Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Huh?!?   Are we now talking about 2 different things?  I really do
> believe that access according to 10.3  would allow you to state access
> terms such that you can grant access but not allow combat.  Just say
> somthing like "You may enter east galacia, but may not enter any territory 
> with forces
> you are currently at war with".

I guess you could, it would be foolish to accept such an agreement in most 
circumstances since you can easily end up watching your forces starve if 
they get cut off, but people do sign bad deals.  It works since the 
limitation is not, you can't fight, it's that you can't move in a certain way.

> I'm not aware of any proposal saying that you couldn't fight your way
> out.
How do you propose to forbid combat without forbidding entry into a space 
occupied by an enemy force?  Any proposal that limits combat inherently 
limits your ability to leave since it limits your ability to enter a space 
that is enemy occupied.

There is no way that can be a term in the limited access after war since it 
would allow another country to destroy your army in detail by blockading 
the border.  If you were dumb enough to accept an access agreement that 
allowed that, I guess you got what you deserve, but there's no way that is 
an acceptable end of war access term.



_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia