Words & Actions

[Canik]

 

Emphasis mine.

 

An alliance is a political entity, so neutrality in this context only applies to other alliances--you reserve the right to defend yourselves and each other per the third principle of your Charter. So while I can understand how it's a violation of the principles of neutrality to defend another alliance*, I'd argue it's not necessarily a violation to request that someone else (help) defend you. In Section V, subsection 1 of your Charter, you state that you'll enter into neither offensive nor defensive military agreements with other alliances--but putting out a call for aid is no more a political act than is an act of self defense. You'd not be formally declaring yourself politically opposed to or in favor of one alliance, nor making any formal military agreements; you'd simply be submitting your situation for the judgement of certain individuals or alliances. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not calling into question the ideals of GPA. I'm merely suggesting that it might be possible for a neutral alliance to seek defensive aid without straying from the bounds of neutrality and non-intervention that they've set for themselves--because the sort of neutrality you're engaged in does not preclude the possibility of cooperation, and you'd not be intervening in a situation if you found yourself already in the midst of it. At the same time, your principles do likely* prevent neutral alliances from assisting each other... as lacking formal defensive treaties means that any hostile act would necessarily be an aggressive one, and aggression is prohibited by the bounds of neutrality.

 

*Unless a neutral alliance could sufficiently argue that it's an anticipatory (and thus defensive) attack, thus giving you jus ad bellum without violating the ideals of neutrality and non-aggression. Given both DBDC's history and its recent actions, as well as their spy op versus your alliance, I doubt it'd be a difficult case to make.

 

I think you are right, they could, but esculating things would probably just make their situation worse. Not many are going to help someone who would never help them in return.

With MQ, it went wrong for them as many within the treaty web still had grudges with them. Some saw it as an attempt for MK to avoid future reckoning. Many in MQ claims it was to be their last action. (and for many it was), and so there was no benefit for assiting them. They couldn't repay it if they disappeared afterwards.

DBDC has enemies, so this is a somewhat risky move by them, but they don't have plans to disband after. They didn't just form, they do have treaties.  They have at least 50x the clout MQ had, probably more.

[Lummerian Empire]

I won't sugarcoat it and pretend you guys do not know what this is about so we'll lay it out simple for you. We are pro-war, and that includes raiding. We are pro-DBDC doing what they want to do in this world, especially given the fact that they are ready to accept the consequences whatever they may be. We may not support every single one of their actions but we support their endgame if it is truly what we are told it has been.

What did they tell you their endgame is?

[Prodigal Moon]

Why do you believe that sovereignty (and self-determination to a lesser extent) is a "right" you are entitled to? 

I'm not here to argue that those rights exist, but only wondering how you can even endorse the idea of rights in the first place without first acknowledging that there is a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and that by virtue of being rights they apply universally.

In other words, there can't be a right to raid because that would mean there's no right to sovereignty in the first place, so on what basis would there even be rights? You have to have a right to exist before you start adding benefits on top of that.

I get that people try to arbitrarily make up rules about which rulers/nations have rights (anyone in an AA), but that's just self-serving rationalization with no actual justification.

[Unknown Smurf]

I'm not here to argue that those rights exist, but only wondering how you can even endorse the idea of rights in the first place without first acknowledging that there is a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and that by virtue of being rights they apply universally.

In other words, there can't be a right to raid because that would mean there's no right to sovereignty in the first place, so on what basis would there even be rights? You have to have a right to exist before you start adding benefits on top of that.

I get that people try to arbitrarily make up rules about which rulers/nations have rights (anyone in an AA), but that's just self-serving rationalization with no actual justification.

Id argue that you can have the right to exist without the right to be sovereign.

[Unknown Smurf]

What did they tell you their endgame is?

To join MI6 of course

[CubaQuerida]

I'm not here to argue that those rights exist, but only wondering how you can even endorse the idea of rights in the first place without first acknowledging that there is a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and that by virtue of being rights they apply universally.

