NATO DoNA

[GulagArchipelago]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1292996921' post='2549414']
There's no need to hammer NATO in this thread everyone, just know that TFD will most certainly be in this conflict and will most certainly be attacked, so one way or another NATO will get dragged in. With that said, I'm outta here.
[/quote]
Yes, and then NATO and TFD can certainly roll AcTi as part of the other war you're gonna start?

Good luck NATO, save your nukes for later.

[abdur]

[quote name='Hogosha' timestamp='1293032189' post='2550028']
So if you have one ally on one side and a bunch of allies on the other you would consider it okay to ignore the concerns of that one ally (who presumably holds an equivalent treaty with you) because it's just one treaty? I smell a self-serving argument somewhere...
[/quote]
What do you think happened to NEW?

[Warden]

NATO did the right thing here

o/ NATO

[Chief Stubbs]

The silly thing about a declaration of non-aggression is that, if that circumstance happens that TFD does get involved in the war, then this all apparently becomes null and void. Thus, wouldn't it just make more sense to not declare anything?

[The Pansy]

[quote name='Chief Stubbs' timestamp='1293034760' post='2550071']
The silly thing about a declaration of non-aggression is that, if that circumstance happens that TFD does get involved in the war, then this all apparently becomes null and void. Thus, wouldn't it just make more sense to not declare anything?
[/quote]
I'm kinda feeling its a public middle finger to those they are allied to.
Or an attempt to make people avoid TFD, though I feel that might have the opposite effect.

[Mick Jones]

Very wise move NATO. Granted, you should have done it earlier, but a wise move nonetheless. I wish my homies at NATO nothing but the best this holiday season.

[mike717]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1293035628' post='2550078']
I'm kinda feeling its a public middle finger to those they are allied to.
Or an attempt to make people avoid TFD, though I feel that might have the opposite effect.
[/quote]

Interesting you would think that, but in reality, no. All this is saying is, "hey, we have non chaining clauses and we don't want to fight for your stupid friends getting in trouble, and also, it wouldn't be cool to jump in on the other side of the war if we are asked to, so we won't be doing that either."

their treaty with us in TFD is the only chaining treaty they have (as well as TFD, for that matter) so they wont be getting involved unless we do. Sometimes an announcement is just an announcement, no hidden agendas at all.

[mike717]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1292996921' post='2549414']
There's no need to hammer NATO in this thread everyone, just know that TFD will most certainly be in this conflict and will most certainly be attacked, so one way or another NATO will get dragged in. With that said, I'm outta here.
[/quote]

Dear batallion, you are an idiot and have once again proven you have no clue what in god's name you are talking about. That said, please, please, please, attack us.

Edited December 22, 2010 by mike717

[zzzptm]

Well done NATO. No need to get involved in the insanity surrounding the current war. A sensible move, but you'll take hell for it from those that Just Don't Get Things.

[lazaraus45]

NATO is claiming non aggression on a lack of moral ground after their involvement in TOP vs CnG?

I am impressed with Tauts FA skills, apparently not only did Ragnarok get half your gov when we took iCF on as a protectorate, we got your balls too

[Lusitan]

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1293047815' post='2550238']
NATO is claiming non aggression on a lack of moral ground after their involvement in TOP vs CnG?

I am impressed with Tauts FA skills, apparently not only did Ragnarok get half your gov when we took iCF on as a protectorate, we got your balls too
[/quote]

Too bad no one took a bit of intelligence for you, you do sound like a desperate case.

I am not sure exactly what is your problem with NATO's attitude towards this war, except maybe to make an ass out of yourself. TOP vs CnG was the exact opposite of this situation: their allies, IRON, got stuck in a tough situation due to Polaris betrayal, and so they moved in to help them even though it was a war they did not like and support. In this case, NEW had ample chance to avoid conflict, FEAR did not need to get involved. Yet, both did.

[The Warrior]

Cheers NATO!

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='dev0win' timestamp='1292996621' post='2549377']
[center]Despite having allies potentially on both sides of the conflict, we, out of respect for all of our allies who are or might be involved, will not join in for either side.

