Nordreich Kaiserlich Decree

[MaGneT]

[quote name='General Ozujsko' timestamp='1299346736' post='2653589']
Our friendship cannot be unbroken.
[/quote]
This does not inspire confidence.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Comrade Mao' timestamp='1299217410' post='2652085']
Whatever works for you, I guess. I happen to think [url="http://www.boost.com/"]that stuff[/url] is disgusting.
[/quote]

For a second there I thought I was going to have to scold you Ashoka, I thought you were referring to this:

http://www.takaboost.com/

^That stuff's great!

As far as your DOW though...I guess it is easier to follow the well worn path then try something new? If you want that pound of flesh that badly though, this makes perfect sense. My condolences for Mr. Thor von Mayhem, he was quite opinionated and that avatar was very striking, I'm sure he will be missed.

[Nemhauser]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1299356536' post='2653688']
You fail all that the Reich represents.
[/quote]
And you're the one to tell, eh?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1299359461' post='2653733']
My condolences for Mr. Thor von Mayhem, he was quite opinionated and that avatar was very striking, I'm sure he will be missed.
[/quote]

That he was, that he was. Subtle like a train-wreck, as I like to say.

The personal interactions he had with alliance-mates over the years are, of course, more important than anything else that took place between us. More germane to this world, perhaps, is that during the more than four years I knew him, his "My Nordland, right or wrong" attitude inspired many along the way.

He will be sorely missed.

Thank you for the kind thoughts.

[crazymatty]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1299343991' post='2653555']
Cheers bro. But yeah, totally, I brought it up just to nitpick. Or maybe because I think bringing anything OOC, but especially something of that magnitude, into a declaration of war is silly. Even more so when it is mentioned in the sentence which says who they are declaring on and why. I said I was sorry for their loss, that I'd obviously read it differently than intended, and explained why. So get off your high horse.
[/quote]

So yet again...you pick on someone who has passed away to step on your soap box. You stay classy bag o' !@#$%!!

Let me guess you will respond...yet again...saying why they were wrong. But you will say..."sorry for your loss...BUT...blah blah blah".

It continues to amaze me how classless people will be just to make their point. OCC or not.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='crazymatty' timestamp='1299363418' post='2653783']
So yet again...you pick on someone who has passed away to step on your soap box. You stay classy bag o' !@#$%!!

Let me guess you will respond...yet again...saying why they were wrong. But you will say..."sorry for your loss...BUT...blah blah blah".

It continues to amaze me how classless people will be just to make their point. OCC or not.
[/quote]

OOC: Separate the OOC and IC already. I read the statement the same way, assuming it was a nation thing and did until Zog clarified it in an earlier post. To NoR it didn't, which is understandable and I don't hold that against them. Get off your high horse and get off WC.

IC:

All I can say is godspeed.

[Roadie]

NoR was put in a bad spot when the DT war got crossways when it came time for peace. At that point they had a choice between going back on their word to an ally that continued to request the support NoR had promised and taking some flak from people they don't hold treaties with over supposed bandwagoning. The choice between going back on your word to an ally or taking some heat from the opposition on the OWF is an easy one to make.

The part I like most is that NoR don't won't bother correcting someone if they get 'crafty' and write it Nor, instead of NoR. Any thread that doesn't require me to see "Nor" "It's NoR!" "Nor" "It's NoR!" "Nor" "It's NoR!" is a blessing lately.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Roadie

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1299346449' post='2653583']
Wow...a great reply indeed to these dastardly actions.
[/quote]

Uhhh...you're kidding right?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1299369278' post='2653870']
NoR was put in a bad spot when the DT war got crossways when it came time for peace. At that point they had a choice between going back on their word to an ally that continued to request the support NoR had promised and taking some flak from people they don't hold treaties with over supposed bandwagoning. The choice between going back on your word to an ally or taking some heat from the opposition on the OWF is an easy one to make.

The part I like most is that NoR don't won't bother correcting someone if they get 'crafty' and write it Nor, instead of NoR. Any thread that doesn't require me to see "Nor" "It's NoR!" "Nor" "It's NoR!" "Nor" "It's NoR!" is a blessing lately.
[/quote]

Thank you for 'getting it' in a way that many others simply have not.

