Andre27

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1289916394' post='2514566'] It's clear from the behaviour from both sides of this issue, and previous to it, that the breakdown in this relationship is indeed a [b]major[/b] issue and not the breakdown of something that barely existed in the first place. Tabloid sensationalism at it's worst. [/quote] I think this is all smoke and mirrors. We better prepare ourselves for the merger of MK into NPO. This is the obvious reason why they no longer need mutual embassies and ambassadors. The love is strong in this one.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1289940723' post='2515025'] [b]The Neverender[/b](better known to the masses as [b]Archon[/b]) of Artolia [b] AirMe[/b] of Maedonia. [b]Tulak Hord[/b] of the nation Tulak Hord. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the four recipients of the title of Honored Citizen. [/quote] I do not know the first recipient so i will not comment on this person. As for the second, third and fourth recipient i have to hand it to you folks that you most certainly know how to pick some of the more controversial persons currently on planet bob.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1289889079' post='2514220'] I am curious as to what was edited and what it was edited to as well. because since only 2 were booted, it seems there is much more to this story than MK is telling. [/quote] Seems like a logical assumption

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1289514720' post='2510654'] Hoo appointed me as the new Emperor of Ragnarok. Rampage3 replaces me as Regent of Ragnarok. We also welcome Yukon Don to our Ruling Council. [/quote] Mandatory "We're doomed". Also congratulations.

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1287893750' post='2491773'] Good bye PatJenn. You had a massive nation, yet contributed nothing to CN in my opinion. [/quote] I beg to differ. Although personally i do not believe in the concept of neutrality which Ted personified it is a mirror at which other policies define themselves. The contribution is greater than one would expect on first glance. It is also sad to see a long standing member go, but perhaps we will see him again in the near future.

[quote name='der_ko' timestamp='1287069772' post='2484460'] I assume they were gathering intel on you? Never hurts to know the warchest of a potential raid target. [/quote] That is the most logical explanation.

The amount of love in here is startling. Best of luck to UPN and ODN

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1286638986' post='2479685'] Yeah, I was gonna say... $145m will get you nowhere. Also, if you're at 8k infra and you only have $145m saved up... I wouldn't be eager to spend that. [/quote] Indeed. I would feel uncomfortable if i only had 5 times that amount.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1285751758' post='2468103'] Why don't they join them Andre? Or are you lacking the cohono's? [/quote] Other responsibilities.

I knew there was a reason why i liked those ninjas. Give em hell.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285627952' post='2466363'] The only slippery slope is that you're extending the situation far beyond reasonable limits. Providing aluminum to an old trade partner because you need resources isn't the same thing as providing uranium to a nuke rogue that was sanctioned so he can buy nukes. [/quote] Anything that goes beyond sanctions is "beyond reasonable limits". You claim there's a difference between trading because you need resources and supplying uranium, there isn't. So uranium is needed for nukes, what if you want to drain his war chest faster by denying resources beyond the reach of sanctions? Aluminium lowers aircraft cost: Deny that resource. Lead lowers the cost of nukes and CM: Deny that resource. Iron, Oil, Pigs, Rubber all decrease your opponents bills. Deny those resources. You see that there is no difference between Uranium and other resources. Using a willing trade beyond the reach of sanctions as a CB is reaching, trying to see how far the community will go. Well, this is a bridge too far. Don't go there.

