Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281563553' post='2411584']Anyway what are you doing here, shouldn't you be busy calling NPO and friends cowards and trying desperately to goad them into war?[/quote]

I'm in my ally's Declaration of War announcement. You?

Alas, I've learned that trying to convince faithless cowards to stand up for their allies -- when they have no treaty-related reasons for not doing so -- is a little bit like yelling at fish until they learn to walk. I mean, it's fun and all....but you know how it is. They're your pals, after all.


[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281562760' post='2411566']
Also, since I see you repeating the same sentiment a lot, I would suggest that you use the appropriate and suitably ironic phrase "do something about it" for what you are trying to convey . I suspect you are amongst the people for whom the political in-correctness of the phrase has an impact that is not of a particularly high value.
[/quote]

I'm still trying to get an official response as to why Pacifica isn't abiding by its treaty with the NSO. Every other NSO ally has that option. You do not.

I understand that taking shots at me is easier than sticking by your word, and that this forms a key part in Pacifican 'debating technique'. Please continue. You're not fooling anyone.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1281566604' post='2411657']
For one, I dont see how thats an "evil precedent." In fact, it makes a lot of sense. Also, the BAPS war was in reference to you guys declaring on them because of the way their government acted, not the negotiations (or lack there of) later on.
[/quote]

Oh gosh, I was sort of hoping you'd show up in one of these threads.

Your ears must be burning. For the last couple of days, I've been using your former alliance as an example of what a good ally is like. (I may not have been on your side of the web at the time, but you sure showed a lot of people 'how it's done'.)

Edited August 11, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[Letum]

[quote]First off, non-damaging? Hell no. That's the whole point, sending money to someone at war is helping them with that war. You are damaging that alliance. That's why it's an act of war.
[/quote]

Yes, it is damaging from a technical standpoint. Indirect, future damage from aiding somebody. But not the kind of damage to an alliance that actually matters - not attacking their nations, not compromising their security, not attacking their allies.

It is certainly less than the damage you might get from attacking a large number of an alliance's trade partners. It is less than the "damage" you cause to an alliance's influence by destroying their friends. It is less than the damage RoK caused by attacking a nation that, for better or for worse, was an actual NSO member at that point.

That is my point. It is not damage to be considered significant. It is the kind of stuff that can be overcompensated for by a single nation's aid slots. It is certainly not something so threatening whose "correction" via military action puts RoK in a better position, assuming they have no other desire to oppose that alliance.

[quote]Secondly, you try to make it sound like the source of the crime has any bearing. Sending aid is an act of war, doesn't matter who did it, NSO. GATO, the ghost of NAAC.[/quote]

And this deals with that very assumption. I do not believe that. Wars rarely happen because the trigger mandates it, they happen because of pre-existing rivalries between the parties involved. Officials might dance around the issue for the sake of political correctness, but it is clear that there are alliances considering each other "opponents", and for whom otherwise minor issues can be used as an excuse for a war that does advance national interest by removing a legitimate threat to an alliance's influence.



[quote]
Well I can't speak for anybody but me, but if NSO had come to me with Heft's resignation I'd have been willing to keep talking. Anything less than that it just looks like you are trying to mess me about.
[/quote]


Perhaps I am biased because my last experience of leadership level decision making was several years ago, but is that seriously what you would consider normal behaviour in a modern age? Government change in the alliance that "offended" you as the minimum? Destruction within a matter of hours as an easy recourse? That does not seem excessively warlike even in the least to you?

I have a hard time seriously believing that your alliances embrace war so casually merely on a basis of principle (as opposed to profit). Surely if the original wars of the nation in question could be settled with reps, the aid, which by default is quite a bit lower on the "aggressiveness" scale, could be settled with something similar.



[quote]
Alas, I've learned that trying to convince faithless cowards to stand up for their allies -- when they have no treaty-related reasons for not doing so -- is a little bit like yelling at fish until they learn to walk. I mean, it's fun and all....but you know how it is. They're your pals, after all.
[/quote]

I am now going to alter your previous statement a bit to display why I consider your two posts to be very ironic when compared. I mean no offence by it, and am merely using it for illustrative, not mocking, purposes.

[quote]And what if they don't "stand up"? What if I don't? What if nobody does?

Will you and everyone else remotely connected to RoK continue to go on and on and on, directing your analysis and rebukes at an audience that either agrees with you (but won't do anything about it) or simply doesn't care?[/quote]

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281559567' post='2411506']
That's your point of view. You may not care about our opinions, but we certainly do.
[/quote]

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Wars are most likely to be started over differing opinions, though, and if yours is valid to you, ours is just as valid to us.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281560868' post='2411531']
Another way of saying this is "There was never any time for negotiations."

You will, of course, be ignorant of what the negotiations I refer to would have been about. So I have to spell it out for you: Negotiating a solution to [i]Heft's error in aiding the NSO member.[/i] You'll still ignore it, though. The other alternative is that you believe NSO should have been negotiating a solution to the problem before the problem occurred, but that's just absurd, right? ...Right?
[/quote]

Don't aid, negotiations between Heft and Hoo probably would have been fruitful. Once Heft sent aid, negotiations were over. This has been spelled out numerous times, and I'm more privy to what negotiations went on than you may believe.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Viking

[Letum]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281566830' post='2411662']
I understand that taking shots at me is easier than sticking by your word, and that this forms a key part in Pacifican 'debating technique'. Please continue. You're not fooling anyone.
[/quote]

Taking shots? You are far too sensitive (or paranoid) dear sir. It was an honest suggestion. You are not a person whom will face significant negative impact from the phrase, and its usage would be funny.

To be honest, I was debating using it myself in order to display the inability of anybody to silence a determined detractor in our realm (thereby reversing it from the original usage of "rubbing in" the power of a block), but I figured that I am already disliked enough.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281567529' post='2411673']
It is certainly less than the damage you might get from attacking a large number of an alliance's trade partners. It is less than the "damage" you cause to an alliance's influence by destroying their friends.
[/quote]
Well then NSO had better compensate its allies for all of the damage it has caused them by catalyzing this war.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281566606' post='2411658']
I'm really having a hard time suspending disbelief and imagining anybody else being that blinding stupid long enough to decide how I'd react. I think I'd have trouble declaring war at the same speed Hoo did just on the basis that I'd be too stunned from the blinding idiocy to do anything coherent for a while.
[/quote]In other words, "lol, but that would never happen."

Well, not that I expected you to give a straight answer where a straight answer would do you harm. Surprise surprise.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281566830' post='2411662']
I'm in my ally's Declaration of War announcement. You?

Alas, I've learned that trying to convince faithless cowards to stand up for their allies -- when they have no treaty-related reasons for not doing so -- is a little bit like yelling at fish until they learn to walk. I mean, it's fun and all....but you know how it is. They're your pals, after all.[/quote]Really, hasn't it been explained that NSO didn't just ask, they [i]demanded[/i] that their allies stay out, like a thousand times now? Are you really that upset that you don't get to smash the NPO again? Were you looking forward to demanding another year of reps or something? I didn't realize free tech was so addicting, somebody should set up a support group for that.

[quote]I'm still trying to get an official response as to why Pacifica isn't abiding by its treaty with the NSO. Every other NSO ally has that option. You do not.

I understand that taking shots at me is easier than sticking by your word, and that this forms a key part in Pacifican 'debating technique'. Please continue. You're not fooling anyone.
[/quote]And you accuse us of taking shots? Ha! Maybe one day you will figure out that the concept of "Defense" is more about talking with your allies and arriving at a plan that best "defends" your mutual interests, and is less about charging blindly into a suicidal war with no strategy. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Edited August 11, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Letum]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281567991' post='2411682']
Well then NSO had better compensate its allies for all of the damage it has caused them by catalyzing this war.
[/quote]

They did so in advance by passing around Jrenster as a concubine.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281567572' post='2411674']
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Wars are most likely to be started over differing opinions, though, and if yours is valid to you, ours is just as valid to us.
[/quote]

Actually, we understood your opinion (not yours specifically, but RoK's), which is why diplomacy was open. And even if we didn't understand your opinion, that is why diplomacy exists. But you're right otherwise. War is a form of diplomacy as well.

[Bob Janova]

I just want to make one quick point. People keep talking about 'Heft's aid', but the aid wasn't actually sent by Heft. It was sent by NSO members in response to a direct governmental request to do so (by Heft, yes), and is therefore an alliance action, not an individual one. If Goldie tells ten people to declare war on random nations in Athens (to re-use the example brought up a few posts ago), we wouldn't expect to be able to say 'Oh, that's just Goldie's personal mistake' – certainly not if we kept him in his position after doing so!

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281568627' post='2411704']
I just want to make one quick point. People keep talking about 'Heft's aid', but the aid wasn't actually sent by Heft. It was sent by NSO members in response to a direct governmental request to do so (by Heft, yes), and is therefore an alliance action, not an individual one. If Goldie tells ten people to declare war on random nations in Athens (to re-use the example brought up a few posts ago), we wouldn't expect to be able to say 'Oh, that's just Goldie's personal mistake' – certainly not if we kept him in his position after doing so!
[/quote]And perhaps Heft would not have been kept in his position had RoK chosen to negotiate as NSO desired. But I suppose we'll never know at this point.

Also, I should point out that this is a straw man - Heft did not, in fact, order an attack on RoK. Nor is he even authorized to do so. Not only that, but in instances of a government member doing this (as your example), it is usually chalked up as a "rogue government member" who is often immediately given the boot and attacked, with no war breaking out.

What Heft did is trivial in comparison to what you describe, and even more when you consider his, albeit flawed, reasoning.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281568627' post='2411704']
I just want to make one quick point. People keep talking about 'Heft's aid', but the aid wasn't actually sent by Heft. It was sent by NSO members in response to a direct governmental request to do so (by Heft, yes), and is therefore an alliance action, not an individual one. If Goldie tells ten people to declare war on random nations in Athens (to re-use the example brought up a few posts ago), we wouldn't expect to be able to say 'Oh, that's just Goldie's personal mistake' – certainly not if we kept him in his position after doing so!
[/quote]

Um. Who cares? It's our fault, so why does the number of people matter?

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281568137' post='2411689']
They did so in advance by passing around Jrenster as a concubine.
[/quote]

Wait wot.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Jrenster

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281569182' post='2411716']
And perhaps Heft would not have been kept in his position had RoK chosen to negotiate as NSO desired. But I suppose we'll never know at this point.

Also, I should point out that this is a straw man - Heft did not, in fact, order an attack on RoK. Nor is he even authorized to do so. Not only that, but in instances of a government member doing this (as your example), it is usually chalked up as a "rogue government member" who is often immediately given the boot and attacked, with no war breaking out.

What Heft did is trivial in comparison to what you describe, and even more when you consider his, albeit flawed, reasoning.
[/quote]
Wow, you managed to make a straw man argument by [i]accusing someone else of making a straw man argument[/i].

[Ragashingo]

Somehow I don't see NSO booting gov members when one of their main points is that they don't abandon their members.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281567529' post='2411673']
Perhaps I am biased because my last experience of leadership level decision making was several years ago, but is that seriously what you would consider normal behaviour in a modern age? Government change in the alliance that "offended" you as the minimum? Destruction within a matter of hours as an easy recourse? That does not seem excessively warlike even in the least to you?
[/quote]

Normally I'd be against government change in an alliance, in fact it was one of the things I demonized NPO for back in Karma. However in this situation you have a member of government committing an act of war after being explicitly warned against it. If you wanna back track on a member of government's action you better do something drastic to convince me you are serious about disapproving of his actions and not just trying to fast talk your way past a serious mistake. Given NSO's reputation I think that's about the only way you could convince me you weren't just jerking me around.

I've had related conversations with a few people. Alliance government doesn't have opinions. We don't act alone. When alliance government speaks we speak for our alliance, when we act we act for our alliance. When a member messes up you can say "no he wasn't supposed to do that" and things get solved quickly. When a member of government messes up, what he did stands because he is government.

Problems with members tend to end with minor actions, frequently little more than a slap on the wrist, because they are just members and many of them (especially the new ones) do not know better. Your government should know better. The unstated (until now) understanding is that members may make mistakes out of simple ignorance and the problem will be resolved as such, an honest mistake. Members of government should know better. Government should be aware of possible consequences of their actions and held accountable. Government doesn't get the luxury of Mistakes, Government gets Choices, and when you make the wrong choice you are stuck with it. When government $%&@s up the bar to prove good faith is set that much higher.

