Secret Treaties

[iamwalrus]

[img]http://obeygiant.com/images/2008/09/df19490d0d2c03a5cd2b88d966ef2c9b.jpg[/img]

Greetings All Nations of Digiterra,

I come before all of you today to once again give account of my perceptions of the current state of Digiterra, based on the recent events of SWATland and the alliance of Red Elite Defence (RED). I thank all of you for your time.

In my last written article "The Common Struggle"(http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91379), I stated this:

[quote=The Common Struggle]In Digiterra there is at least one universal truth: every nation seeks survival. Survival is the common goal of every nation in this game. In pursuit of this common goal, it is universally accepted and understood that each nation has a irrevocable right to defend their own nation. Survival in its true form is an inherently good thing. Nations in pursuit of survival will do what is best for their citizens which in turn is best for their nation. In pursuit of survival, nations avoid war because of the unforeseeable consequences which may lead to the destruction of their nation. It is in this pursuit of survival that all nations are One. We all have different governments, religions, currency and resources but we are all equal in the sense that we all are working towards the betterment of the lives of our citizens and the growth of our nations.[/quote]

From this viewpoint and the contents found within, I will give my analysis of this most recent war which I am dubbing: [b]"The War of Rogues"[/b].
[b]
On November 29th 2010[/b] Swatland declared war on the alliance RED with the CB, "The Red Elite Defence is the lucky victim this time". If you notice the word usage you will see the word "Victim". The definition of victim, as taken from Dictionary. com states, "a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency." The nations in RED were cheated of their National Dignity by the sudden and unprovoked attack by Swatland.

The use of the word victim by Swatland leads me to believe that Swatland knew very much that his actions were not considered morally sound. It seems to lead me to believe that Swatland knew that these nations were innocent and did not DESERVE the war which was brought upon them, but rather he was going to take advantage of their ignorance and seemingly weak defenses.

As the war continued on and the nations of RED were being destroyed, I contacted these nations with inquiries about their war. The messages I received were as so:
[quote]To: IAMWalrus From: President Perm Date: 12/5/2010 8:51:47 PM

Subject: RE: War

Message: I am trying my best, as for the alliance there as been no help from them. I am on my own. Once this is over I am finding a new Alliance. We can talk more about this.
thanks again. [/quote]


[quote]To: IAMWalrus From: President Perm Date: 12/6/2010 8:06:55 AM

Subject: RE: War

Message: IAMWalrus: I am not going to give up the battle. He hit with a strong blow. I am down to less then 500 soldiers and under 20 tanks. I am going to try and keep the battle going but, if some form of help doesn't come soon it is all but over. [/quote]


These messages show that his nation was active and doing his best to defend his citizens; however, he was unfortunately caught at a time when his alliance was becoming more inactive. This is the perfect example of a competent national leader doing his best to protect his people, but falling victim to an irrational and dangerous leader.

[b]On December 4th, 2010[/b] Sajasabie declared war on Swatland. This is their CB, " Ladies and Gentlemen of Planet Bob, Sajasabie has always concerned itself with the maltreatment of small nations, most recently we've seen a DoW from the alliance Cat Land on Red Elite Defence. Sure, Sajasabie has nothing to do with these two alliances, however, seeing as RED and any of it's allies(?) have failed to protect RED's attacked members, to the point of letting one nation receive nuclear attacks from SWATLand, we decided we'd do something about it. The unprovoked attacking, both in conventional warfare and nuclear warfare, on nations that don't have nuclear capabilities or sufficient NS to be able to put up a counter-attack is, in our opinion, wrong. Sajasabie hereby declares war on SWATLand for their use of nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear nation."

