Anti-Communism Alliance - [MEMENTO MORI]

[Vlack Sturm]

I think we should consider to helping out this guy... he may be a valuable asset later on.

viewtopic.php?p=11826071#p11826071

[Dakini Femina]

This is potentially a threat to the ACA

Members of the International Coalition for Expansion are doing "intel checks" on us. Well, I made their hit list! Makes me feel special...

I doubt it. Most of the stuff is fairly petty or OOC. Hardly much of an "intel check" anyway.

EDIT: Besides, they'll either be too busy occupying Ralkovia or getting snuffed out by him in the immediate future to bother us.

How is that conflict going, anyway? I understand the implications of trying to bother the handiwork of billions of angry imperialist Jews with guns.

I think we should consider to helping out this guy... he may be a valuable asset later on.

viewtopic.php?p=11826071#p11826071

By Odin's teeth it's Vlack! So we meet again!

I second this. I've gone through the posted link, and it looks like competent writing to me. If anyone has any apprehensions about this though, may I be granted the liberty to volunteer? Oh Vlack, you should come too since you brought it up here!

[The Black Plains]

Why?

I believe he was being sarcastic.

More or less. My nation, Castille, is basically just a military. Just millions of mercenaries.

[Vlack Sturm]

-snip-

Aye, we do meet again. And I'll shall post in it as soon as others (you) help root out the communists of Tecky's colony..

[Transnapastain]

I am completely and utterly terrified.

This, +1

I think we should consider to helping out this guy... he may be a valuable asset later on.

viewtopic.php?p=11826071#p11826071

I see no reason not to see what assistance we can lend, though it would be good to keep in mind that, as I read it, were being asked to act as peacekeepers, and deploy accordingly. Peace keeping calls for a softer touch than a standard military action.

With 85,000 ground forces committed to Anglynova to help support the legitimate government, Transnapastain, however, will be unable to deploy forces at this time.

[Elcric Kcalb]

So far it looks like a Ralkovian fleet is going to be engaged after their fleet leadership was tricked into coming aboard a New Edomite ship (probably seemed like a good idea at the time), and various elements of the ICE are currently bumbling the boarding and liberation of a Ralkovian slave transport. Both of these are taking place in Tyrrhenia and those are the only "hot" situations I know about.

In regards to Tecknoko: as much as I'd like to simply roll over a Communist nation and get on the good side of what essentially looks like a slightly larger version of me... Well, it might look bad on our part if we toppled a government purely for dispersing a protest. We may want to wait for it to escalate a little bit.

[The Black Plains]

-snip-

Aye, we do meet again. And I'll shall post in it as soon as others (you) help root out the communists of Tecky's colony..

It's not an alliance-wide war, so I can't get involved ICly under the alliance contract. If some nation agreed to throw me some pretend-o-bucks of an unspecified amount, I could do it. I would just mention in my post how nation X hired the Syndicate for the job. And of course, ICly, it's impossible for a nation to run out of money so... like... who cares?

[The Black Plains]

So far it looks like a Ralkovian fleet is going to be engaged after their fleet leadership was tricked into coming aboard a New Edomite ship (probably seemed like a good idea at the time), and various elements of the ICE are currently bumbling the boarding and liberation of a Ralkovian slave transport. Both of these are taking place in Tyrrhenia and those are the only "hot" situations I know about.

In regards to Tecknoko: as much as I'd like to simply roll over a Communist nation and get on the good side of what essentially looks like a slightly larger version of me... Well, it might look bad on our part if we toppled a government purely for dispersing a protest. We may want to wait for it to escalate a little bit.

That's the beauty of playing a mercenary company. It is so much easier for me to have an excuse to get involved.

[Vlack Sturm]

So far it looks like a Ralkovian fleet is going to be engaged after their fleet leadership was tricked into coming aboard a New Edomite ship (probably seemed like a good idea at the time), and various elements of the ICE are currently bumbling the boarding and liberation of a Ralkovian slave transport. Both of these are taking place in Tyrrhenia and those are the only "hot" situations I know about.

In regards to Tecknoko: as much as I'd like to simply roll over a Communist nation and get on the good side of what essentially looks like a slightly larger version of me... Well, it might look bad on our part if we toppled a government purely for dispersing a protest. We may want to wait for it to escalate a little bit.

Tecknoko's an imperialist nation i believe... just his colony has fallen to communists, but eh.

[Dakini Femina]

I was just thinking if I'd need some sort of clearance from the ACA before I go goose stepping into the place? And throw in any taboos before I get to work. I don't go so far as to enslave entire populations or fractions thereof, but the GAF does utilize VX.

I am completely and utterly terrified.

This, +1

I think we should consider to helping out this guy... he may be a valuable asset later on.

viewtopic.php?p=11826071#p11826071

I see no reason not to see what assistance we can lend, though it would be good to keep in mind that, as I read it, were being asked to act as peacekeepers, and deploy accordingly. Peace keeping calls for a softer touch than a standard military action.

With 85,000 ground forces committed to Anglynova to help support the legitimate government, Transnapastain, however, will be unable to deploy forces at this time.

Boo.

Aye, we do meet again. And I'll shall post in it as soon as others (you) help root out the communists of Tecky's colony..

It's not an alliance-wide war, so I can't get involved ICly under the alliance contract. If some nation agreed to throw me some pretend-o-bucks of an unspecified amount, I could do it. I would just mention in my post how nation X hired the Syndicate for the job. And of course, ICly, it's impossible for a nation to run out of money so... like... who cares?

If we're really going to get involved, I could RP someone from High Command procuring your services.

-snip-

Aye, we do meet again. And I'll shall post in it as soon as others (you) help root out the communists of Tecky's colony..

No problem whatsoever. I'm just running this through management before anything else.

[The Black Plains]

Sorry, Dakini, I'm not going to do quotesnipping work. But okay, that works. Just send me a TG or something when you think you're getting involved. The option is open to anyone else as well, of course.

EDIT: For an anarchist, I'm a grammar nazi.

[Dakini Femina]

Will do. I suppose I'll just wait for some sort of consensus of approval or license from authority to interfere in the now-Communist colony's affairs.

[Transnapastain]

I was just thinking if I'd need some sort of clearance from the ACA before I go goose stepping into the place? And throw in any taboos before I get to work. I don't go so far as to enslave entire populations or fractions thereof, but the GAF does utilize VX.

This, +1



I see no reason not to see what assistance we can lend, though it would be good to keep in mind that, as I read it, were being asked to act as peacekeepers, and deploy accordingly. Peace keeping calls for a softer touch than a standard military action.

With 85,000 ground forces committed to Anglynova to help support the legitimate government, Transnapastain, however, will be unable to deploy forces at this time.

Boo.

As ever, I'm sorry to disappoint

Trans doctrine calls for the use of chemical agents (namely cyclosarin) in certain situations. I refrain from placing myself in/allowing those situations to occur, since I dislike the use of chemical weapons in RP. Further, I will warn a player that their actions will invoke this response. If they choose to renege, fine, if they choose to proceed, fine, they suffer the consequences, as I then have to suffer their retaliation.

However, the wording of your statement got me thinking.

It is my opinion that when involved in a large alliance, such as this one, member nations would do well to respect the wishes of the other members, and the nations appointed to any sort of leadership position, be them democratically elected by the members, or in place due to right of accent. We are all united, committed, to goals and in order to preserve unity we should be of one accord on all things relating to the alliance, and should not undertake actions that the majority of the alliance would disapprove of. Its simply bad for everyone.

This (and were remaining in opinion land here) does not mean you need approval from anyone, unless operating in the name of the alliance. There is no real alliance existent in the world today to draw parallels to. Ironically, the Warsaw Pact comes closest, but that was less of an alliance, and more of the USSR telling the client states what to do.

I don't believe Prussia wants to be the USSR to our nations, to have us be little more than clients to his empire; nor would you let that happen, if you were sane. So, we'll use NATO. There have been times a member nation has gone against the wishes of the "rulers" of NATO. The US, England, and other member nations have deployed forces without NATO's sanction or blessing. The alliance endures. Even as members of an alliance, nations retain the right to act independently, to move independently, to deploy independently.

