The Phoenix Federation Response to war.

[ryguytheman]

There are two levels of activity in our realm: the one directly between nations (wars, aid, cn pms) and the one rulers use to organize and communicate. It is in the latter that politics, dow, treaties, jobs and yes, espionage take place. To claim that it is not a part of this realm is not "opinion", it is ignoring basic logic. It uses the same medium as our MDP's, elections and everything interesting. You can claim that it is immoral, but morality has no impact on its existence.

Also, brushing off a reply by making a disparaging remark about the other ruler's over-abundance of time is very impolite. Please be more civil.

So you are basically saying that if something can be done, logically nothing can be wrong.

[Hyperbad]

they planted spies. just because no info was handed over does not mean the spies were not planted by TPF. i know that ya'll want to prove TPF is somehow innocent, but that just ain't the case. i know most alliances had they found a planted spy in their midst would destroy the alliance who planted the spy. oh that is right, it is TPF and it happened in some desperate situation that TPF put themselves in where TPF finally gained peace but never came forward with this completely justifiable action.

So basically you're advocating a war time strategy, operation, being used as a strong standing casus belli in a new conflict, correct?

i know that a person with a single mindset would have a hard time understanding that if the action was justifiable why would TPF have any fear about coming forward?

Feeling it's justifiable, why would they feel the need to?

[TypoNinja]

So basically you're advocating a war time strategy, operation, being used as a strong standing casus belli in a new conflict, correct?

So you missed the part where they were not actually at war with the alliances they tired to infiltrate and destabilize?

[Flonker]

OK, I made it through all 84 pages.

My sanity is now suspect.

I need coffee. Some of you need lives.

[KingEd]

All I see here are arguments supporting the idea that TPF spied, leading to their destruction; and the idea that TPF did not spy (that it was all a war tactic, and a response to possibly eternal war) and that they shouldn't be destroyed, leading to their allies intervening on their behalf. Why not choose the latter ? Are we so hungry for war on BOB ?

The Phoenix Federation spied during the Karma War and after it, according to evidence given by ZH. By engaging in these Spy operations, commanded by their leader, mhawk, The Phoenix Federation accepted any consequences that would result if they ever got caught, and they have gotten caught. The ideology that "spying" is the strongest CB possible is still true to this day on BOB, and I agree with it 100%. According to logs, "destroy them from within" was the plan...I do not condemn those who jumped of their seat and of to war for doing so because, I would have probably done the same thing. A leaders utmost responsibility is to defend and protect their alliance & I'm sure this is what triggered the DoW's we saw on Saturday amongst the other obvious thing...but we all know those.

Would of..

Could of..

It's all here say..the war has begun and it will end...sooner or later, but it will.

Whether TPF's allies will support them in their wrong doings is solely their choice, and BOB will wait until it's made.

[Hyperbad]

So you missed the part where they were not actually at war with the alliances they tired to infiltrate and destabilize?

Terms of Surrender suggest they were.

Also depending upon how one wishes to take the treaties the NPO-TPF shared one could argue that those alliances which declared on the NPO or merely attacked them did so with full public knowledge available (the treaties) that it would be taken much the same as if it were done on the other signatorie. Likewise with acting aggressively against a threat, the threat is considered shared. There is potential for Contiuum being gone around if TPF deemed the war an offensive military action as opposed to an act of defense against spying however their shared MADP would have come into play which was re-signed prior to the official declaration of TPF's involvement. The post officially announcing the withdrawl from the MADP was made approximately one hour after Athen's declaration. It is actually quite reasonable to say they were at war whether or not they officially stated a recognition of it or engaged in overt operations.

Essentially, if you're attacking an alliance with a pact to a second alliance and that pact states any threat or attack is treated as one on both, then you're basically declaring open hostilities in the form of war on both. You're conducting an act of war on both signatories.

Contiuum

III. Defense and War

A – In the event that any signatory comes under attack, it is compulsory that all other signatories will come to the assistance of the attacked party.

B – An attack on one signatory shall be considered an attack on all signatories and will be met in defense by all other signatories with all means of assistance available. This assistance is mandatory and may not be overridden or mitigated by any means, including but not limited to conflicting agreements.

C – Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid the signatories are able to provide.

D – Signatories shall have the option, but not the obligation, to engage in offensive warfare alongside other signatories or to aid those signatories in ways economic or otherwise.