In this declaration we see that Sajasabie recognizes that they had no previous connection with the nations in RED, but they also recognized the atrocity which was taken place. They heard the cry of the poor nations who were being attacked, and it was not merely the fact that they were being attacked for no reason, but particularly the fact that they were being attacked by nuclear weapons when they were unarmed themselves. The gravity of the violence called to their hearts and their nations prepare for war. This is the kind of act which was outlined in "The Common Struggle" as one of the most honorable and courageous acts a nation can make for another. They risked the security of their nations for the defense of another. They sacrificed the potential of their survival to insure the survival of another. Such acts are rare in Digiterra.

What happens next will mark a dark period in Digiterra.

[b] On December 5th, 2010[/b] the Brotherhood of Steel declared war on Sajasabie with the following CB, "The Brotherhood of Steel hereby declares war on the alliance of Sajasabie for their unjustified attacks upon our allies, Cat Land." Quickly, everyone reading this scurries to find the documents to show this "treaty" between Catland and BoS. Sajasabie and their protector Amazon Nation I can only imagine are wondering curiously as to where BoS even came from. As the situation begins to reveal itself more fully it is found out that there was no written treaty, but rather it was verbal and no made public.

The Order of The Sword (OTS) then quickly stated that they would protect BoS from any attacks in defense of Sajasabie (except Amazon Nation). Thus, they brought in their full support of this defense of the Aggressor, and they brought all of their allies into the this engagement as well. Now, let us pause a moment.

The danger that this brings to the world of Digiterra is great. It shows that there are alliances out there who respect no one in this world, except those in their little corner. What happened was the rape and plunder of innocent nations and the protection of it by a whole treaty web. What we had was a structural act of violence which was endorsed and protected by these alliances: Nordreich, The Sweet Oblivion, The Dark Templar, Nueva Vida, Colossus, Ragnarok, Valhalla, Asgaard, League of Enlisted Gentlemen, Greenland Republic, The Brigade, Symphony, TOP, ViP, VE, NpO....and the list goes on.

If you did not like this situation and found it repulsive, it is time to check your treaties and check your alliances moral standing. Next time, this war won't end so soon.

From this outcome, two nations from RED now reside in Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia, and alliance which is protected by NEAT and is a safe haven for all young nations seeking safety.

Peace to all and have a good day,
IAMWalrus

Edited December 11, 2010 by iamwalrus

[The Pansy]

Is this just a poor attempt at a recruitment post?

[Captain Flinders]

That's right folks, we're first on the list. Clearly that means we are best.

Though I will go on the record as saying that this stupid little war that I care nothing for was not protected nor endorsed by Nordreich.

[iamwalrus]

It is not a poor attempt at a recruitment post. I put that info in there to show that those nations took steps to improve their security. Often times when discussing nations who are attacked for tech, the argument is they are nations who would not be valuable members any way.

I am showing that these nations, if not helped would have left the game, but being helped and nurtured, they are on their way to becoming strong nations.

[The Pansy]

Ahh so you are admitting to recruiting from another AA

Poor show

[Cerridwyn]

I think what he means is through the Digiterran treaty web you were connected to it. I bet some alliance were connected to both sides.

As the leader of a neutral alliance, I could only sit and watch. But one of our core values is honor. Many years ago, I read an interesting definition of honor, I have no clue who to quote but here it is anyway. Honor is giving your last drop of water to a dying enemy . . . or taking the life of a friend.

You decide your own honor. Ernie decided his.

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1292096356' post='2536646']
That's right folks, we're first on the list. Clearly that means we are best.

Though I will go on the record as saying that this stupid little war that I care nothing for was not protected nor endorsed by Nordreich.
[/quote]


Hypothetically, if NEAT would have came to the assistance of Sajasabie by their request and OTS came to assist BoS and needed your help (to fight against our military superiority); you would not have assisted?

*EDIT* My point is that by the acts of BoS and OTS; Swatland, a rogue not recognized by many alliances, was given protection and authority to conduct these violent acts.

