Beamup Wrote:Fine, then I'll restate my hypothetical to:Depends if you are north of me the settlement could be deemed agressive and so your war justified. If you are south then I would say your demand is a break of the NAP.
We agree to an NAP. I tell you that I will declare war if you settle north of a given line (modifying the agreement to include a settling division). You settle north of the line, I declare war. Did I break the NAP?
Beamup Wrote:Edit: I could also mention such things as "I will declare war if you trade with X" or "I will declare war if you start to research Civil Service". ANYTHING can be considered an aggressive act looked at the right way, so allowing either party to arbitrarily redefine what constitutes an aggressive act makes the NAP completely meaningless.Bingo

And now you know why every bigger company has a huge legal department and why lawyers make a good fortune arguing over simple words
