The Moldavi Doctrine

[HeinousOne]

I understand his right to attack someone. However, I do not agree with him creating a legal binding document which allows his alliance to but in on conflicts that may not have anything to do with NSO simply because they disagree with the CB. Many alliances, including Sparta, have different views on some issues than NSO. If we stuck true to our views and attacked an alliance who wronged us, should we be wary of the possibility of attack by NSO? I don't know about the rest of Sparta, but I personally consider an alliance with differing views as us posting a document such as this as a threat to Sparta.

And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta.

So anyone with different views then Sparta is a threat to Sparta? Check.

[Ivan Moldavi]

This is my canvas. Corinan knows I'm having a go with him.

Only because the curator has been absent for a few years.

[Hyperion321]

The irony is striking.

However. Is Sparta really willing to go to war over the idea that people shouldn't fight based on principles?

Oh now come on. You know I did not say that. Don't even try to twist my words like that.

[HeinousOne]

This is my canvas. Corinan knows I'm having a go with him.

Yes, I know. You are a master of abstract art. You put even Pollack to shame.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I made no threat on behalf of Sparta. I stated my personal opinion that I feel this document is an indirect threat to anyone who wants to declare an offensive war.

No, that is a lie.

You stated in multiple posts now that if Sparta held a doctrine similar to this that it would declare upon the NSO. You stated that fairly clearly, more than once.

Now you are back peddling because I called you to the mat. Everyone knows you are a coward now, if they didn't already.

[Schattenmann]

So anyone with different views then Sparta is a threat to Sparta? Check.

If we take a step back from the mob, yes, this doctrine is clearly a threat to any alliance that is undertaking an aggressive war. Your oversimplification of the issue to "different views" is silly and transparent.

[Haflinger]

Oh now come on. You know I did not say that. Don't even try to twist my words like that.

That's what the document says.

It says that NSO is willing to engage in warfare without a treaty when its principles are at stake.

You said this document makes NSO a threat to Sparta.

[Matthew Conrad]

So the original was expanded upon. I will say this is interesting although I wouldn't personally agree to something like this.

[Hyperion321]

So anyone with different views then Sparta is a threat to Sparta? Check.

Please point out where I said that. I'm fine with people having different views. Anyone who knows me can testify that. What I don't like is people reserving the right to declare war on me for acting on our views.

[HeinousOne]

If we take a step back from the mob, yes, this doctrine is clearly a threat to any alliance that is undertaking an aggressive war. Your oversimplification of the issue to "different views" is silly and transparent.

The wording was his, I simply repeated it. Do I have to requote you his words and go so far as to embolden the exact words that I raised my question from?

I understand his right to attack someone. However, I do not agree with him creating a legal binding document which allows his alliance to but in on conflicts that may not have anything to do with NSO simply because they disagree with the CB. Many alliances, including Sparta, have different views on some issues than NSO. If we stuck true to our views and attacked an alliance who wronged us, should we be wary of the possibility of attack by NSO? I don't know about the rest of Sparta, but I personally consider an alliance with differing views as us posting a document such as this as a threat to Sparta.

And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta.

Please point out where I said that. I'm fine with people having different views. Anyone who knows me can testify that. What I don't like is people reserving the right to declare war on me for acting on our views.

Since you seemed to have forgotten your words and schat needed a reminder I have offered a very detailed showing of your words for you complete with italics, bolding and underlining. It should be very clear that way.

Edited August 9, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Deadshot]

NSO, what gives you the right to mettle into conflicts that have nothing to do with you. If somebody has a different perspective on something than you (Which many people do have different opinions than you, as demonstrated by your forays into recruiting), what gives you the right to roll them for following their convictions.

Well, I believe declaring without a treaty used to be looked down upon in times past but your friends in Dark Fist seemed to disagree when they declared on NEW in the Karma War, without any treaty to back it up. Why? Because they didn't feel the need to have one. What gave them the right? They were hailed up and down for it by allies of yours and members of Sparta.

This is no different, and there is nothing wrong with NSO acting as a sovereign alliance and standing up where they feel the need.

[Haflinger]

Please point out where I said that. I'm fine with people having different views. Anyone who knows me can testify that. What I don't like is people reserving the right to declare war on me for acting on our views.

So is Sparta giving up the right to declare war because of its beliefs then?

C'mon, surely you can see your argument is weak.

[WarriorConcept]

That's what the document says.

It says that NSO is willing to engage in warfare without a treaty when its principles are at stake.

You said this document makes NSO a threat to Sparta.

I don't know if you realize the blatantly obvious, but it makes them a threat to everyone. Not that they wouldn't be normally, just that they have a document now for doing so.