If...lets say England...landed troops in....I don't know...Columbia and started exterminating the local Indian population in a brutal manor, gassing the civilians and basically trying to win the "War Crimes of the Year" award. I'm sure it would be expelled form NATO. It may find itself facing its one-time allies in battle.

The consequences of your actions can have ramifications on your participation in an alliance, it could lead to bad things, but you need no ones permission to act in your own interests, ever.

This is me moving into factland. Transnapastain, as an example, is my nation. In an OOC sense and an IC sense. ICly, it does what I want it to do, when I want it to do it, how I want to do it. Period. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, if I go against the wishes of the alliance and find myself expelled, it is the leaderships right to expel me. If I go against the wishes of the alliance so blatantly that, in their opinion, they need to take actions against me, that is their right under their perspective.

We all joined this alliance voluntarily, we're all here because we want to be. That does not mean we have relinquished control of how we operate our nations in the slightest. Only when we agree to operate under the authority of the ACA, in matters pertaining to the ACA, do we lose any of that control. As an example

I previously stated Transnapastaini doctrine has provisions for the use of nerve gas. I'm going to assume (for the sake of argument if I'm not right) that New Belhavia, whose authority, granted to him by the ACA, we've agreed to operate under, has provisions against the deployment of nerve agents for an reason. If I were to do so, I would be in violation, and those troops guilty of war crimes; even though its not a crime in Transnapastain.

If I, and I alone, invade Whothehellistan, and gas them. I have breached no laws (as the WA laws on conventional warfare, chemical weapons and such do not apply to me). The alliance may not like it one bit, they may expel me, exact sanctions, or even threaten me with military force but it has no right to tell me you can not do that

tl;dr: Your nation is yours, do as you do. Remember that actions contrary to the wishes of the alliance may have severe ramifications.

[Adwest]

I was just thinking if I'd need some sort of clearance from the ACA before I go goose stepping into the place? And throw in any taboos before I get to work. I don't go so far as to enslave entire populations or fractions thereof, but the GAF does utilize VX.



Boo.

--Snip--

Very, very well said. I agree with it a lot. I hope it doesn't offend Pruss or the others though, but eh, I'am sure they'll understand.

Gonna intervene later in the day, have something to deal with.

[New Nassrau]

Interesting Trans.... I can understand what you're saying

[Prussia-Steinbach]

This is potentially a threat to the ACA

Members of the International Coalition for Expansion are doing "intel checks" on us. Well, I made their hit list! Makes me feel special...

I like how they say something good about me and then basically say "but it wasn't for the right reason."

Also, any information they can gather we have willingly made publicly available. I don't see this as any sort of major or minor concern for us.

[Dakini Femina]

Well said, Trans!

Actually I was just implying that I take the ACA's stance into account when it comes to this particular case, mainly due to the fact that the request for assistance was made through the ACA, and not directly to me. If that was the case, I would have jumped the gun immediately and I'd be utilizing the nerve gas in Federation Death Camps for unclaimed POW's, or when they begin to become a major liability or expense for the GAF-AF.

I do retain my right to conduct my affairs, domestic or international, military or civil when it comes to my nation (as you've said and as I agree with the points made as well), but as I've said it was processed through an ACA channel, so I feel obliged to secure the Alliance's approval on this first, since the complaint was filed to it directly.

I think I will be interfering whether or not the ACA chooses to pay attention to this particular case. It's just a matter of whether I will be carrying the Alliance's banner or not, because I'll have to restrain myself to certain codes of conduct if I will.

But very good points made there. Salutations and a fruit basket are in order.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Trans, Dakini:

As you have said, you may unilaterally join in the conflict if you so wish. I believe it is obvious I wish to strengthen the Alliance, the ties between us, the laws, et cetera. However, I never intend to make you all puppet states [in the foreseeable future ].