Edited December 11, 2010 by iamwalrus

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292096733' post='2536658']
Hypothetically, if NEAT would have came to the assistance of Sajasabie by their request and OTS came to assist BoS and needed your help (to fight against our military superiority); you would not have assisted?
[/quote]
Knowing nothing more than what you posted here (because really, this is less of a deal than you are making it), I'd have to say that yes, if our allies requested our support we would have given it. And if we had, you would have a case for saying that we supported the war. But they didn't, and we didn't, so you can't.

[Mathias]

[font="Georgia"]The fact that RED is getting destroyed by a rogue is not a global concern. In fact, I think it's pretty funny.[/font]

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1292097873' post='2536667']
[font="Georgia"]The fact that RED is getting destroyed by a rogue is not a global concern. In fact, I think it's pretty funny.[/font]
[/quote]

You are right. The fact that RED was getting destroyed by a rogue was NOT a global concern; however, it became a global concern once BoS declared a secret treaty WITH that rogue AND OTS was going to honor and protect BoS and that treaty.

That is the issue.

[The Pansy]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292096457' post='2536652']
It is not a poor attempt at a recruitment post. I put that info in there to show that those nations took steps to improve their security. Often times when discussing nations who are attacked for tech, the argument is they are nations who would not be valuable members any way.

I am showing that these nations, if not helped would have left the game, but being helped and nurtured, they are on their way to becoming strong nations.
[/quote]
1) Tech Raiding isn't done on people who are "less valuable" its done on people who don't fit into your alliances ideals of an alliance
2) No you have not shown they would have left, in fact you have shown that one member came to a realisation that RED was not for him, and he would be finding new alliance
3) Your very own alliance would have been dragged in Via treaties, so are you suggesting your own members leave for a neutral alliance?

[Mathias]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292098029' post='2536668']
You are right. The fact that RED was getting destroyed by a rogue was NOT a global concern; however, it became a global concern once BoS declared a secret treaty WITH that rogue AND OTS was going to honor and protect BoS and that treaty.

That is the issue.
[/quote]

[font="Georgia"]It's still not an issue. An alliance has the right to defend anyone they want. Just because it's inconvenient to you doesn't mean it's a global concern. To be honest, if I was the attention whoring type I probably would have aided/supported SWATland too, since it just warms my heart to see alliances as incompetent and ill-fit for survival as RED suffer. [/font]

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1292098338' post='2536672']
1) Tech Raiding isn't done on people who are "less valuable" its done on people who don't fit into your alliances ideals of an alliance
2) No you have not shown they would have left, in fact you have shown that one member came to a realisation that RED was not for him, and he would be finding new alliance
3) Your very own alliance would have been dragged in Via treaties, so are you suggesting your own members leave for a neutral alliance?
[/quote]


1. Wars for tech are almost always declared on nations who are significantly weaker and "less valuable". It is done on people who don't fit into your ideals so that you can "justify" the action by saying "They aren't an alliance". However, once again this has nothing to do with the main issue of my post.

2. I can tell you that nations who are raided and receive no help or even a hope of help do leave the game. You can see this easily by looking at the war screen. I am glad I showed that this nation was competent because that is what I was trying to show. I think it proves the humanity of this nation regardless of being in what some might not consider an "alliance". I think it shows that he deserves the same respect and national dignity of others.

3. My alliance would not have been dragged into this conflict via treaties, because of the specific agreements we have with our treaty partners. (written in the agreements)

I am not advocating alliances becoming neutral. Once again your reading comprehension in this particular matter is not treating you well. I am advocating for alliances to take a look at their treaty partners and to recognize that this conflict could have easily escalated in a matter of days if peace was not achieved all because of "secret" treaties. I want alliances to realize that they were connected to this small conflict and indirectly were endorsing it. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. We just need to be real about the situation.

[Grendel]

Funny thing is there is no "right" or "wrong" in relationship to what individual nations and/or alliances do [given they work within the rules dictated to game mechanics]. "Right" or "Wrong" is determined by what the individual nation and/or alliance set for themselves by force of resolve, diplomatic maneuverings and military military might. That is it, it really is that simple. If players want to play, then play, and find your niche. IF you want to be the "hero" of the underdog be that hero but don't whine and preach about what is happening.