[Ivellios]

Power to free will 0/

Power to the Sith 0/

[Matthew Conrad]

So is Sparta giving up the right to declare war because of its beliefs then?

C'mon, surely you can see your argument is weak.

I believe he is referring to an involved party treaty wise.

[Hegemon Rob]

lmoa

I fully expect this to be used for the sole purpose of aggression.

How would this doctrine have related when you tried to poach from nuetrals? I think that is unjustified aggression, and a complete lack of ethics.

Oh god the wording of this is a poor excuse for morality.

I also want to say that the NSO would never ever ever ever ever stick its neck out for a wronged alliance , ever!

Edited August 9, 2009 by Hegemon Rob

[Hell Scream]

Justifying bandwagons and putting your nose into other people's affairs? Awesome.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I don't know if you realize the blatantly obvious, but it makes them a threat to everyone. Not that they wouldn't be normally, just that they have a document now for doing so.

Hmm, I guess that is correct, or it can be seen as a asset to everyone just as easily.

[Craven]

I didn't really care for the first and the second seems to be more of a joke.

I look forward to the third and hope that it is as revolutionary as the first.

[Haflinger]

I don't know if you realize the blatantly obvious, but it makes them a threat to everyone. Not that they wouldn't be normally, just that they have a document now for doing so.

Like I said, yes I do realize that, and I blogged on this exact subject several months ago pretty much advocating this doctrine for precisely the aforementioned reason.

Calculated wars are not good for us. They remove the element of courage from decisionmaking. If people you don't know about will maybe interfere in your wars, then you're going to have to have some guts in order to involve yourself in them.

[Hyperion321]

No, that is a lie.

No, it isn't.

You stated in multiple posts now that if Sparta held a doctrine similar to this that it would declare upon the NSO. You stated that fairly clearly, more than once.

Please quote them. I just looked over all my posts in this thread and I saw none fitting that description.

Here, this might help in your search: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...sult_type=posts

Now you are back peddling because I called you to the mat. Everyone knows you are a coward now, if they didn't already.

I'm not back peddling. I'm responding to people labeling my posts as the views of our alliance as a whole. Everyone seems to think Sparta just had some stare down with NSO. If you want to make something out of nothing, go ahead.

[Seth Muscarella]

So is Sparta giving up the right to declare war because of its beliefs then?

C'mon, surely you can see your argument is weak.

if i read correctly, the doctrine only refers to declaring defense of, or aggression toward, an alliance in war. it states nothing about declaring war. Every alliance has the right to declare war; the fallout from that decision, good or bad, is simply a consequence.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Sethly

[Schattenmann]

Justifying bandwagons and putting your nose into other people's affairs? Awesome.

The course of action outlined in this doctrine has always been true for all alliances. Societal norms have moved away from this natural state, though, so NSO is being nice enough to give everyone a heads-up.

[Fallen Fool]

Karma was a war coalition. It has since dissolved and holds no legal ties anywhere. What was originally set upon by Archon and I based upon moral foundation was truly based upon that.

I'm aware.

WarriorConcept just appears to be tossing aside that moral foundation of the coalition, and the implications of a "new" CN which were inherent in it as superficial fallacies. Instead he appears to be claiming that the coalition was a patchwork amalgamation of alliances simply exercising their sovereign rights in order to eliminate a common threat with no real moral mission or objectives.

Karma was a one time deal war banner for a coalition. The people at the time in general agreed to the principles of what they were fighting for, however some were just in for their allies. People were allowed to decide on terms on a front by front basis, and the general principles were held for the whole war as far as I could see. That war is past us now and every alliance is completely sovereign to do whatever they want, they'll most likely be remembering a bit more of the phrase, "what goes around comes around."

The guiding principle of Karma was "what goes around comes around?" Also for the sake of the children, and keeping this thread on topic, let's drop the Karma line of discourse?

Also yes, you do have the sovereign right to do what you want but that doesn't inherently justify every action you might choose to make. What your mistake is that you think this document only states that sovereignty exists which it doesn't. What this document does is provide a foundation for the defense of future intervention by providing the NSO with some legal groundwork to reference back to when the e-lawyers come out of the woodwork to criticize their sovereign decisions.

[HeinousOne]

No, it isn't.

Please quote them. I just looked over all my posts in this thread and I saw none fitting that description.

Here, this might help in your search: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...sult_type=posts

I'm not back peddling. I'm responding to people labeling my posts as the views of our alliance as a whole. Everyone seems to think Sparta just had some stare down with NSO. If you want to make something out of nothing, go ahead.

Just so you know, I edited up my response on the last page to respond to your question. Yes I realize you are just stating your own opinion and we have other high up Sparta members here posting somewhat contradictory to you. I wouldnt say labeling your statement as a statement of Sparta is fair but none the less I responded to your question.