Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='MadScotsman' timestamp='1282402136' post='2425664']
Are you looking for a better answer than because their allies told them not too?
[/quote]
That's not actually an answer to the question I asked and the question you quoted, but alright. I'm wondering why an alliance would have a treaty obligating defense and treat this obligation as optional when they already have a previous optional agreement. I don't care what the NPO does at all. I'm just saying that logistically, things don't add up.

That, or it's cowardice. Take your pick.

*edit
As an aside, when did the NPO start taking demands from the NSO? Doesn't seem very NPO-ish.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Captain Flinders

[MadScotII]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282402554' post='2425669']
That's not actually an answer to the question I asked and the question you quoted, but alright. I'm wondering why an alliance would have a treaty obligating defense and treat this obligation as optional when they already have a previous optional agreement. I don't care what the NPO does at all. I'm just saying that logistically, things don't add up.

That, or it's cowardice. Take your pick.
[/quote]

Neither.

It's perfect planning (and the NSO haven't been perfect much, but here they have). They've got a very large topic of idiots of the highest order moaning that the NPO won't enter the war, while because they refuse to allow their allies to enter, have the financial support to re-build once the war is finally over. Excellent, economic planning in my eyes.

Edited August 21, 2010 by MadScotsman

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='MadScotsman' timestamp='1282402136' post='2425664']If you want to war with the NPO so much, why not do what everyone does and find a BS CB and declare. It's not that hard.[/quote]

I keep seeing this being repeated, and quite often directed at me, so perhaps a history lesson is in order.

If this were merely about declaring war on the NPO, I would have done so during the Karma War, when they attacked a Nordreich nation (formerly in Ragnarok) and said that they were going to continue attacking until said nation surrendered. Eventually they came to their senses and broke off the attack, but had I [u]wanted[/u] to declare war on them that would have been the ideal time to do so. They were vastly outnumbered and being beaten to a pulp. Nordreich could have joined the fray with ease and then taken part in the 'year of oppressive reps' we keep hearing about.

And, before you ask, yes, the decision was mine to make at the time. Mine and mine alone. That's not the case now, although I do enjoy the fact that even though I have retired from government service, some believe I am still in a position of power within Nordreich.

I know this won't stop someone (hi HoT!) from accusing me of wanting war with the NPO for perhaps more than a page or two, but facts are facts.

[quote name='MadScotsman' timestamp='1282403048' post='2425678']
They've got a very large topic of idiots of the highest order moaning that the NPO won't enter the war....[/quote]

Please explain who these 'idiots' are. Presumably you're not speaking of your [i]allies[/i].

Edited August 21, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[the lizard queen]

Ok, I will say it again. We don't want our allies to come into it. We are all very well aware what the treaty with NPO says but, WE TOLD THEM NOT TO ENTER. It's not to our advantage if they do. We know it, they know it. It's common sense. They are listening to the wishes of their friends, which is what a real ally does. End of story.

[Branimir]

From a position that all allies of NSO are cowards, for honoring NSO's request of non entrance in their behalf into the current conflict (which position is quite self evidently rational for any barely smart person), Zog has backpedaled into the argument how its the case only with the NPO (surprise).

His reasoning is that the wording of the NPO-NSO treaty doesn't allow such action, while with others it does. He is taking a position of honoring the letter of a signed treaty regardless of anything. Letter is the law and law is the letter. That is the preach, of our preacher.

Though, interestingly enough, if we search for consistency in this view of Zog, we see that there is none. Recently, Hamlings accord cancellation suffered the same argument. In it Zog didnt posted 30 posts. No, just two.

In one saying how:
"Giving MHA a hard time for this is the cheap and easy thing to do, I suppose."
And in another making a snide remark towards an NPOer dismissing his entire long argument on the basis of his AA (surprise).

Well Zog, then to you only thing I have to say is:
"Giving NPO a hard time for this is the cheap and easy thing to do, I suppose."

And interestingly enough, only you and couple of other members of your irrelevant AA are doing it. The rest seem to understand the political, tactical, strategical, economical aspects well. Though, I do like how you are making a parody of yourself.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Branimir

[Antonio Salovega VI]

[quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1282402551' post='2425668']
Sir...please read up on contract law as it does apply in this situation and in ever contract, which is what theses treaties are. It would help give you some more teeth to your argument and still will support the interpretation of contracts as stated by others.

Otherwise we continue to anchor in a single-circle fight with no one gaining an advantage.
[/quote]

Interesting (but giggle-able) argument.

Which alliance's contract law would you have us read? NPO's? NSO's? or shall we go farther afield? GATO's? VE's? Ragnarok's? Perhap's you could quote the applicable passage from said law to really drive your point home? And of course in order to exit your "single-circle fight", said passage should be authored and dated pre-war, should it not? Or perhaps not. Based on the side of the argument which you are taking, you are obviously of the [i]ex post facto[/i] crowd who prefers to apply their "I know what the treaty says but ..." arguments retroactively.

Thank you for your belly-laugh argument. As I said, I found it interesting.

[Letum]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282403093' post='2425679']
I keep seeing this being repeated, and quite often directed at me, so perhaps a history lesson is in order.

If this were merely about declaring war on the NPO, I would have done so during the Karma War, when they attacked a Nordreich nation (formerly in Ragnarok) and said that they were going to continue attacking until said nation surrendered. Eventually they came to their senses and broke off the attack, but had I [u]wanted[/u] to declare war on them that would have been the ideal time to do so. They were vastly outnumbered and being beaten to a pulp. Nordreich could have joined the fray with ease and then taken part in the 'year of oppressive reps' we keep hearing about.

And, before you ask, yes, the decision was mine to make at the time. Mine and mine alone. That's not the case now, although I do enjoy the fact that even though I have retired from government service, some believe I am still in a position of power within Nordreich.

I know this won't stop someone (hi HoT!) from accusing me of wanting war with the NPO for perhaps more than a page or two, but facts are facts.
[/quote]

I think the argument being made is that you would enjoy seeing us curbstomped in general rather than specifically being party to it.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282410316' post='2425770']
Interesting (but giggle-able) argument.

Which alliance's contract law would you have us read? NPO's? NSO's? or shall we go farther afield? GATO's? VE's? Ragnarok's? Perhap's you could quote the applicable passage from said law to really drive your point home? And of course in order to exit your "single-circle fight", said passage should be authored and dated pre-war, should it not? Or perhaps not. Based on the side of the argument which you are taking, you are obviously of the [i]ex post facto[/i] crowd who prefers to apply their "I know what the treaty says but ..." arguments retroactively.

Thank you for your belly-laugh argument. As I said, I found it interesting.
[/quote]


You know what else you may find interesting? The fact that an alliance isn't required to have a treaty at all in order to get involved in a war.

[Letum]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282410316' post='2425770']
Interesting (but giggle-able) argument.

Which alliance's contract law would you have us read? NPO's? NSO's? or shall we go farther afield? GATO's? VE's? Ragnarok's? Perhap's you could quote the applicable passage from said law to really drive your point home? And of course in order to exit your "single-circle fight", said passage should be authored and dated pre-war, should it not? Or perhaps not. Based on the side of the argument which you are taking, you are obviously of the [i]ex post facto[/i] crowd who prefers to apply their "I know what the treaty says but ..." arguments retroactively.

Thank you for your belly-laugh argument. As I said, I found it interesting.
[/quote]

His reference was in conventions that exist in several dimensions governing the relations between parties, with the intent to illustrate how those conventions are all based on the principle of a mutual agreement to bring the (contract/treaty/charter/etc) in effect, and therefore, by logic, the same power can rescind any part of that document.

Your attempt to talk about the lack of legal specifics here is rather meaningless, as the same lack of legal specifics exists in an international scale - which leaves the sovereign alliances that are party to the agreement as the only form of authority that can determine what is adequate to fulfil their obligations.

[Antonio Salovega VI]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1282410717' post='2425778']
You know what else you may find interesting? The fact that an alliance isn't required to have a treaty at all in order to get involved in a war.
[/quote]
And the converse to your statement is:

[list] “[i]The fact is that an alliance isn't required to get involved in a war even though they have a treaty requiring them to do so.[/i]"[/list]
This was ever so eloquently articulated by Letum in the post following yours.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1282335539' post='2424833']
Are you still stuck on calling my allies cowards? Really? You can do better than that. Honoring the spirit of a treaty means respecting the wishes of your treaty partner. Let's face it, if I had allies that did not respect my wishes, they wouldn't be my allies for long. 'nuff said.
[/quote]

Makes you wonder if the tinfoil-hat-wearers early on were right about attacking NSO merely being a prelude to something bigger.

I mean it wouldn't be the first time that members of Karma-aligned alliances bawwed all over the forums and elsewhere, calling other people out as cowards because said individuals thought they were in danger of not getting the really big war they had set up.