So ull up your pants and do what you think is right but do not preach to us.


[i]Edited for clarity and typo.[/i]

Edited December 11, 2010 by Grendel

[CEverettKoop]

I read the topic title and came in here expecting talk of a grand, global conspiracy that holds down us all.

This was not worth breaking out my tin-foil hat for.

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1292098399' post='2536673']
[font="Georgia"]It's still not an issue. An alliance has the right to defend anyone they want. Just because it's inconvenient to you doesn't mean it's a global concern. To be honest, if I was the attention whoring type I probably would have aided/supported SWATland too, since it just warms my heart to see alliances as incompetent and ill-fit for survival as RED suffer. [/font]
[/quote]

I never said that alliances don't have the right to defend anyone they want. In fact, in The Common Struggle, I say just the opposite. It is the inherent right of all nations and alliances to defend whoever they want, that is what unifies us.

I do not know what you are saying was "inconvenient for me"? Nothing was inconvenient for me. I also fail to see how a potential global conflict is not a global issue?

While BoS and OTS had every right to throw their weight around (and that of their allies) it says a lot about the stewardship of those alliance's allies.. It also points out the fact that the next global conflict could be as simple as Swatland raiding the wrong Alliance.

[Mathias]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292099519' post='2536695']
I never said that alliances don't have the right to defend anyone they want. In fact, in The Common Struggle, I say just the opposite. It is the inherent right of all nations and alliances to defend whoever they want, that is what unifies us.

I do not know what you are saying was "inconvenient for me"? Nothing was inconvenient for me. I also fail to see how a potential global conflict is not a global issue?

While BoS and OTS had every right to throw their weight around (and that of their allies) it says a lot about the stewardship of those alliance's allies.. It also points out the fact that the next global conflict could be as simple as Swatland raiding the wrong Alliance.
[/quote]

[font="Georgia"]You're not pointing out anything that isn't common knowledge. Secret treaty or no secret treaty, the next global war is always just one tiny mistake away. Everyone is allied to everyone else, so anything can expand into a massive conflict. Welcome to Planet Bob 101.[/font]

[The Pansy]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292099127' post='2536685']
1. Wars for tech are almost always declared on nations who are significantly weaker and "less valuable". It is done on people who don't fit into your ideals so that you can "justify" the action by saying "They aren't an alliance". However, once again this has nothing to do with the main issue of my post. [/quote]
I casualty raid, I casualty raid anything in my range that is available, that is Plus or Minus my NS

[quote]2. I can tell you that nations who are raided and receive no help or even a hope of help do leave the game. You can see this easily by looking at the war screen. I am glad I showed that this nation was competent because that is what I was trying to show. I think it proves the humanity of this nation regardless of being in what some might not consider an "alliance". I think it shows that he deserves the same respect and national dignity of others.[/quote]
He wasn't getting any less respect as you put it, he made a bad choice in original alliance, he himself did something to change that, you helped facilitate that, so congratulations, again, it doesn't prove you saved him from leaving planet Bob

[quote]3. My alliance would not have been dragged into this conflict via treaties, because of the specific agreements we have with our treaty partners. (written in the agreements)
[/quote]
So if The International were drawn into conflict to defend an ally, and then counter declared, you would not have helped them?

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1292099368' post='2536690']
Funny thing is there is no "right" or "wrong" in relationship to what individual nations and/or alliances do [given they work within the rules dictated to game mechanics]. "Right" or "Wrong" is determined by the individual nation and/or alliance set for themselves by force of resolve, diplomatic maneuverings and military military might. That is it, it really is that simple. If players want to play then play find your niche. IF you want to be the "hero" of the underdog be that hero but don't whine about what is happening.