And yeah....nor noR nOr Nor NoR NOR NOr....whatever. Just don't call us late for dinner.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1299275843' post='2652732']
I think that's because, while some folks have a really hard time justifying an outright aggressive attack on someone for no reason, FAN has a pretty good reason, and even if you decry the method, you have to admit that they, of all alliance, have a pretty airtight CB.
[/quote]
If it's okay for FAN and/or NoR to DoW the NPO, one must also say that Doomhouse's DoW on NPO has some validity, since some of their members were wronged as well by the NPO at some point or another in the history of Planet Bob. No one sets a statue of limitations on past dealings and why should they? Unless a person has a very black and white view of things, which would be quite stupid in my opinion, we must all see that the similarity of FAN/NoR's DoW to Doomhouses. You could argue that DH was wronged less, but you can't really argue that DH's DoW was the result of aggression for no reason. And one could make the case that MK has just as much reason to war NPO as FAN, but that's for another topic.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1299373083' post='2653913']
If it's okay for FAN and/or NoR to DoW the NPO, one must also say that Doomhouse's DoW on NPO has some validity, since some of their members were wronged as well by the NPO at some point or another in the history of Planet Bob. No one sets a statue of limitations on past dealings and why should they? Unless a person has a very black and white view of things, which would be quite stupid in my opinion, we must all see that the similarity of FAN/NoR's DoW to Doomhouses. You could argue that DH was wronged less, but you can't really argue that DH's DoW was the result of aggression for no reason. And one could make the case that MK has just as much reason to war NPO as FAN, but that's for another topic.
[/quote]
So in your opinion, if your wronged by any alliance or bloc, you have the right to attack them in the future?

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1299375555' post='2653962']
So in your opinion, if your wronged by any alliance or bloc, you have the right to attack them in the future?
[/quote]

This has generally been common CN thinking whether in private or public for as long as I can remember. Anyways, I doubt NoR entered this for that particular reason.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1299375555' post='2653962']
So in your opinion, if your wronged by any alliance or bloc, you have the right to attack them in the future?
[/quote]
If my alliance was attacked for something we did (or claimed to have done) to another I wouldn't try to tell them how stupid their CB was or how it was unwarranted aggression with no reason. I'd say it was an effect of my alliance's behavior or an untruth told about it...and I'd have fun. You need to stop thinking right or wrong, but cause and effect. Our planet is amoral. I think people call right or wrong has been blurred by NoR and FAN and I'm thankful for that.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Steve Buscemi

[NoFish]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1299375555' post='2653962']
So in your opinion, if your wronged by any alliance or bloc, you have the right to attack them in the future?
[/quote]
Isn't this the entire fundamental principle of politics on Planet Bob?

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1299377345' post='2653983']
If my alliance was attacked for something we did (or claimed to have done) to another I wouldn't try to tell them how stupid their CB was or how it was unwarranted aggression with no reason. I'd say it was an effect of my alliance's behavior or an untruth told about it...and I'd have fun. You need to stop thinking right or wrong, but cause and effect. Our planet is amoral. I think people call right or wrong has been blurred by NoR and FAN and I'm thankful for that.
[/quote]
I wasn't saying if it was right or wrong. I was just asking to see if that's what you implied.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1299376607' post='2653972']
This has generally been common CN thinking whether in private or public for as long as I can remember. Anyways, I doubt NoR entered this for that particular reason.
[/quote]
You are correct.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1299371331' post='2653891']
Thank you for 'getting it' in a way that many others simply have not.
[/quote]
I too 'get it', but I don't see how it changes the justification of the original agreement to attack another alliance. NoR was under no obligation to make such an agreement, and thus its decision to do so means that it supports FAN's reasons for attacking NPO (whether implicitly or explicitly). In doing so, NoR's informal "gentlemen's agreement" also has implications for the defence obligations of its formal treaty partners, particularly if this had been activated prior to the engagement of NPO's other formal treaty partners.

I'm not passing judgment on NoR's actions in this post. I'm simply defining the basis on which those actions should be judged (i.e. positive, rather than normative). Simply honouring an agreement is not enough. NoR should take responsibility for its decision to enter that agreement in the first place.

[Ashoka the Great]

Pputting up this statement represents a rather signicant effort in terms of "taking responsibility" for our actions. If you can point out an example of someone in Nordreich (preferably a member of the alliance's government) saying that "we had no choice in the matter," please do so.

All of this has been covered quite thoroughly at various points in the last few pages. I see no reason to address it further.

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299384182' post='2654061']
NoR's informal "gentlemen's agreement" also has implications for the defence obligations of its formal treaty partners, particularly if this had been activated prior to the engagement of NPO's other formal treaty partners.[/quote]

What are you trying to say here? All of our treaty partners were informed in advance and, to the very best of my knowledge, none of them said anything that would indicate that we were putting undue strain on our written agreements.

With respect to the second half of the above sentence, I see no reason to speak of hypotheticals when there's a perfectly good reality to talk about.

We had an agreement. Our allies knew of this agreement some time ago. We were asked to activate this agreement. We did so, while informing other treaty partners of our intentions. Nobody complained to us.

Twenty-three pages later, why is this so difficult to understand?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299378667' post='2653998']
Isn't this the entire fundamental principle of politics on Planet Bob?
[/quote]
Only on your side of the treatyweb.

Over here, we actually try to think forward instead of living in the past.

[mmansfield68]

Treaty web - lol. This is Cybernations cleansing itself once and for all.

Treaty webs need to be dusted off, or lit on fire.

[i]"The flame thrower is proof that at some time, somewhere, somebody thought: "You know, I'd really like to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."[/i]

-- George Carlin

[Beefspari]

I heard in another thread that the other side is using coalition warfare and doesn't need treaties or CBs to declare war, so can't we just apply that here and stop asking NoR what their reasons were?

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1299385490' post='2654092']
Pputting up this statement represents a rather signicant effort in terms of "taking responsibility" for our actions. If you can point out an example of someone in Nordreich (preferably a member of the alliance's government) saying that "we had no choice in the matter," please do so.

All of this has been covered quite thoroughly at various points in the last few pages. I see no reason to address it further.[/quote]
The comment was prompted by Emperor Mudd's [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99406&view=findpost&p=2653392"]assertion[/url] that this war is "not about NPO", while the posts over the last few pages appeared simply to reiterate that NoR entered due to its agreement. It's also not clear whether NoR considers itself to be in coalition with Doom House. Nonetheless, given you accept the point about taking responsibility, there's no point me contesting it

[quote]What are you trying to say here? All of our treaty partners were informed in advance and, to the very best of my knowledge, none of them said anything that would indicate that we were putting undue strain on our written agreements.

With respect to the second half of the above sentence, I see no reason to speak of hypotheticals when there's a perfectly good reality to talk about.

We had an agreement. Our allies knew of this agreement some time ago. We were asked to activate this agreement. We did so, while informing other treaty partners of our intentions. Nobody complained to us.

Twenty-three pages later, why is this so difficult to understand?
[/quote]
It was intended simply to point out the obvious: that the decision by one alliance to effectively activate an optional aggression clause of an informal treaty "co-opts" (for want of a better word) the defence obligations of its formal treaty partners in that decision. If NoR's formal treaty partners are happy with that, then it is obviously none of my business (except to the extent that I respect a number of NoR's MDP partners). However, I do find it ironic that my alliance came to the defence of NoR's formal treaty partner in NV following the non-treatied engagement by Sparta, which was apparently designed to prevent NoR from entering (through NOIR) by other alliances alongside which NoR is now fighting.

Edit: link fixed.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[NoFish]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299387733' post='2654132']
Only on your side of the treatyweb.

Over here, we actually try to think forward instead of living in the past.
[/quote]
How's that working out for you?

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1299383861' post='2654058']
You are correct.
[/quote]
[img]http://store.perspicuity.com/sections/Products/Lemming.jpg[/img]

[quote]Treaty web - lol. This is Cybernations cleansing itself once and for all.

Treaty webs need to be dusted off, or lit on fire.

"The flame thrower is proof that at some time, somewhere, somebody thought: "You know, I'd really like to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."

-- George Carlin [/quote]

I think its more of a 'if we can't have it no one can' methodology, that stems from a group of five year olds that had too much candy. Still makes for some fun and great casualties though

[Monster]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299391853' post='2654177']


It was intended simply to point out the obvious: that the decision by one alliance to effectively activate an optional aggression clause of an informal treaty "co-opts" (for want of a better word) the defence obligations of its formal treaty partners in that decision. If NoR's formal treaty partners are happy with that, then it is obviously none of my business (except to the extent that I respect a number of NoR's MDP partners). However, I do find it ironic that my alliance came to the defence of NoR's formal treaty partner in NV following the non-treatied engagement by Sparta, which was apparently designed to prevent NoR from entering (through NOIR) by other alliances alongside which NoR is now fighting.

Edit: link fixed.
[/quote]

As far as I know, NoR's partners are fine with it. As for the non-treatied engagement, that wasn't really the intent. I thought it was explained exhaustively how that came about. If anyone's curious, they're free to ask me.