So yes, coming up with Heft's resignation would prove good faith on NSO's part*. Perhaps something less drastic would also have done such, I just can't think of anything else off the top of my head. Also don't forget this is me, its entirely possible Rok has a different view of this than I do.

*Though I say that Hefts resignation would be a way they could demonstrate good faith, I would not ask for it as part of negotiations personally, though I would accept it if offered. I realize this is a fine line, but it is important I think. I do not think it my place to tell people who their leaders are or should be, but if someone else wants to demonstrate they are serious about disavowing someones actions that someones resignation is a powerful message.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281569930' post='2411726']
Wow, you managed to make a straw man argument by [i]accusing someone else of making a straw man argument[/i].
[/quote]I wasn't aware that Heft ordered a military strike on RoK targets. Can you link me to proof of this shocking new evidence?

The point is that degrees of the violation are important. You can paint an example where the degrees of the violation far exceed what happened in the RoK/NSO incident, but to make an analogy between them is to, in fact, make a straw man argument.

[Smooth Pancakes]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281569182' post='2411716']
And perhaps Heft would not have been kept in his position had RoK chosen to negotiate as NSO desired. But I suppose we'll never know at this point.[/quote]

Oh, so because NSO thumbed their nose at RoK and did EXACTLY what Hoo said would result in a war if they did do it, RoK is just supposed to say "oh hell, we were just joking, lets sit down and talk"? Could RoK have continued negotiations? Sure. Were they required to? Hell no. As soon as that aid was sent and Heft/NSO did EXACTLY what RoK warned would result in war, RoK didn't owe NSO a damn thing and sure didn't have to listen to NSO's requests nor care about their desires. RoK warned that sending aid would be viewed as an act of war. NSO sent the aid. RoK called NSO out on it, decided the time for negotiations was over, and declared war.

And if you want to play the conspiracy theory/perhaps game, fine, I'll play. Perhaps NSO just would have used the negotiations to allow all of their members time to jump into PM and then say to RoK "haha, you can't touch us". Perhaps NSO would have just kept committing one "minor transgression" (as you call it) after another simply to continue pushing the boundaries and "make a stand" against RoK. Perhaps the full NSO government did actually order that aid sent in an intentional move to dare RoK to do something about it, and now that RoK did exactly what they warned they would do, Heft is being made the public scapegoat and the NSO government is trying to claim they tried to "reverse the error made by Heft" so as attempt to shift any blame off of themselves. See how easy that is to just make claims?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281567993' post='2411683']
Were you looking forward to demanding another year of reps or something? I didn't realize free tech was so addicting, somebody should set up a support group for that.[/quote]

I think you have me confused with someone else. My alliance neither fought in nor received reparations as a result of the Karma War.

[quote]And you accuse us of taking shots? Ha! Maybe one day you will figure out that the concept of "Defense" is more about talking with your allies and arriving at a plan that best "defends" your mutual interests, and is less about charging blindly into a suicidal war with no strategy. I'm not holding my breath, though.[/quote]

So it's your contention that ignoring a treaty is OK when there is nothing within the treaty that allows you to do so? Just to be clear, this isn't even a question about the 'spirit' vs. the 'wording' of an agreement. The wording in this instance does not allow for interpretation.

I keep asking this question, and nobody answers it. Instead what I get is "You're just upset that you're not fighting the NPO."

Listen....[u]I've [i]personally[/i] done more damage to the New Pacific Order than just about anyone else on Planet Bob[/u] save their former Emperor. My time in the Red Senate cost them billions in lost revenue. And when it was done, I was pretty much satisfied by that and considered it over. I don't need to go to war with them to prove a damn thing. In fact, I suspect it would be considerably less satisfying than the Senate run. (Which was a blast.)

With that in mind, you should be able to figure out why I keep bringing this up, and why I'm not surprised by the fact that I'm not getting an answer.

[Ragashingo]

[quote]*Though I say that Hefts resignation would be a way they could demonstrate good faith, I would not ask for it as part of negotiations personally, though I would accept it if offered. I realize this is a fine line, but it is important I think. I do not think it my place to tell people who their leaders are or should be, but if someone else wants to demonstrate they are serious about disavowing someones actions that someones resignation is a powerful message. [/quote]

A fine line, but a good one to have. Demanding a change is tyranny, accepting one is not.