However, if you wish to do this as an ACA joint action, I'd like for you to get a Councilman involved, since they are able to represent the Alliance as a whole. If no one is forthcoming, talk to me again.

Trans, the USSR is most definitely not a valid comparison, as you have said. However, NATO is not what I would choose either.
I cannot think of a modern, RL alliance to compare us to. I want to be stronger than NATO. NATO is almost a "casual" alliance, a loose coalition of nations occasionally "teaming up" to get something done.
The EU might be close. A tightly-knit group of nations with the same goals and, to a certain extent, ideas, and in our case, going to war to accomplish these goals.

As to the conduct of the operation: Don't do bad things. That is the simplest way to put it.
If you are doing something on your own, feel free to commit war crimes to your heart's content, but also recognise if significant and valid objections are raised, you risk chance of disciplinary action and/or ejection from the Alliance.
In this case, here are a few specifics:

No nukes. In my opinion, that is simply bad RPing.
Minimal, minimal collateral damage.
Don't touch civilians, unless to give them aid.
Don't even fire a gun at a town, unless it is an enemy stronghold.
No chemical or biological weapons - the populace is not our enemy. We fight nations, not people groups.

I think you get the idea. Is there anything else I could address?

[Transnapastain]

Well said, Trans!

Actually I was just implying that I take the ACA's stance into account when it comes to this particular case, mainly due to the fact that the request for assistance was made through the ACA, and not directly to me. If that was the case, I would have jumped the gun immediately and I'd be utilizing the nerve gas in Federation Death Camps for unclaimed POW's, or when they begin to become a major liability or expense for the GAF-AF.

I do retain my right to conduct my affairs, domestic or international, military or civil when it comes to my nation (as you've said and as I agree with the points made as well), but as I've said it was processed through an ACA channel, so I feel obliged to secure the Alliance's approval on this first, since the complaint was filed to it directly.

I think I will be interfering whether or not the ACA chooses to pay attention to this particular case. It's just a matter of whether I will be carrying the Alliance's banner or not, because I'll have to restrain myself to certain codes of conduct if I will.

But very good points made there. Salutations and a fruit basket are in order.

I also agree completely, any action taken at this junction in time must be in the interest, and by the rules, of the ACA. No dispute. It was more of how you said something that got me thinking regarding other issues I've been considering; namely the proposed withdraw law and how it infringes on sovereignty, even though I know that's not Prussia's intent.

I want to reach a accommodation, absolutely, regarding that. I'm hoping we can do so.

We may actually want to discuss at the summit a vague outline of the ACA's rules of engagement, its become clear that I and Dakini Femina have provisions for a different sort of warfare; one which the other nations may not support. When operating in tandem, we need to know the rules, what we can, what we can't do. Having a codified ACA Uniform code would be an asset. Something to propose at the summit.

This is a case where I could accept Prussia, as founder saying, we use MY code. Simpy because he initiated the idea, he gets to set the bylaws that don't interfere with the member nations operations.

I like how they say something good about me and then basically say "but it wasn't for the right reason."

Isn't that politics though? I like how they have a major problem with the alliance, but declared one of its founders as "off limits/do not kill."

Also, any information they can gather we have willingly made publicly available. I don't see this as any sort of major or minor concern for us.

They are welcome to review my nation, short of actually attempting to gather human intelligence or classified electronic/signals intelligence. That would require RP.

[Nachfolgia]

This is potentially a threat to the ACA

Members of the International Coalition for Expansion are doing "intel checks" on us. Well, I made their hit list! Makes me feel special...

I like how he says I act like a Nazi, but was unsure if I was.

[Dakini Femina]

Trans, it'd be righteous if you could bring that up, with the OP's consent of course. I wouldn't want to direct the agenda for the summit like that without Steinbach's consent, or if it concerns a matter I can resolve out on my own IC'lly. If you guys think it's worthy of discussion however or adds to the depth, I will be more than willing to talk about it at the summit.

