I really feel sorry for them. Life must be such a struggle to treat others this way. I hope things get better for them, clarity of the soul. A willingness to spread goodwill should be the chosen path sometimes. Now days the only time it rares it's head is when a nation ruler dies. Bob needs to mix it up, have old enemies as allies, and try new things. The current standard is not sustaining. Removal of this detriment is what will enhance Bob for all. Even those that we are at war with. Now lets have a war, and lets do it as brothers and sisters with a new vision. Have a seat at the round table, the lessons of the past have been learned. Bring the rain ya'll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1358782723' post='3082302'] So nice you quoted twice? What ardus is saying is that stating it was irrelevant, either the alliances will refute the claim (impugning on sovereignty) or they will agree to it, in which case it was unnecessary to state it. It's attempting to put the onus on those of us with ties to both sides, and tbh it is a poor and incredibly laughable attempt to cause drama. [/quote] Well then why did Umbrella create a whole announcement for it last war? Criticize your allies before pointing at anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Lenny N Karl' timestamp='1358782876' post='3082304'] every complaint about the Coalition policy of "an attack on one is an attack on all" is not legitimate [/quote] My dear boy, the only reason I make note of it here is Mr. Stuart has seen to it that the words are mentioned in every DoW from last night. I merely wish to indicate that he may as well state that cupcakes are tasty. I've things to do so I'll take my leave. Have fun, kiddies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1358782703' post='3082300'] But the whole "an attack on one is an attack on all" thing is pointless. [/quote] Escalation dear chap. Fabrication and manipulation of CBs, ghost declarations and their like have consequences. You should be proud, this is the natural evolution of warfare within this realm as a result of MK's and your own actions. It's your legacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1358783218' post='3082309'] My dear boy, the only reason I make note of it here is Mr. Stuart has seen to it that the words are mentioned in every DoW from last night. I merely wish to indicate that he may as well state that cupcakes are tasty. I've things to do so I'll take my leave. Have fun, kiddies! [/quote] But cupcakes are tasty. Stating it or not does not change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1358749820' post='3081905'] Perhaps... some day.. when Fark stops holding erections, or any random alliance at war time stops posting a DoW (declaration of win).... is it really that big of a deal? [/quote] Never happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='natas31' timestamp='1358781150' post='3082268'] So you agree with me. Good. Step 1 complete. Also i think the "old" or the "new" NPO would have a problem with some other alliance ZI'ing one of their applicants. Or even better, FAN declares Brehon is sentenced to ZI. You still pretty sure NPO won't care ? I thought you smarter than that. [/quote] Did you write that with a straight face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Republic Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Good luck NATO, have fun all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Continuum? Optional? By God! My time machine worked! It's 2008! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Yankees Empire' timestamp='1358786445' post='3082375'] Continuum? Optional? By God! My time machine worked! It's 2008! [/quote] Now come on, they aren't gonna roll you that bad, No need to take extreme measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1358786502' post='3082378'] Now come on, they aren't gonna roll you that bad, No need to take extreme measures. [/quote] I hope not. I would hate for my crysthanamums to be destroyed. That would be rude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longnameislonger Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Yankees Empire' timestamp='1358786445' post='3082375'] Continuum? Optional? By God! My time machine worked! It's 2008! [/quote] You should sign our petition to get navies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natas31 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1358784979' post='3082345'] Did you write that with a straight face? [/quote] how could i ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted January 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1358779417' post='3082238'] they simply stated in the original DoW, an attack on one is an attack on all, you didnt just declare war on AI, you declared on NATO, Pacifica and the rest by hitting AI. [/quote] Incorrect. We declared war on NATO only. You can tell by the fact that they are the only alliance mentioned in the DoW and the only alliance our nations engaged. Whether other alliances choose to use an attack on NATO as justification to hit us (with or without a treaty chain, with or without honoring us with a DOW) will be their choice. And the merit of said justification will be something we all debate and spin until I at least want to put my own eyes out. However, ODN only declared on *one* alliance. Now that that idiocy is out of the way ;:amused::. I expect NATO to be classy opponents, and this war to be a lot of fun. Our enemies (other than the handful of dolts who keep bringing up optional defense network... seriously can't you even find a relevant insult? Its kinda amusing) strike me as honorable sorts. We will all fight hard, get it out of our system, and then the world will move on whoever wins or loses. Edited January 21, 2013 by OsRavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1358779417' post='3082238'] they simply stated in the original DoW, an attack on one is an attack on all, you didnt just declare war on AI, you declared on NATO, Pacifica and the rest by hitting AI. [/quote] Is this actually your side's plan to get NG to ride with you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Good luck to my friends in ODN, but I hope you lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='natas31' timestamp='1358780072' post='3082250'] Even e-lawyering won't work in this case, until the MDP is produced, because i could have sworn some of the aggressors used an oA to bandwagon Umbrella. [/quote] I think NATO oA'd on an oA tbh, you should probably send GOONS in to straighten us out. /crosses fingers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1358788949' post='3082406'] Now that that idiocy is out of the way ;:amused::. I expect NATO to be classy opponents, and this war to be a lot of fun. Our enemies (other than the handful of dolts who keep bringing up optional defense network... seriously can't you even find a relevant insult? Its kinda amusing) strike me as honorable sorts. We will all fight hard, get it out of our system, and then the world will move on whoever wins or loses. [/quote] Yes this will be a fun war, don't take our trash talk to seriously, just adds a bit of fun Honourable declare in defence of an ally, nobody can say anything else. o/ ODN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1358789605' post='3082413'] Is this actually your side's plan to get NG to ride with you? [/quote] I have no idea what our government's plan is, I'm sure there's plenty of backroom conversations from both sides to NG right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longnameislonger Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1358789605' post='3082413'] Is this actually your side's plan to get NG to ride with you? [/quote] It is working please help we did not sign up for this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.