FYI: Perhaps no one wants to charge in this time, besides NSO's wishes and past experience, is simply because Rok had a very good CB. The thing [i]clearly[/i] could have been settled diplomatically, and I believe that NSO thought it would be. But NSO's luck ran out.

Now back to your regularly scheduled bomb fest already in progress....

[Sequoia Throne]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1282409525' post='2425758']
Though, interestingly enough, if we search for consistency in this view of Zog, we see that there is none. Recently, Hamlings accord cancellation suffered the same argument. In it Zog didnt posted 30 posts. No, just two.

In one saying how:
"Giving MHA a hard time for this is the cheap and easy thing to do, I suppose."
And in another making a snide remark towards an NPOer dismissing his entire long argument on the basis of his AA (surprise).
[/quote]
Oh that's good. Apparently Zog only thinks treaties should be honored to the letter when it results in Pacifica getting rolled, anytime else is a'OK.

[Hakim]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282410316' post='2425770']
Which alliance's contract law would you have us read? NPO's? NSO's? or shall we go farther afield? GATO's? VE's? Ragnarok's? Perhap's you could quote the applicable passage from said law to really drive your point home? And of course in order to exit your "single-circle fight", said passage should be authored and dated pre-war, should it not? Or perhaps not. Based on the side of the argument which you are taking, you are obviously of the [i]ex post facto[/i] crowd who prefers to apply their "I know what the treaty says but ..." arguments retroactively.

[/quote]

I am not making an argument either way...you do not show a complete understanding of contract law as a binding form of agreement between two or more parties mainly due to your idea that somehow contract law is different for any party.

The norms we have accepted in this world are basically predicated on the norms and rules applied to the other World. That is why we make treaties and contracts between alliances and hold them accountable in BoB by our rules for recompense.

In order for a contract to be valid it has to meet certain arguments and tests. In this case the contract between NSO and NPO have met all of the requirements to be a legal and binding contract:
1. an offer and an acceptance
2. "capacity," or being of legal age and sound competence
3. "mutual assent," or agreement on the terms of a contract
4. "consideration," or compensation for goods or services rendered

Thus this contract and most all contracts signed and posted in this forum meet those tests and are readily recognized as legal and binding. The element that distinguishes a contract from an informal agreements is that it is legally binding:the law provides a remedy in the event that the promise is not fulfilled. Now we do live in an anarchical society and do not have an overriding body that governs disputes and interprets the law or provides a remedy in the event their is a breach of contract. We rely on the court of public opinion and states (actors) or alliances to work alone or to create a hegemony to apply a remedy if there is a breach.

But the main point is this concerning contracts is the mutual assent element. If both parties mutually agree to change the intent of a contract then the contract is considered changed. Contracts are frequently modified to reflect a change in preference by one of the parties or because unforeseen circumstances arise. The contract can only be interpreted by the parties involved unless one party seeks recompense and alleges that the other party is in breach of contract.

So unless NPO and NSO say one or the other party is in default, we have no say in the matter unless we are also parties to the contract.

I will say that precedence has stated that a written contract is more binding than an oral agreement to suspend the elements of a contract and most would consider said contract is the more legally binding, but the contract itself has not been brought up by the parties involved. It would be different if NSO or NPO had challenged the other party as being in default. If that were the case then it would be a valid argument that oen or either party was in default.

[Letum]

This is especially for you Kingzog.

As a prelude, let me briefly list the main line of thought here. A treaty is based on, and created by, mutual agreement between two alliances. The treaty itself is merely the written representation of that agreement, and the mutual consent remains the sole authority over the creation, alteration, cancellation or suspension of the whole or part of it.

But let us do a thought experiment.

Let us pretend that power does not exist. That alliances by mutual agreement are not able to alter what has been established by mutual agreement.

Of course, many would find this illogical, as such a conclusion would, amongst others, mean that a treaty without an upgrade clause cannot be upgraded, or an agreement to merge cannot be later undone by agreement. But that can be ignored for the purposes of the experiment.

Let us then look at the Obligation NPO holds to NSO, which you claim NSO cannot rescind.

NPO would have to defend NSO.

In the absence of defence being explicitly defined within the treaty, what are we to take as the meaning of what is adequate “defence”? Obviously your interpretation is that of military action. But take the theory of “If NPO enters, the escalation of the war will further hurt NSO” - under that theory, both parties might determine that the best way of defending would lie in non-military methods. Now, who has the authority to determine if that is right or wrong? In the absence of any other binding on the two parties, that would be only the parties themselves, jointly.