And thanks for the clarifications, Steinbach. That was all I really needed to get straight. So do I have permission to invoke the ACA's name in my communiques and such? - On the condition that I will NOT use VX, but WILL be maintaining a camp or two for the purposes of detaining POW's and maybe internment camps for unruly civilians. The Federation's default assumption when it comes to ethics/politics/psychology in war is that even if we don't directly target them, it's always probable that they won't take kindly to an invading foreign entity - unless close to 100% of them really do hate their current government with a passion, in which case I'd probably resort to state terrorism against the current regime by arming their population, rather than intervene directly and with military force.

But normally I would expect a fraction of the population to resist, in which case I find it more profitable and efficient to detain and disarm them (at least temporarily, aka. for the duration of the conflict), relieving them of their capacity to antagonize Federation ops, which ultimately aim at toppling the government as decisively and soundly as possible.

[Transnapastain]

Trans, the USSR is most definitely not a valid comparison, as you have said. However, NATO is not what I would choose either.
I cannot think of a modern, RL alliance to compare us to. I want to be stronger than NATO. NATO is almost a "casual" alliance, a loose coalition of nations occasionally "teaming up" to get something done.
The EU might be close. A tightly-knit group of nations with the same goals and, to a certain extent, ideas, and in our case, going to war to accomplish these goals.

An alliance is a pact, coalition or friendship between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests.It is a Political agreement between countries to support each other in disputes with other countries.

Vs

A supranational union is a type of multi-national confederation or federation where negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states.

There is a major difference here.

The EU is, by definition, a supranational organization. I can respect your desires, in fact I do. The need for strong alliances is clear. I completely understand. You may, however, want to look at the EU structure a little closer, as you have basically arranged the ACA to be a to-down autocracy.

The union has legal supremacy over its member states (only) to the extent that its member state governments have conferred competences on the union. It is up to the individual governments to assure that they have full democratic backing in each of the member states.

However, we will have to reach an agreement, and by that I mean an agreement for all nations under the ACA's, not special treatment for myself, or I will have to depart, as Transnapastain has no desire to be involved in a supranational alliance outside of the Directorate. I can not join an alliance where the policies of my government can be dictated by another.

Unlike states in a federal super-state, member states retain ultimate sovereignty, although some sovereignty is shared with, or ceded to, the supranational body.

Retaining ultimate sovereignty: good. I'm not seeing a reason why any of us should agree to cede any of our sovereignty to the alliance. Can you tell me why? Further, why would any nation agree to a reduction in its own sovereignty and power when it does not have to do so? I'm assuming there's a economic benefit here, since we'd all be trading, there's mutual security (something I did not join this alliance for)

I see the purpose in banding together to fight Communism to where we need to, I see to reason for any nation to hand any particle of power over to you, or any other alliance officer, to do so.

Full sovereignty can be reclaimed by withdrawing from the supranational arrangements but the member state would also lose the great advantages offered by mutualities, economies of scale, common external tariffs and other commonly agreed standards such as improved international trust and democracy and common external positions.

This underlines why it is necessary that nations be allowed to leave as they choose. You can also see why many do not; the list of lost benefits at the end is clear.

If we can reach an understanding for the ACA charter that does not, in any way, force a member nation to cede any of its sovereignty, I can proceed. If a system can be put in place that allows all nations a voice in the alliances decisions, as, at that point, each government has a chance to effect policy, I can proceed. If these can not happen, and I do hope that they can, Transnapastain will have to depart.

You might want to bear in mind, and I mean zero disrespect to you, as I hope you know by now, but what you want, and what you can attain, are not always the same

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Just so everyone knows, upon advice from respected members, I will be dropping the controversial “Withdrawal Law” at the Summit. I will have a post up tomorrow or Saturday - I apologise, I have been busy.

[Transnapastain]

Just so everyone knows, upon advice from respected members, I will be dropping the controversial “Withdrawal Law” at the Summit. I will have a post up tomorrow or Saturday - I apologise, I have been busy.

With that clear, Transnapastain can gladly withdraw its objections.

[Dakini Femina]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=210930&p=11838818#p11838818

The invasion and subsequent turning of Atraeza has begun. Long live the ACA.