[Bob Janova]

HoT, I guess I'm making trouble for myself by taking your bait, but you missed the point spectacularly. The point is that you can't say 'Oh the aid was just Heft's personal thing' just like we wouldn't be able to say 'Oh those wardecs are just Goldie's personal thing', not that I'm trying to equate wardecs and aid. The sending of NSO government ordered aid to a rogue immediately after being warned that such a thing would be an act of war is, well, an act of war, and you don't get to say it's 'just his personal opinion' when he's used his government position to perform the actions in question.

I do disagree with Typo, government members can and do have opinions. A lot of what gets posted on these boards is personal opinions; I wouldn't use Haflinger's posts here to take Invicta's official position on anything for example (and I hope you don't take mine or Typo's to be VE's, particularly when we don't agree!). But when you're acting in an official government capacity – conducting diplomatic talks or ordering alliance nations to do something, whether that be aid, wars, spy attacks or anything else – then you are acting on behalf of the alliance and you don't get the 'personal opinion' escape. If the rest of the government feels sufficiently strongly that they don't back you up (for example if you've actually gone rogue) then they need to kick you out of government, at least – in fact alliances have been rolled in the past [i]even when they kicked the members out of the alliance[/i], though I would consider that to be wrong. In this case though Heft is still in NSO government so that doesn't apply.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281570187' post='2411731']
I wasn't aware that Heft ordered a military strike on RoK targets. Can you link me to proof of this shocking new evidence?

The point is that degrees of the violation are important. You can paint an example where the degrees of the violation far exceed what happened in the RoK/NSO incident, but to make an analogy between them is to, in fact, make a straw man argument.
[/quote]
Actually, making an analogy between them is to, in fact, make an analogy. He used this analogy to back up his original point about alliance action vs. individual action. He wasn't even replying to anyone in particular, so I can't see what argument he was distorting in order to make a straw man argument in the first place.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281570471' post='2411736']
So it's your contention that ignoring a treaty is OK when there is nothing within the treaty that allows you to do so? [/quote]When your ally [i]demands[/i] that you stay out because they believe it is in everyones, including their own, best interests to do so, then it is absolutely correct to ignore the specific wording of the treaty. The bond between the signing alliances far exceeds the value of a couple of words scribbled on a scrap of parchment. In any instance other than an ally's demand that you stay out for your mutual benefit, it is not OK to ignore the treaty. Only in the one, singular, above described instance.

[quote]Just to be clear, this isn't even a question about the 'spirit' vs. the 'wording' of an agreement. The wording in this instance does not allow for interpretation.[/quote]So because of fanciful, flavorful wording meant to illustrate the strength of the bond between two alliances, Alliance A must impale itself on a sword despite Alliance B's protests not to. Brilliant.

[quote]I keep asking this question, and nobody answers it. Instead what I get is "You're just upset that you're not fighting the NPO."

...

With that in mind, you should be able to figure out why I keep bringing this up, and why I'm not surprised by the fact that I'm not getting an answer.[/quote]I hope I have answered your question adequately. If not, let me know.

Edited August 11, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281571016' post='2411748']
HoT, I guess I'm making trouble for myself by taking your bait, but you missed the point spectacularly. The point is that you can't say 'Oh the aid was just Heft's personal thing' just like we wouldn't be able to say 'Oh those wardecs are just Goldie's personal thing', not that I'm trying to equate wardecs and aid. The sending of NSO government ordered aid to a rogue immediately after being warned that such a thing would be an act of war is, well, an act of war, and you don't get to say it's 'just his personal opinion' when he's used his government position to perform the actions in question.[/quote]Another act of war is when RoK nations declared on the NSO member without RoK notifying NSO of the reasons for such actions. Now, this line of reasoning isn't my favorite thing to pick at, and so I'm going to go at it differently: The sending of aid was an act of war [i]against TENE[/i] because the TENE wars had not yet achieved peace. This is the reason, and the [u]only[/u] reason, why Heft was in error to send the aid. Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not make it an act of war, and in fact no act of war was ever committed against RoK, only against TENE.