Furthermore, unless TFD is attacked for whatever reason, NATO does not foresee a reason to enter this conflict.
[/center][/quote]

So, you decide to put your tail between your legs and run based on the notion that you have to have respect and all that stuff for all of your allies, then you immediately identify the obvious truth that you do, in fact, prioritize one of those allies far more than you would any of your other ones. This makes this announcement seem more as though it's intent was to be a giant waiving of a particular finger or finger-shaped appendage at some of your allies. On the bright side, still not the worst decision you've ever made, disturbingly enough.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1293052694' post='2550383'] In this case, NEW had ample chance to avoid conflict, FEAR did not need to get involved. Yet, both did.
[/quote]

Nobody has denied that NEW got a bit stubborn, sure. In the case of FEAR, though, while an e-lawyer would try to make the case that they did not need to get involved, FEAR and NEW have a fairly long history, and it's damn refreshing seeing that not everyone on Planet Bob sees the need to try to e-lawyer everything to death. FEAR told NEW that they'd have their backs if needed, and they kept their word.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Lord Boris

[GearHead]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1293294015' post='2553606']
So, you decide to put your tail between your legs and run based on the notion that you have to have respect and all that stuff for all of your allies, then you immediately identify the obvious truth that you do, in fact, prioritize one of those allies far more than you would any of your other ones. This makes this announcement seem more as though it's intent was to be a giant waiving of a particular finger or finger-shaped appendage at some of your allies. On the bright side, still not the worst decision you've ever made, disturbingly enough.



Nobody has denied that NEW got a bit stubborn, sure. In the case of FEAR, though, while an e-lawyer would try to make the case that they did not need to get involved, FEAR and NEW have a fairly long history, and it's damn refreshing seeing that not everyone on Planet Bob sees the need to try to e-lawyer everything to death. FEAR told NEW that they'd have their backs if needed, and they kept their word.
[/quote]

Look, I don't think you really need to over analyze it...it's actually very simple:

NATO's main reason for staying out of the conflict is because their pacts tying them to it have anti-chain clauses. In case you're not familiar, an anti chain clause replaces the mandatory defense with optional defense if the opposite signatory is involved due to their treaty ties. The main point is not potentially conflicting treaties, even if that's icing on the cake.
As such, NATO has declared non-aggression in this conflict and has announced it plans not to enter based on its treaties with anti-chain clauses. As NATO's treaty with TFD is a chaining treaty, they made sure to clear up any misconceptions by stating openly that any involvement regarding TFD they will follow up with, as they are legally obligated to.

If you want to really make it simple, they basically said they aren't activating any optional clauses to get in on this war, but as always, will uphold their mandatory clause.

On a side note, I do agree with you on the note that I admire FEAR for their willingness to defend their ally no matter the circumstances - and I wouldn't have really thought any less of them if they called NEW's attack "aggression" and thus e-lawyered their way out of it. But I'll definitely defend NATO's decision to use the anti chain clauses that were installed for situations such as these. It is their right, as the clause was put there to be used if the need arose.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='mike717' timestamp='1293037051' post='2550100']
Dear batallion, you are an idiot and have once again proven you have no clue what in god's name you are talking about. That said, please, please, please, attack us.
[/quote]

War becomes much more daunting when you aren't blessed with fighting WAPA.

[potato]

I'm torn on that one: on the one hand, I can see why you wouldn't want to jump in a war for something you don't believe in. But, on the other hand, letting your so called friends burn because they did something stupid (which we can all agree on) isn't really impressive. It's very unbecoming of an ally. Especially if you do that before saying you'll only move if someone touches TFD. I'd feel slighted if I were another of your allies.

But, hey, we'll see how that works out for you.

Edited December 25, 2010 by potato

[mike717]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1293294015' post='2553606']
So, you decide to put your tail between your legs and run based on the notion that you have to have respect and all that stuff for all of your allies, then you immediately identify the obvious truth that you do, in fact, prioritize one of those allies far more than you would any of your other ones. This makes this announcement seem more as though it's intent was to be a giant waiving of a particular finger or finger-shaped appendage at some of your allies. On the bright side, still not the worst decision you've ever made, disturbingly enough.



Nobody has denied that NEW got a bit stubborn, sure. In the case of FEAR, though, while an e-lawyer would try to make the case that they did not need to get involved, FEAR and NEW have a fairly long history, and it's damn refreshing seeing that not everyone on Planet Bob sees the need to try to e-lawyer everything to death. FEAR told NEW that they'd have their backs if needed, and they kept their word.
[/quote]

Hi Boris, long time no speak man. TFD applauds FEAR for upholding her treaties, all NATO is doing is activating the non chaining clauses of these treaties for the exact reason they were instituted. NATO does not wish to get dragged into war based on the idiocy of someone they dont hold a treaty with. As for TFD, they don't have a non chaining clause with us, so they're saying they'll get involved if we do. I see nothing wrong with this.