E – Notice of offensive military action by any signatory must be given to other signatories no less than 72 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

TPF-NPO MADP

ARTICLE III - Defense

TPF and NPO recognize that should an armed attack on either party’s nations and/or territories under administrative authority, at the time of the attack, is dangerous to the peace of both alliances. The assisting party will act to meet the common danger in accordance to its charter/constitutional process. Said parties should maintain open communication with one another to decide the best suitable action to take when the defense of one of the parties is in dire need of assistance.

ARTICLE IV - Aggression

Whenever any nation, alliance, or union of alliances poses a clear and present danger to the signatories of this pact and is designated a threat by leadership of the signatories, all members of the signatory alliances—unless bound by treaty to non-aggression or neutrality—shall jointly respond. Such response shall only be sufficient to contain and eliminate the perceived threat and deter future threats.

[WarriorConcept]

"So you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations?"

-Credit to Trace

[Bob]

Terms of Surrender suggest they were.

Also depending upon how one wishes to take the treaties the NPO-TPF shared one could argue that those alliances which declared on the NPO or merely attacked them did so with full public knowledge available (the treaties) that it would be taken much the same as if it were done on the other signatorie. Likewise with acting aggressively against a threat, the threat is considered shared. There is potential for Contiuum being gone around if TPF deemed the war an offensive military action as opposed to an act of defense against spying however their shared MADP would have come into play which was re-signed prior to the official declaration of TPF's involvement. The post officially announcing the withdrawl from the MADP was made approximately one hour after Athen's declaration. It is actually quite reasonable to say they were at war whether or not they officially stated a recognition of it or engaged in overt operations.

Essentially, if you're attacking an alliance with a pact to a second alliance and that pact states any threat or attack is treated as one on both, then you're basically declaring open hostilities in the form of war on both. You're conducting an act of war on both signatories.

Contiuum

III. Defense and War

A – In the event that any signatory comes under attack, it is compulsory that all other signatories will come to the assistance of the attacked party.

B – An attack on one signatory shall be considered an attack on all signatories and will be met in defense by all other signatories with all means of assistance available. This assistance is mandatory and may not be overridden or mitigated by any means, including but not limited to conflicting agreements.

C – Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid the signatories are able to provide.

D – Signatories shall have the option, but not the obligation, to engage in offensive warfare alongside other signatories or to aid those signatories in ways economic or otherwise.

E – Notice of offensive military action by any signatory must be given to other signatories no less than 72 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

TPF-NPO MADP

ARTICLE III - Defense

TPF and NPO recognize that should an armed attack on either party’s nations and/or territories under administrative authority, at the time of the attack, is dangerous to the peace of both alliances. The assisting party will act to meet the common danger in accordance to its charter/constitutional process. Said parties should maintain open communication with one another to decide the best suitable action to take when the defense of one of the parties is in dire need of assistance.

ARTICLE IV - Aggression

Whenever any nation, alliance, or union of alliances poses a clear and present danger to the signatories of this pact and is designated a threat by leadership of the signatories, all members of the signatory alliances—unless bound by treaty to non-aggression or neutrality—shall jointly respond. Such response shall only be sufficient to contain and eliminate the perceived threat and deter future threats.

Second point is invalid. NPO peace was declared on the 19th of July, and as a result Athens was no longer at war with NPO after that time.

[Hyperbad]

"So you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations?"

-Credit to Trace

Assuming such is directed at me, I would have to say I support them only so far as being a viable option when one has a reasonable fear that the destruction of your own alliance or community is at stake. I see this spy operation as being no different then any number of other possible actions where the same goal could be achieved.

Second point is invalid. NPO peace was declared on the 19th of July, and as a result Athens was no longer at war with NPO after that time.

The way to invalidate the second point is to show that this sort of merged or overlapping sovereignty doesn't equate to a declaration on both. The argument is whether the TPF was at war with Athens. The only relevance the NPO has is with what kind of war was being fought, and the circumstances with which the TPF joined the war. Once the TPF is in a war when the NPO gets peace is irrelevant as the former party is still in conflict.

[Flonker]

Second point is invalid. NPO peace was declared on the 19th of July, and as a result Athens was no longer at war with NPO after that time.