But this is a distraction from the point, and the overall point is that from the very [i]instant[/i] that the act of war was committed against TENE, other officials in NSO recognized it for the mistake it was and swiftly moved in an attempt to correct the issue. Thus, the war instigated by RoK is not justified in that it was [i]not necessary[/i] to get NSO to comply and repair any damages done onto TENE or even RoK. NSO was willing and complicit to correct the issue. This war is an unjustified display of force by an aggressive, war-mongering alliance.

[quote]I do disagree with Typo, government members can and do have opinions. A lot of what gets posted on these boards is personal opinions; I wouldn't use Haflinger's posts here to take Invicta's official position on anything for example (and I hope you don't take mine or Typo's to be VE's, particularly when we don't agree!). But when you're acting in an official government capacity – conducting diplomatic talks or ordering alliance nations to do something, whether that be aid, wars, spy attacks or anything else – then you are acting on behalf of the alliance and you don't get the 'personal opinion' escape. If the rest of the government feels sufficiently strongly that they don't back you up (for example if you've actually gone rogue) then they need to kick you out of government, at least – in fact alliances have been rolled in the past [i]even when they kicked the members out of the alliance[/i], though I would consider that to be wrong. In this case though Heft is still in NSO government so that doesn't apply.
[/quote]I'm not arguing that there was not a fraction of an instant wherein Heft's actions might be considered the actions of the NSO - However, they could only be considered as such for that tiny fraction of an instant. The moment Rebel Virginia stepped up to the plate in an effort to correct the error, Heft's actions were no longer those of the NSO. On top of this, Heft acted in direct violation of official Sith policy when it comes to aiding new members with unresolved wars - He was literally not allowed to do what he did. It's like if the MoIA of an alliance declared war even though they (most likely) aren't authorized to do so. And that's an even more extreme example.

Edited August 12, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Adrian LaCroix]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281572340' post='2411779']
Another act of war is when RoK nations declared on the NSO member without RoK notifying NSO of the reasons for such actions. Now, this line of reasoning isn't my favorite thing to pick at, and so I'm going to go at it differently: The sending of aid was an act of war [i]against TENE[/i] because the TENE wars had not yet achieved peace. This is the reason, and the [u]only[/u] reason, why Heft was in error to send the aid. Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not make it an act of war, [b]and in fact no act of war was ever committed against RoK, only against TENE.[/b][/quote]

An act of war against TENE is an act of war against RoK, if you read the protectorate agreement.

[ShadowChaos]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281572340' post='2411779']
Another act of war is when RoK nations declared on the NSO member without RoK notifying NSO of the reasons for such actions. Now, this line of reasoning isn't my favorite thing to pick at, and so I'm going to go at it differently: The sending of aid was an act of war [i]against TENE[/i] because the TENE wars had not yet achieved peace. This is the reason, and the [u]only[/u] reason, why Heft was in error to send the aid. Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not make it an act of war, and in fact no act of war was ever committed against RoK, only against TENE.

But this is a distraction from the point, and the overall point is that from the very [i]instant[/i] that the act of war was committed against TENE, other officials in NSO recognized it for the mistake it was and swiftly moved in an attempt to correct the issue. Thus, the war instigated by RoK is not justified in that it was [i]not necessary[/i] to get NSO to comply and repair any damages done onto TENE or even RoK. NSO was willing and complicit to correct the issue. This war is an unjustified display of force by an aggressive, war-mongering alliance.
[/quote]

Actually, if you actually read Ragnablok, you would've seen it's an act of war against both TENE and RoK:

[quote name='Ragnablok']
III. Protection and Defense:

In the event that any signatory alliance is attacked, all signatory members are encouraged though not required to provide aid via military and financial means except for Ragnarok who assumes responsibility for the well-being of all of the undersigned members. [b]An attack on any of the undersigned protectorates will be considered an attack on Ragnarok.[/b] Ragnarok will attempt to resolve such an issue on the behalf of the protectorates through diplomatic means before force is ever used.
[/quote]

Read the bold that i bolded for you.


[b]EDIT[/b]:

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281573136' post='2411796']
An act of war against TENE is an act of war against RoK, if you read the protectorate agreement.
[/quote]

Dang, you beat me to it. lol.

Edited August 12, 2010 by ShadowChaos

[Lord Razzia]

Damn... my(our) economy(ies) is(are) getting messed up over $6 million dollars.