Pull up your pants and do what you think is right but do not preach to us.
[/quote]


It is easy to prove there is no morality in this world when you take your comments OOC. This is an analysis of this conflict IC. Therefore, I do not know what you mean by "Game Mechanics", "Players" finding a "niche". I do know that just because you say there is no "right or wrong" doesn't mean that is true. Just like me saying there is, doesn't make me any more true.

[Grendel]

Okay I'll make it simple for you, your in game reality of what is right or wrong means nothing to anyone else in game unless you have the ability to sway or force someone in game to agree with you. So far you are failing in that effort.

[ooc]I play the game for the sake of the game there is no right or wrong there is the game and how I play it.[/ooc]

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1292100011' post='2536704']
He wasn't getting any less respect as you put it, he made a bad choice in original alliance, he himself did something to change that, you helped facilitate that, so congratulations, again, it doesn't prove you saved him from leaving planet Bob


So if The International were drawn into conflict to defend an ally, and then counter declared, you would not have helped them?
[/quote]


He was getting less respect based on the fact that SWATLand knew that there would be no severe consequences. Why didn't SWAT attack someone from a larger more capable alliance? Its because he at least respects their military power. In which case he just proves he is a bully and a coward.

Also, if The International were attacked unprovoked then we would come to their defense, if they were attacked because they were making offensive actions, then we would assist according to our treaty which states, "NEAT and The International recognize that at times wars can be justified and are sometimes necessary when fought for the common good and protection of the innocent. In these circumstances both alliances are to be in communication with one another about their potential military conflicts and if determined appropriate a joint aggressive military operation may be conducted."

However, I can say for a fact that in this particular war which I have brought up, NEAT would have not been fighting on the side of Swatland.

Edited December 11, 2010 by iamwalrus

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1292100523' post='2536710']
Okay I'll make it simple for you, your in game reality of what is right or wrong means nothing to anyone else in game unless you have the ability to sway or force someone in game to agree with you. So far you are failing in that effort.

[ooc]I play the game for the sake of the game there is no right or wrong there is the game and how I play it.[/ooc]
[/quote]

Well then please stay out of this forum and discussion as it is for IC commentary. I don't care if you play OOC only, but this is not the place.

[Grendel]

My statement above my [ooc]....[/ooc] was IC commentary

There is no right or wrong there is only living with the consequences of your choices.

By the way much of what you stated in your first post could be considered OOC just as easily as most of what I said.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Grendel

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1292100745' post='2536718']
My statement above my [ooc]....[/ooc] was IC commentary

There is no right or wrong there is only living with the consequences of your choices.

By the way much of what you stated in your first post could be considered OOC just as easily as most of what I said.
[/quote]


If this is true then why do alliances try and give a CB and why are CB's critiqued?

[The Pansy]

[quote name='iamwalrus' timestamp='1292100526' post='2536711']
He was getting less respect based on the fact that SWATLand knew that there would be no severe consequences. Why didn't SWAT attack someone from a larger more capable alliance? Its because he at least respects their military power. In which case he just proves he is a bully and a coward.

Also, if The International were attacked unprovoked then we would come to their defense, if they were attacked because they were making offensive actions, then we would assist according to our treaty which states, "NEAT and The International recognize that at times wars can be justified and are sometimes necessary when fought for the common good and protection of the innocent. In these circumstances both alliances are to be in communication with one another about their potential military conflicts and if determined appropriate a joint aggressive military operation may be conducted."

However, I can say for a fact that in this particular war which I have brought up, NEAT would have not been fighting on the side of Swatland.
[/quote]
I am first pleased you recognise you full well could have been embroiled in this conflict, just like most of us could have been, with the treaty web the way it is, anyone can start the next global war, even NEAT.

As for your friend, he joined RED for mutual protection, the nations in RED should have come to his aid, like 99.9999999999% of alliances would have, the only people not to respect your little friend was his own alliance.
SWATLand declared war on an alliance, yes the reason was utter turd, but sadly, we have no influences on his policy, then again, most of the Wars that have ravaged planet Bob are dubious at best