The End

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1269231701' post='2232882']
Of course, Mr Brookbank. However, the question isn't jumping into bed; rather, of declaring who you won't randomly headbutt while walking down the street.
[/quote]

Green peace and unity is one of the key tenets of the GGA's current foreign policy, and as we currently had nothing outlining our intentions towards the entirety of the Green sphere, I felt it important that we develop and implement a policy.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='21 March 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1269231779' post='2232887']
Green peace and unity is one of the key tenets of the GGA's current foreign policy, and as we currently had nothing outlining our intentions towards the entirety of the Green sphere, I felt it important that we develop and implement a policy.
[/quote]
An admirable goal, perhaps. I do remember, though, that a number of conflicts in recent months involved non-green nations, and were generally hailed by some supporting the doctorine you announced as less than honourable. What is the stance of the Alliance regarding intentions towards other colour spheres? These were formerly covered, but are now notably not.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1269232392' post='2232900']
An admirable goal, perhaps. I do remember, though, that a number of conflicts in recent months involved non-green nations, and were generally hailed by some supporting the doctorine you announced as less than honourable. What is the stance of the Alliance regarding intentions towards other colour spheres? These were formerly covered, but are now notably not.
[/quote]

We currently have no plans as far as entire color spheres other than Green are concerned.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='22 March 2010 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1269231490' post='2232875']
Call me old fashioned, but I don't jump right into bed with someone without getting to know them first.
[/quote]

signing an NAP isn't exactly "jumping into bed" with anything. hell, if anything, you claiming that you don't view NAP's as "normal" says a ton more about your readiness to spy and instigate an offensive movement than it does about your willingness to stay at peace.

only a thief believes that not stealing something is an improvement which deserves recognition.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='hizzy' date='22 March 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1269232977' post='2232912']
signing an NAP isn't exactly "jumping into bed" with anything. hell, if anything, you claiming that you don't view NAP's as "normal" says a ton more about your readiness to spy and instigate an offensive movement than it does about your willingness to stay at peace.

only a thief believes that not stealing something is an improvement which deserves recognition.
[/quote]

Jumping into bed would be jumping straight to MDP+, which is what I was referring to, as that's what Qaianna mentioned.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='21 March 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1269233061' post='2232913']
Jumping into bed would be jumping straight to MDP+, which is what I was referring to, as that's what Qaianna mentioned.
[/quote]
I was actually referring to the trend amongst some citing NAPs were less than meaningful, and how it influenced the original NAP language in the charter; I specified that those who think MDP and above are the only treaties that warrant attention influenced the decisions of those who wrote a blanket worldwide NAP into the prior charters.

[TimeMaster]

I'll throw in my $.02 here. . .

In my personal opinion, not having a NAP doesn't mean we're liable to attack an alliance randomly. Mushroom Kingdom does not have a blanket NAP stated in their Mandate, yet you don't see them randomly headbutting various alliances. . .do you? They attack when they have enough reason to (and when negotiations fail). . .the same with apply with GGA.

In short: Quit your squabbling

Also, to all anti-GGA folk: Quit following us around on the OWF, you're making yourselves look bad.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='TimeMaster' date='22 March 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1269234438' post='2232927']
I'll throw in my $.02 here. . .

In my personal opinion, not having a NAP doesn't mean we're liable to attack an alliance randomly. Mushroom Kingdom does not have a blanket NAP stated in their Mandate, yet you don't see them randomly headbutting various alliances. . .do you? They attack when they have enough reason to (and when negotiations fail). . .the same with apply with GGA.

In short: Quit your squabbling
[/quote]
Perhaps. Still, if having a non-aggression pact is a gesture, then one could interpret withdrawing one as a gesture as well.

[quote]
Also, to all anti-GGA folk: Quit following us around on the OWF, you're making yourselves look bad.
[/quote]
You know, I only wish I could've said that over the last ... um, I think Ashoka the Great can tell us of how long people have spent following the Alliance to make derogatory comments. The man formerly known as King Zog has experience in this.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1269235004' post='2232935']I think Ashoka the Great can tell us of how long people have spent following the Alliance to make derogatory comments. The man formerly known as King Zog has experience in this.[/quote]

I suspect you know zero about my long and complex relationship with the GGA.

Thank you for proving my point, though.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='22 March 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1269235941' post='2232950']
I suspect you know zero about my long and complex relationship with the GGA.

Thank you for proving my point, though.
[/quote]
You would be correct; most of what I knew of your history started during the Vox Populi era. Which, naturally, has coloured how I saw you in general. Not quite sure how that proves your point, though; my original one was more a wistful and sarcastic observation as to how effective it is to ask for one's true haters to avoid oneself.

Edit: As far as your long and complex relationship, I am quite curious about this. I'll send a private message ...

Edited March 22, 2010 by Qaianna

[Skippy]

Hah, a call for attention is answered, I'll admit, I did yawn though.

[Starfox101]

Ignore the haters, JB.

Good luck.

[Cataduanes]

I like what i am seeing, way to go GGA

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1269236395' post='2232955']
You would be correct; most of what I knew of your history started during the Vox Populi era. Which, naturally, has coloured how I saw you in general. Not quite sure how that proves your point, though; my original one was more a wistful and sarcastic observation as to how effective it is to ask for one's true haters to avoid oneself.[/quote]

Well, I'm not sure how I can be classed as a 'hater' when I said:

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='21 March 2010 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1269176184' post='2232087']
Were it any other alliance, people would trip over themselves to hail its contribution to peace and stability on Green.

Objectively, it's a good policy. Well done, GGA.
[/quote]

That first line was specifically addressed to those who criticized this based on their own prejudices. Today, I would especially direct it at those former GGA government members who have wandered in to lecture the current GGA government on how to run an alliance. Were I in their shoes I would avoid doing so for fear that someone might point out how my/our actions created 'lolGGA' in the first place.

For the purposes of this discussion, all you really need to know is that Jonathan Brookbank and I worked together for the first time during and after the Unjust War, when he and I negotiated a treaty between the Grand Global Alliance and the Norden Verein. I liked him then, I like him now and I wish him, and everyone in the GGA, the very best.

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='22 March 2010 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1269257553' post='2233070']
Were I in their shoes I would avoid doing so for fear that someone might point out how my/our actions created 'lolGGA' in the first place.
[/quote]
This.

And as to those trying to decry this announcement, To those who say it is meaningless; The Current GGA government claimed they are going to try and turn GGA around and this may be a step in the right direction. You can't rag on them for trying to change things.
again GGA; kudos on the blanket green NAP. Good luck to you guys in the future.

[WarriorConcept]

What constitutes an alliance on the green team for GGA?

Also good to see this. While a bit redundant it is still a step in the right direction.

[WildeKaard]

[quote name='Andre27' date='21 March 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1269190481' post='2232204']
Your sovereign needs to read up on the UJA then:



from: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/UJA

These "new" Emerald Doctrine does not state anything not already stated in the UJA.
Once again i wish the best for the GGA, but stop trying to invent the wheel or try to take credit for treaties predating the current administration.
[/quote]

Andre whilst I do not disagree with you, the UJW article that you site stipulates "The undersigned alliances." Although treaties are indeed make up a large part of an alliance's foreign policy agenda, a doctrinal executive order is certainly mutually exclusive and not necessarily redundant.

[Joe Stupid]

A step in the right direction for GGA. Best of luck

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='WildeKaard' date='22 March 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1269284059' post='2233349']
Andre whilst I do not disagree with you, the UJW article that you site stipulates "The undersigned alliances." Although treaties are indeed make up a large part of an alliance's foreign policy agenda, a doctrinal executive order is certainly mutually exclusive and not necessarily redundant.
[/quote]
It's still redundant, not because of any overlap with UJW, but because it's nothing more than a statement of "We won't attack you unless we have a reason to attack you." Which most alliances don't need a doctrine for!

[Thierra]

In the epic battle of [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668]doctrines that have no intrinsic value[/url], I think we may have a real fight on our hands.

[WildeKaard]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='22 March 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1269284869' post='2233356']
It's still redundant, not because of any overlap with UJW, but because it's nothing more than a statement of "We won't attack you unless we have a reason to attack you." Which most alliances don't need a doctrine for!
[/quote]

...by your own arguments then this would be considered more of an extrapolation on an otherwise universally inferred policy and less of a redundancy. There is little wrong with putting something like that to pen and paper.

[Trout]

Boy, was I fooled.

Good luck, GGA

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Thierra' date='22 March 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1269286840' post='2233382']
In the epic battle of [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668]doctrines that have no intrinsic value[/url], I think we may have a real fight on our hands.
[/quote]

Haha, ain't that the truth

[hizzy]

[quote name='TimeMaster' date='22 March 2010 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1269234438' post='2232927']
I'll throw in my $.02 here. . .

In my personal opinion, not having a NAP doesn't mean we're liable to attack an alliance randomly. Mushroom Kingdom does not have a blanket NAP stated in their Mandate, yet you don't see them randomly headbutting various alliances. . .do you? They attack when they have enough reason to (and when negotiations fail). . .the same with apply with GGA.
[/quote]

You're basically agreeing that a blanket NAP is retarded.

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='22 March 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1269284869' post='2233356']
It's still redundant, not because of any overlap with UJW, but because it's nothing more than a statement of "We won't attack you unless we have a reason to attack you." Which most alliances don't need a doctrine for!
[/quote]
I think you might want to re-read the third clause. It's not "unless we have a reason to attack you", it's "Unless you attack us".
So GGA will not engage any alliance on green unless that alliance should attack GGA (or one of it's allies) first.