Mushroom Kingdom was still at war with TPF. Both MK and Athens are C&G signatories, and their charter says 'shoot at 1 of me, you shoot at all of me'. Considering that ZH has stated the operation 'ended' 3 days before TPF got peace, I still don't see a violation of the terms. And since MK signed the treaty, I'm thinking they did so on behalf of ALL C&G. Hey, it's in the C&G charter.

[WarriorConcept]

Assuming such is directed at me, I would have to say I support them only so far as being a viable option when one has a reasonable fear that the destruction of your own alliance or community is at stake. I see this spy operation as being no different then any number of other possible actions where the same goal could be achieved.

Except they had a peace offer the whole time, so there was no danger to their community that would cause what they planned to do.

I'm glad you admitted that you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations though.

[Hyperbad]

Except they had a peace offer the whole time, so there was no danger to their community that would cause what they planned to do.

Indeed, and so neglecting my not wanting a part in such operations outside of this, that would only guarantee my refusal and potential departure over it. Of course the costs for peace for themselves or allies could be argued from their perspective as a danger to their community. Would I agree with it? Not at all and I'm ignorant as to the depth of the NPO and TPFs relationship with regards to how integrated their communities were or are thus would be ill prepared to play a devils argument here. It could be a valid concern.

There is a difference between finding something acceptable yet still not wanting to work along those lines. It's simply a matter of preference.

I'm glad you admitted that you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations though.

I also see nothing inherently wrong with doing so through means of their nations. The only difference between the two is method. Would I do it? Highly unlikely even in the darkest of times [OOC: Unless I wished to RP someone sinister].

I might argue however an alliance is nothing but a group of people agreeing to assist each other and if a community dies because the alliance has a split within it, then it is at the fault of those within the community for not dealing with the challenges in a way so as to ensure its continued existance. Fracturing membership in their views so as to prevent a "united front" is a valid strategy.

[Adam Suttler]

It truly is a shame.

I have yet to see TPF's allies honor their treaties with their own DoWs.

[Trace]

Mushroom Kingdom was still at war with TPF. Both MK and Athens are C&G signatories, and their charter says 'shoot at 1 of me, you shoot at all of me'. Considering that ZH has stated the operation 'ended' 3 days before TPF got peace, I still don't see a violation of the terms. And since MK signed the treaty, I'm thinking they did so on behalf of ALL C&G. Hey, it's in the C&G charter.

Please write this down for future reference: The Mushroom Kingdom, and Athens, we are two separate entities. We do not tend to infringe on each other's sovereignty, and have made an explicit point of posting any DoW's on our own, not for the other party, or any other such alliance policies.

[Smacky]

Please write this down for future reference: The Mushroom Kingdom, and Athens, we are two separate entities. We do not tend to infringe on each other's sovereignty, and have made an explicit point of posting any DoW's on our own, not for the other party, or any other such alliance policies.

What do you know, NEW exposed you as the fool you are.

[WarriorConcept]

Like I said before, I'm glad you admitted that you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations.

[Hyperbad]

Like I said before, I'm glad you admitted that you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations.

I do love selective reading.

So, should we take this as your endorsing the destruction of an alliance and its community because of a plan which was never followed through on?

[WarriorConcept]

I do love selective reading.

So, should we take this as your endorsing the destruction of an alliance and its community because of a plan which was never followed through on?

No, you shouldn't.

[oinkoink12]

So whats the summary of the last 20 pages?

Also my sig is killing me

[Flonker]

Please write this down for future reference: The Mushroom Kingdom, and Athens, we are two separate entities. We do not tend to infringe on each other's sovereignty, and have made an explicit point of posting any DoW's on our own, not for the other party, or any other such alliance policies.

I must get my eyes checked again Real Soon Now. Per the C&G charter, located here:

Article II

We pledge mutual defense AND aggression in times of conflict, doing so with the utmost trust in each others motives and reasoning. We live as one, and fight as one.

That pretty much means "All for 1, 1 for All!"

Care to comment further?

[Trace]

I must get my eyes checked again Real Soon Now. Per the C&G charter, located here:

That pretty much means "All for 1, 1 for All!"

Care to comment further?

Are you serious? Really? Ok, fine, I'll play that game. Yes, it says we will defend each other. Yes, it says we will attack together. I don't see it saying anywhere that we will declare peace together,and on behalf of everyone else. Point for me in your game of words? Sure

Point 2 - I see Greenland Republic, and Federation of Buccaneers signatures on TPF peace terms. Hey, look at that, we DIDN'T sign it for all of C&G. Shocking, I know.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Trace

[Hyperion321]

I must get my eyes checked again Real Soon Now. Per the C&G charter, located here:

That pretty much means "All for 1, 1 for All!"

Care to comment further?

Well...it's MK's and Athen's treaty. I'm sure that their interpretation takes precedent over those whom are not part of C&G. Someone not in C&G coming along and saying "that treaty pretty much means this" holds no weight in how they conduct their affairs what so ever. Thinking other wise is futile.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I thought the alliances that made up Karma were assigned targets based on when various parts of the "hegemony" were expected to join in and based on how well their nation make-up matched with the prospective targets.

At least was how it was presented to me at the time when I decided not to include NSO in the lottery.

If that was the case then why does it even matter if Athens and TPF were technically at war? They were on opposing sides and both part of the competing coalitions that existed during the conflict.

I seem to recall that in the Great Patriotic War a number of alliances were engaged with the Pacific while some others were engaged with Polar and yet that coalition considered the war a joint effort.

It all seems like convenient semantics to me, and I know about convenient semantics, let me tell you.

Regardless, how has that same argument carried on for 85 pages now? Even if definitive proof of one point of view over the other existed how would that change the current situation? Athens et al believe a crime towards their community was committed and for whatever reason do not believe the peace terms of the Karma War satisfied the offense. So be it. They are now fighting it out.

I personally don't have a dog in this race (yet) so am just trying to make sense of the back and forth since I don't have a few hours to go over the last 40 or so pages since I last took a look. I think that argument should be allowed to die, without a victor.

I do have some curious thoughts on what has happened over the last three days though. It seems that various parties have declared upon TPF, some, like Athens, with at least a presentable, even if some debate it, casus belli but others without and yet I see no treated partners of TPF weighing in militarily. For the sake of common decency I hope that is an error and some grand scheme is afoot, otherwise I dare say the credibility of those much lauded allies will actually be equivalent to the recent spectacle to which Doitzel pinned them.

[Turkey]

The Phoenix Federation spied during the Karma War and after it, according to evidence given by ZH.

I've stayed out of this, largely because it's maddeningly moronic, but... what evidence? Did you read the evidence? Forgetting the fact that we never surreptitiously gathered intelligence, nor did ZH ever even harm Athens let alone during the war, everything, ALL aggressive action stopped when we surrendered. Puuuhleeease show me where in the 'evidence' it says we spied after the war?

Edited December 30, 2009 by Turkey

[Letum]

So you missed the part where they were not actually at war with the alliances they tired to infiltrate and destabilize?

I already addressed this:

"First off, on the point that TPF was fighting on a different front:

This is a technicality that does not give you a valid CB. It is a single conflict, with two clear sides. Is money aid between alliances fighting on different fronts also going to be treated as a CB? Because - when not done in a war -aid is just as much an act of war as spying is. Are people who didn't fight Athens directly but aided someone who did liable to be attacked? Coalitions also discuss war plans together - using this logic, a "CB" for "plotting" can be made against an alliance if it participated in war plans regarding an enemy it didn't fight. This is all, obviously, ridiculous. Everyone is fighting in the same damn war. Fronts are made for the sake of military and political convenience. "

"So you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations?"

-Credit to Trace

So, you endorse this war, the idea of senselessly slaughtering a non-belligerent and surrendered state, of violating the principles of peace and the very security of the surrender agreement?

See, I can make emotional attacks too. The thing is, this king of argument is not logical, and is only designed to appeal to emotions rather than reason. I can just as easily claim that anyone supporting a war "supports killing", or anyone opposed to minimum wages "supports starvation and poverty".

This is bogus - the criticism against the war does not stem from "spy-lovers", and it would be folly to make that assertion. The criticism stems from the simple fact that the war ended, you cannot start attacking over what happened in it and claim it is a valid CB

It is impossible to claim that Athens is defending against belligerence (the claim in the CB), when the person they are "defending" against has surrendered and is not doing anything belligerent.

The Phoenix Federation spied during the Karma War and after it, according to evidence given by ZH.

That is wrong.