In fact, this is further driven home by the first point of the treaty, which states that neither party shall harm the other. If one form of defence would lead to harm, then it becomes quite obvious that pursuing it would be in contravention of that point, therefore supporting the choosing of another form of defence.

Of course, this by no means postulates somebody may refuse to provide military aid when a partner asks for it, and still not be in violation of the treaty – if the partner makes that request, then the defence that they need is of a military nature. The very nature of an agreement means it cannot be interpreted unilaterally.

The end result of this thought experiment then is to illustrate that even with the rules that you are artificially constraining your logic to – rules that do not actually exist – your argument is incorrect.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Letum

[Heft]

As the party which NPO holds an obligation towards, we are fully capable of rescinding that obligation at any point in time. This is not NPO (or anyone else) choosing to not fulfill their obligations, this is us saying "hey those obligations are void." Because we are the only party the obligations are towards, we are fully capable of taking that action. Yes, there are a few scatted historical examples of alliances entering a war despite the party holding those obligations waiving them, but they weren't obligated to, and in this case we would actually be rather annoyed (to put it lightly) if NPO, or another ally, jumped into the war to "defend" us.

So we've voided the obligation, as is our right under any sort of general or commonplace understanding of how agreements and obligations work, legal or otherwise, and have made our desires ("we don't want you to enter") very explicitly clear, and our allies are honoring that desire.

I fail to see what the issue is.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Heft

[Tautology]

I don't understand why this has become a pseudo-legal discussion. If NPO wanted to enter this war, they would. They don't want to at the moment, and I don't blame them. The same is true of NSO's other allies.

[Sequoia Throne]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1282415968' post='2425841']
I don't understand why this has become a pseudo-legal discussion. If NPO wanted to enter this war, they would. They don't want to at the moment, and I don't blame them. The same is true of NSO's other allies.
[/quote]
Thank you for not perpetuating the cycle of politically-charged 1upmanship that has plagued this war thus far. It's good to see reasonable thought prevails regardless of the AA. I had thought e-lawyering had died a nasty death long ago, I suppose some people's desire to roll us again outweighs any other considerations these days

[Tautology]

You're welcome. I've always considered NPO a very pragmatic alliance - a non-judgmental observation - so I don't see how it's reasonable to expect a [i]volte face[/i] at this time.

[Corinan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282411859' post='2425790']
Makes you wonder if the tinfoil-hat-wearers early on were right about attacking NSO merely being a prelude to something bigger.
[/quote]

Of course they were.Why else would RoK have gone to war over $6 million in aid with no negotiations whatsoever?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1282422335' post='2425929']
Of course they were.Why else would RoK have gone to war over $6 million in aid with no negotiations whatsoever?
[/quote]
Plus I said it, so it must be so, regardless of anything else.

[Letum]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1282422335' post='2425929']
Of course they were.Why else would RoK have gone to war over $6 million in aid with no negotiations whatsoever?
[/quote]

Negotiations? After an "act of war", the time for negotiations is "over", and prior to it there is nothing to negotiate over.

Negotiations require the very act that renders them impossible in order to be possible. This means that negotiations cannot exist, and since negotiations do in fact exist then that means that there must be negotiations where there are none.

Thus, not negotiating means you are negotiating. It's the same principle behind "Karma" change in fact not being change.

Simple really.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Letum

[Sabertooth]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1282423170' post='2425940']
Negotiations? After an "act of war", the time for negotiations is "over", and prior to it there is nothing to negotiate over.

Negotiations require the very act that renders them impossible in order to be possible. This means that negotiations cannot exist, and since negotiations do in fact exist then that means that there must be negotiations where there are none.

Thus, not negotiating means you are negotiating. It's the same principle behind "Karma" change in fact not being change.

Simple really.
[/quote]

I'm confused.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1282423170' post='2425940']
Negotiations? After an "act of war", the time for negotiations is "over", and prior to it there is nothing to negotiate over.

Negotiations require the very act that renders them impossible in order to be possible. This means that negotiations cannot exist, and since negotiations do in fact exist then that means that there must be negotiations where there are none.

Thus, not negotiating means you are negotiating. It's the same principle behind "Karma" change in fact not being change.

Simple really.
[/quote]

Get out of here Letum.

[Letum]

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1282423297' post='2425941']
I'm confused.
[/quote]

It's okay, after all ignorance is strength.

[Corinan]

My brains hurt.