In other words, there can't be a right to raid because that would mean there's no right to sovereignty in the first place, so on what basis would there even be rights? You have to have a right to exist before you start adding benefits on top of that.

I get that people try to arbitrarily make up rules about which rulers/nations have rights (anyone in an AA), but that's just self-serving rationalization with no actual justification.

You can give your members the right to raid, even on an alliance-wide scale as we do, and still honor the sovereignty of other AA's.  The concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Additionally, I go to great lengths to acknowledge my opponents' rights to exist however they want.  Sovereignty just means the right to govern with authority, which any raided alliance will definitely still preserve well after we're gone.  Just because we hit them anyway, challenging their defense capabilities, doesn't mean we deny them the right to exist or to govern themselves with supreme authority.

 

I don't dispute that rules are arbitrarily made up, but I would go so far as to suggest that some rules, especially archaic ones, do seem to come to light at very convenient times.

[Prodigal Moon]

You can give your members the right to raid, even on an alliance-wide scale as we do, and still honor the sovereignty of other AA's.  The concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Additionally, I go to great lengths to acknowledge my opponents' rights to exist however they want.  Sovereignty just means the right to govern with authority, which any raided alliance will definitely still preserve well after we're gone.  Just because we hit them anyway, challenging their defense capabilities, doesn't mean we deny them the right to exist or to govern themselves with supreme authority.

 

I don't dispute that rules are arbitrarily made up, but I would go so far as to suggest that some rules, especially archaic ones, do seem to come to light at very convenient times.

 

Maybe we have different definitions of sovereignty. Mine would involve things like territory, a boarder, and not being killed. I get that you don't install viceroys or force charter changes, but raiding necessarily means violating nations' boarders and killing their citizens. I don't see any way to reconcile the idea that one was a right to invade and murder with the right to exist however one wants.

[Auctor]

All interactions between alliances violate alliance sovereignty, if we're getting really pedantic.

[The Zigur]

All interactions between alliances violate alliance sovereignty, if we're getting really pedantic.

 

No, they do not.

[Auctor]

Every treaty has some kind of mandatory clause in it wherein the signatories agree to something they must do. Whether that's nonaggression, some kind of intelligence clause, or a full military clause, the signatories of the treaty agree to give up their right to act in a certain way. Every tech deal comes with an implicit understanding that the participants will use their aid slots in a certain way as to complete the deal. Every trade ring is a similar understanding.

Anyone that supports aggressive wars, but considers themselves morally superior to those that raid based on this reasoning is fooling themselves.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Auctor

[The Zigur]

Every treaty has some kind of mandatory clause in it wherein the signatories agree to something they must do. Whether that's nonaggression, some kind of intelligence clause, or a full military clause, the signatories of the treaty agree to give up their right to act in a certain way. Every tech deal comes with an implicit understanding that the participants will use their aid slots in a certain way as to complete the deal. Every trade ring is a similar understanding.

Anyone that supports aggressive wars, but considers themselves morally superior to those that raid based on this reasoning is fooling themselves.

 

You are confused about the nature of sovereignty. In order to escape the state of nature (chaos) and reach their full potential, nations surrender their sovereignty to a central alliance which is governed by the alliance sovereign (either an individual or institution). The primary responsibility of the alliance sovereign is to ensure that the freedom of potential among member nations are protected and upheld.

 

To further this goal, treaties are signed with other alliances, and furthermore, alliances mutually recognize the sovereignty of other alliances and always go to the government of other alliances to resolve disputes. This results in a civilization in which alliances follow common practices, such as mutual defense pacts, standardized means of communication (i.e. forums embassies and coldfront IRC), and the use of the Casus Belli in declaring war. These practices, when uniform, results in Global Stability and the majority of nations can achieve growth and their full potential.

 

Traditional treaties between alliances never surrender sovereignty and are intended to foster communication and cooperation, not domination and exploitation. The Casus Belli is itself an example of respecting the sovereignty of a hostile alliance, because a well written Casus Belli formalizes warfare within a set of parameters (i.e. Alliance Alpha declares war on Alliance Bravo for x Reasons).

 

The reason I object to DBDC has nothing to do with its aggression and everything to do with it ignoring common civilized practices in respecting the sovereignty of other alliances. This is why I refer to DBDC as a band of rogues: it raids members of other alliances solely on the basis of weak upper tier physics. Mutually respected sovereignty is a cornerstone of civilization and going against this grain puts DBDC directly or indirectly against the interests of all civilized alliances.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Auctor]

Casus Belli don't respect alliance sovereignty, they're a pretext for taking alliance sovereignty away.

[The Zigur]

Casus Belli don't respect alliance sovereignty, they're a pretext for taking alliance sovereignty away.

 

Actually, the Casus Belli does recognize the sovereignty of a hostile alliance because it declares a state of war between two sovereigns. A Casus Belli is a statement that describes why the Sovereign of Alliance A has a problem with Alliance B that could not be resolved diplomatically between the Sovereigns, and a well written Casus Belli will furthermore define the conditions of the war.

 

In contradiction to this long held principle, and just as with any rogue or band of rogues, DBDC bypasses the Casus Belli to simply attack individual nations which had surrendered their sovereignty to the Alliance Sovereign. This is a rejection of the recognition of the sovereignty of both the attacking and defending alliance. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Auctor]

You're assuming that they're acting without a casus belli. Or that a rogue state can act without one. You're confusing the term with Declaration of War. A casus belli is just a reason to go to war, which DBDC hasn't attacked anyone without so far as I'm aware.

[The Zigur]

You're assuming that they're acting without a casus belli. Or that a rogue state can act without one. You're confusing the term with Declaration of War. A casus belli is just a reason to go to war, which DBDC hasn't attacked anyone without so far as I'm aware.

 

The purpose of the Casus Belli in this world has always been to recognize and establish a state of war between two alliance sovereigns. This tradition was carried over from The Pacific and allowed for consistency and uniformity of practice amongst all civilized alliances.

 

The point of contention has nothing to do with aggression by DBDC... as a sovereign alliance (or rather, a grouping of sovereign rogues currently), it is their right to attack anyone they want to. The problem is that DBDC raids multiple sovereign alliances without a proper declaration of war and Casus Belli against the alliance sovereign. It may seem like a trifling point but this distinction is what separates an ordered unicultural civilization from a chaotic mob languishing in the state of nature.

 

These actions means that DBDC is not a sovereign alliance, but rather a group of rogues that are too barbaric to understand or recognize the importance of sovereignty. It also means that any treaties held with DBDC are theoretically null and void, and I would argue that any treaties of alliances who support DBDC are also null and void, due to the inherently contradictory nature of DBDC's actions with civilized society.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Artigo]

 

Maybe we have different definitions of sovereignty. Mine would involve things like territory, a boarder, and not being killed. I get that you don't install viceroys or force charter changes, but raiding necessarily means violating nations' boarders and killing their citizens. I don't see any way to reconcile the idea that one was a right to invade and murder with the right to exist however one wants.

 

We can choose to raid if we want to.  That doesn't make us or them any more or less of a sovereign alliance.  Just because our way of life challenges the established paradigm of alliance conduct doesn't make us any less of a full alliance.  People like Tywin try to paint us as a band of rouges, but that's only because we respect strength above all else.

[The Zigur]

 

We can choose to raid if we want to.  That doesn't make us or them any more or less of a sovereign alliance.  Just because our way of life challenges the established paradigm of alliance conduct doesn't make us any less of a full alliance.  People like Tywin try to paint us as a band of rouges, but that's only because we respect strength above all else.

 

Your way does not change the "paradigm of alliances," it simply defines you as barbaric in nature. Nothing is stopping you from acting as a band of rogues, just do not be surprised if alliances use my reasoning to nullify treaty agreements that would otherwise be in your favor.

[Auctor]

Again, why are you assuming DBDC doesn't have a casus belli? That it's being called "raiding" should give a hint as to what their casus belli is.

[Lord Hershey]

 
Your way does not change the "paradigm of alliances," it simply defines you as barbaric in nature. Nothing is stopping you from acting as a band of rogues, just do not be surprised if alliances use my reasoning to nullify treaty agreements that would otherwise be in your favor.

Why are you hiding in peace mode again?

[Artigo]

 

Your way does not change the "paradigm of alliances," it simply defines you as barbaric in nature. Nothing is stopping you from acting as a band of rogues, just do not be surprised if alliances use my reasoning to nullify treaty agreements that would otherwise be in your favor.

 

You have no strength or power as a nation or alliance leader.  You also lack the courage to even allow your nation to be attacked for your actions.  Why should anyone respect you?

[The Zigur]

 

You have no strength or power as a nation or alliance leader.  You also lack the courage to even allow your nation to be attacked for your actions.  Why should anyone respect you?

 

You are attacking from the position Ad Hominem, rather than addressing the logic of my argument. This discussion is about the nature of sovereignty.

 

Why are you hiding in peace mode again?

 

Because certain barbarians have made death threats against my nation, and like a city wall, peace mode is an exercise in caution against barbarian attack.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Artigo]

 

You are attacking from the position Ad Hominem, rather than addressing the logic of my argument. This discussion is about the nature of sovereignty.

 

Tell me I'm wrong then.  A real man stands on the merits of his arguments and isn't afraid of the repercussions.  

 

What are you scared your alliance won't protect you?  :lol1: 

[The Zigur]

 

Tell me I'm wrong then.  A real man stands on the merits of his arguments and isn't afraid of the repercussions.  

 

What are you scared your alliance won't protect you?  :lol1: 

 

I enjoy the civilized nature of my nation and would rather not smell the filthy barbarians currently camping in the woods beyond.

[Prodigal Moon]

 

We can choose to raid if we want to.  That doesn't make us or them any more or less of a sovereign alliance.  Just because our way of life challenges the established paradigm of alliance conduct doesn't make us any less of a full alliance.  People like Tywin try to paint us as a band of rouges, but that's only because we respect strength above all else.

 

A raid necessarily involves imposing one's will on another nation/alliance - killing their citizens, invading their territory, and destroying/looting their property without their consent. If you don't recognize a nation's right to exist within it's own legal boarder, have its own legally acquired property, and have its citizens continue to live without being cut down, then I don't see what's left to make them a sovereign entity.

 

So at the very least, a raid is a violation of the sovereignty of the raided, even if you acknowledge them as an entity that otherwise gets to run their own affairs. If you engage in this violation repeatedly, with no remorse, then it's hard to say you buy into the right in the first place.

 

@Auctor: That was what Schatt always used to say about compulsory (mandatory) clauses in treaties. I can see the point, though I wouldn't call it a violation per se if you're waiving some rights freely.

[MichaelH43ID]

 

You have no strength or power as a nation or alliance leader.  You also lack the courage to even allow your nation to be attacked for your actions.  Why should anyone respect you?

 

 

Tell me I'm wrong then.  A real man stands on the merits of his arguments and isn't afraid of the repercussions.  

 

What are you scared your alliance won't protect you?   :lol1: 

Without taking a position on Tywin's claims, I'd point out that being willing to go to war is no reason to respect someone, nor is their taking refuge in peace a reason to feel disdain. Attacking someone's nation in no way resolves the argument which prompted the attack. I'd also point out that one shouldn't engage in the informal 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, and further that standing by the merits of your arguments is not the same as sticking your ass out the window and waiting for a truck to pass by.

 

Edit: Augh, I can't type today! I keep putting words where they shouldn't be: "nor is their taking refuge in a peace reason to feel disdain." 

Edited August 7, 2014 by MichaelH43ID