[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1293297638' post='2553632']
War becomes much more daunting when you aren't blessed with fighting WAPA.
[/quote]


Never fought WAPA, i wasn't in TFD at the time, but i've fought in plenty of wars, and not always on the winning side. I'm pretty sure that TFD would fight well, if necessary.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293302959' post='2553677']
I'm torn on that one: on the one hand, I can see why you wouldn't want to jump in a war for something you don't believe in. But, on the other hand, letting your so called friends burn because they did something stupid (which we can all agree on) isn't really impressive. It's very unbecoming of an ally. Especially if you do that before saying you'll only move if someone touches TFD. I'd feel slighted if I were another of your allies.

But, hey, we'll see how that works out for you.
[/quote]

See my post above in response to boris. the wording could have been a lot better, but given that TFD has a dual membership/non chaining treaty relationship with NATO, i think you can infer that yeah, we are a little bit more special to each other than other allies. as far as letting allies burn, i think its really unfortunate, but FEAR had a direct defense obligation to NEW, and good on them for honoring it. if they wanted their treaties to chain all the way through to allies of allies, they would not have specifically written in non chaining clauses. had this been FEAR acting stupid directly, NATO would have been right there with them, and so would TFD, but it wasn't FEAR, it was NEW. If you aren't going to use non chaining clauses for the exact purpose they were included for, what is the point of including them?

[potato]

[quote name='mike717' timestamp='1293306665' post='2553715']
See my post above in response to boris. the wording could have been a lot better, but given that TFD has a dual membership/non chaining treaty relationship with NATO, i think you can infer that yeah, we are a little bit more special to each other than other allies. as far as letting allies burn, i think its really unfortunate, but FEAR had a direct defense obligation to NEW, and good on them for honoring it. if they wanted their treaties to chain all the way through to allies of allies, they would not have specifically written in non chaining clauses. had this been FEAR acting stupid directly, NATO would have been right there with them, and so would TFD, but it wasn't FEAR, it was NEW. If you aren't going to use non chaining clauses for the exact purpose they were included for, what is the point of including them?
[/quote]

I get it. I understand it was a difficult decision for you. But, no matter your reasons, legitimate or not, in the end, you're letting an ally get destroyed. It doesn't really matter if FEAR are right or wrong for defending NEW, they're still getting destroyed and you're not moving a finger.

But I guess this is all commentary and speculations. The only thing that really matter is what FEAR feel about your statement and how they react to it. If I was them, the main part that would offend me is the TFD bit. It does look like a middle finger to the rest of your allies: "if you're not TFD, we'll think about coming to help when you're in trouble." Ah well. I'm not FEAR...

[GearHead]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293309765' post='2553749']
I get it. I understand it was a difficult decision for you. But, no matter your reasons, legitimate or not, in the end, you're letting an ally get destroyed. It doesn't really matter if FEAR are right or wrong for defending NEW, they're still getting destroyed and you're not moving a finger.
[/quote]
That's putting it bluntly. It's a two level treaty: MDP/ODP. In this situation it's effectively an ODP. I've never seen anybody get criticized for not following an ODP.
And it's mutual too: something that was agreed upon and is made aware to both signatories upon signing. Take TFD/NATO for example. Suppose TFD went to war through chaining for NATO. All our other treaties are effectively ODPs in that case, and if none of our allies followed us in, I'd call it fair enough, because it was the agreement we made beforehand.
I suppose I should also state the obvious here: people are becoming less and less attached to each other and making themselves more independent to do their own thing. MDAPs are becoming rarer and rarer and anti chain clauses are becoming more and more popular. People are realizing that signing their sovereignty away is so 2007 and are actually beginning to think for themselves.
And in the case of anti chaining, as I said before, it's really another type of treaty altogether. It's an MDP/ODP dual level treaty, and when you sign one, it's generally because you don't trust your ally's ally. It's just good politicking to be aware of your obligations when you sign a treaty and, for example, insert clauses accordingly to avoid dangerous second degree ties.
[quote]
But I guess this is all commentary and speculations. The only thing that really matter is what FEAR feel about your statement and how they react to it. If I was them, the main part that would offend me is the TFD bit. It does look like a middle finger to the rest of your allies: "if you're not TFD, we'll think about coming to help when you're in trouble." Ah well. I'm not FEAR...
[/quote]
Indeed, you're right, in a sense, albeit again very bluntly. Although, from what I understand, and without trying to speak for anybody else but myself, pretty much all of NATO's allies save for Hydra were cool with the entire thing. Obviously this was discussed in the backchannels in length way before this was published on the OWF.



Edit: With all that in mind, I can fully understand anybody who is against the spirit of anti chain clauses altogether. I remember when they first started being signed, there were many people against the idea simply because it seemed like a negative mutation of the original MDP. I'm aware that there are still those out there today who continue to hold the same view, and I can't fault anybody for that. But I will say that if one is against the idea of it being used (such as in this case), then one must also be against the idea of it being signed (such as in 80% of the treaties announced today), as I don't see why somebody would insert a clause in the treaty if they were against the idea of using it. As such, I can only assume you are not one of the people who are against the idea of anti chain treaties or the use of them, as I can see your signature clearly on this one [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95905]here[/url].

Edit2: Fixed ze stupid link.

Edited December 26, 2010 by GearHead

[potato]

[quote name='GearHead' timestamp='1293356737' post='2554279']
That's putting it bluntly. It's a two level treaty: MDP/ODP. In this situation it's effectively an ODP. I've never seen anybody get criticized for not following an ODP.
And it's mutual too: something that was agreed upon and is made aware to both signatories upon signing. Take TFD/NATO for example. Suppose TFD went to war through chaining for NATO. All our other treaties are effectively ODPs in that case, and if none of our allies followed us in, I'd call it fair enough, because it was the agreement we made beforehand.
I suppose I should also state the obvious here: people are becoming less and less attached to each other and making themselves more independent to do their own thing. MDAPs are becoming rarer and rarer and anti chain clauses are becoming more and more popular. People are realizing that signing their sovereignty away is so 2007 and are actually beginning to think for themselves.
And in the case of anti chaining, as I said before, it's really another type of treaty altogether. It's an MDP/ODP dual level treaty, and when you sign one, it's generally because you don't trust your ally's ally. It's just good politicking to be aware of your obligations when you sign a treaty and, for example, insert clauses accordingly to avoid dangerous second degree ties.

Indeed, you're right, in a sense, albeit again very bluntly. Although, from what I understand, and without trying to speak for anybody else but myself, pretty much all of NATO's allies save for Hydra were cool with the entire thing. Obviously this was discussed in the backchannels in length way before this was published on the OWF.



Edit: With all that in mind, I can fully understand anybody who is against the spirit of anti chain clauses altogether. I remember when they first started being signed, there were many people against the idea simply because it seemed like a negative mutation of the original MDP. I'm aware that there are still those out there today who continue to hold the same view, and I can't fault anybody for that. But I will say that if one is against the idea of it being used (such as in this case), then one must also be against the idea of it being signed (such as in 80% of the treaties announced today), as I don't see why somebody would insert a clause in the treaty if they were against the idea of using it. As such, I can only assume you are not one of the people who are against the idea of anti chain treaties or the use of them, as I can see your signature clearly on this one [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=9590]here[/url].
[/quote]

Oh I've been in this long enough that I know how things work. I was criticizing you or your allies. Just stating the obvious and adding a bit of commentary. I could be off base: even if I understand NATO's thought process, I - personnally - don't agree with it.
But yeah, I do have this habit of saying things bluntly instead of dancing around the issue.

PS: I'm not sure who you're talking to with your edit though. I have never been in LSF or GPA.

[GearHead]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293378929' post='2554387']
Oh I've been in this long enough that I know how things work. I was criticizing you or your allies. Just stating the obvious and adding a bit of commentary. I could be off base: even if I understand NATO's thought process, I - personnally - don't agree with it.
But yeah, I do have this habit of saying things bluntly instead of dancing around the issue.

PS: I'm not sure who you're talking to with your edit though. I have never been in LSF or GPA.
[/quote]


Oh what the heck...when I copied the link to the treaty, I accidentally missed a letter. Here's the link I *meant* to put into the edit: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95905


Perhaps you'll better understand what I'm getting at then.

[potato]

[quote name='GearHead' timestamp='1293382127' post='2554414']
Oh what the heck...when I copied the link to the treaty, I accidentally missed a letter. Here's the link I *meant* to put into the edit: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95905


Perhaps you'll better understand what I'm getting at then.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue then. Yes, I am pro anti-chaining clauses. But if someone hits one of my friends, there's a fat chance I'll be there to make them pay. But that's just me, I guess. I didn't intend to take a shot at NATO: as I said in the beginning, I understand NATO's logic. I just disagree with their decision.

[GearHead]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293386387' post='2554439']
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue then. Yes, I am pro anti-chaining clauses. But if someone hits one of my friends, there's a fat chance I'll be there to make them pay. But that's just me, I guess. I didn't intend to take a shot at NATO: as I said in the beginning, I understand NATO's logic. I just disagree with their decision.
[/quote]


I don't really understand why one would say they are pro-anti-chain clauses, but against the use of them. But maybe I just misinterpreted.

But yes, if you just disagree with their decision not to activate the ODP, then fair enough.

Also, this topic is well past its time, and most of the war is already over - time to go celebrate peace and kick and scream in announcements we don't like.
...until next time... o/