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1285624419' post='2466296'] At the alliance level maybe, but in the realm of newbies and the unaligned I am sure this has happened. I know this is purely anecdotal, but a long time ago during the war Ephriam Grey propagated against that collection of micros, I knew one of the micro nations involved, and he did indeed get ordered to drop his trades or be attacked. He decided to go to war to support the trade partner instead. Most of the nations involved in that are probably gone today, I lost track of that person shortly afterwards and I see he isn't around any more, but I would bet it has happened more then once. [/quote] Even if it happened before, it doesn't make it any less distasteful and it should not be repeated.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285623872' post='2466283'] Personal freedom extends to arm's length, and an argument could be made that by supplying uranium to a rogue that nation is repressing our freedom to develop as we see fit. [/quote] So another nations freedom should be taken away because it hinders your progress? As i said earlier, no exceptions. Freedom of choice for trades should be guaranteed at all times.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285620733' post='2466226'] Right, it's definately a gray area. However, the idea of trades being a possible CB is not something that I'd totally discard out of hand. It'd have to be a fairly unique instance for it to be valid, in my opinion. If, for instance (and this is entirely a theoretical) we found out that someone like Rebel Virginia were trading with one of our rogues, it would certainly be something worth intense scrutiny. [/quote] Gray area? I'd say it's a complete no-go zone. Forcing people to drop trades because their trading partner is at war? To my knowledge it's unprecedented in the history of planet bob. It directly violates a nations sovereignty to choose their trades. Sanctions are as far as the denial of trades should go. If a person has secured trades untouched my sanctions (secret trades and no team) then that should be the end of things. Using a willing trade as a CB against a person or even worse against an alliance, is distasteful. What's next on the list, forcing people to change their government because some types of government provide increased espionage odds? Perhaps the religion of a nation offends you, worthy CB against the alliance that nation is a member of. wouldn't you say? Let's face it, it's a slippery slope when you try to deny nations their basic freedom of choice. Off course you as an alliance can opt to engage said nation, but it will be a war of aggression and not a defensive war . Don't go there. [quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285623552' post='2466273'] I don't think that ALL trades should be open to scrutiny. I think that in very specific circumstances, a uranium trade only could be questioned. [/quote] Why stop with Uranium, Lead provides a discount on nukes and CM, Aluminium provides extra soldier efficiency, wheat provides extra population and so on. No exceptions. Freedom of choice for trades should be guaranteed no matter the circumstances.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285530436' post='2465370'] But it wasn't an alliance war in the first place. What you're saying is, if 15 rogues were to band together, all sanctions would need to be lifted (or [b]could[/b] be lifted by the senators, if you want to say I'm twisting your words), which is completely ludicrous. [/quote] By your standards this was not an alliance war, however from the viewpoint of KN this was an alliance war from the start. Your position was strengthened by the definition in your charter, however when a group of individuals meets the standards you as an alliance set then you loose your grounds for requesting sanctions based on roguery. If they said alliance were to request the sanctions to be lifted, the sanctioning senator would be forced to choose which opinion to follow. This can result in a number of sanctions being lifted.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285529438' post='2465351'] Even though they are rogues, when they are part of a "legitimate" alliance, this makes them rogue no more? Could you explain this to me? [/quote] By your definition they're not an alliance now and thus rogues and hence you can (and have) request(ed ) sanctions. Once KN reaches a member count of 15 it meets one of GOONS standards for an alliance. Off course GOONS can still opt not to recognize them as an alliance as stated in your charter. However other alliances who receive the request for a sanction can opt to take a different opinion on the matter (to recognize them as an alliance) and refuse the GOONS request because they do not wish to intervene in an alliance war. Overall it does not matter if they were not considered an alliance when hostilities started. The state of the group (alliance) as they are when the request for a sanction is made does however.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1285528467' post='2465334'] Good, then they are large enough to pay reperations. [/quote] Somehow i doubt if it would matter if KN meets the definition when it comes down to the payment of reparations. It does influence the possibility of the use of sanctions against KN. Sanctions against rogues are easily requested and often granted. Sanctions against an alliance during war is something completely different though.

At this rate you'll surpass 15 members soon and meet one of the GOONS standards of an alliance.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285287037' post='2462721'] Just a guess on my part, but it seems logical. [/quote] That would be a fairly accurate description actually.

[quote name='Meer Republic' timestamp='1285277682' post='2462509'] So you're happy being a hypocrite then, I remember you merrily cheerleadering the fact that your alliance relied on it's allies to enable you to throw your weight around. Or have you undergone some great Spongelike redemption and all your history has been absolved? The VE thing would never have happened had GGA not wanted it to, the OE angle was just a bonus at the time. But yes let's go back to the topic before your hypocrisy is further exposed. [/quote] While i was in the GGA i never "cheerleadered" the fact that the GGA relied on its allies too much. There were a few idiots (one in particular) who made remarks like that, only to give the rest of the alliance a splitting headache. Personally I've always admitted mistakes and GGA government of that time should not have given GOONS what they wanted then. I was, and am, glad VE reformed and prospered. Credit where credit is due though and although the GGA took the blame for the disaster of the green civil war, GOONS were those who pushed for the destruction of VE. Do not try to accuse me of hypocrisy without knowing me or where i stood for during the time i was GGA government. It may help you sleep better, but it does not do justice to the truth. As i said earlier, let's get back on topic.

[quote name='Meer Republic' timestamp='1285275696' post='2462465'] Andre was it a problem when GGA hid behind NPO for so long? Like when they wanted VE or Gramlins off green? Or was that different? [/quote] GGA did depend too much on its allies. That was one of the mistakes which many GGA governments have fought to rectify, both prior and after Karma. GOONS is in the stage where they claim they can handle anything while they hide behind their allies every time. As for VE, funny you mention them, even though the GGA got blamed for that one it was GOONS who pushed the move against VE. Gramlins was not an issue in the green civil war. The issue at the time was with CIS and NTO. GOONS pushed the move on VE because of the Obsidian Entente Edit: But let's get back on topic already. There have been too many ad hominem attacks, references to disbanded alliances and historic conflicts already.

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1285273575' post='2462434'] Read this: Then this: Translation: I'll help my allies out to no end but if [s]GOONS[/s][i]some other alliance[/i] does the exact same thing to their allies, they're a bunch of cowards. No one else sees the hypocrisy in this? [/quote] What you seem to ignore is that GOONS allies are involved in every minor conflict. There is no problem with coming to the aid of an ally. When such aid is frequent though and accepted in situations which an alliance (in this case GOONS) should be able to handle without outside assistance then it raises valid ground serious questions regarding said alliance. Nice try though. The issue is not with the assistance offered, the issue is that GOONS seems to be dependant on such assistance.

[quote name='Charles the Great' timestamp='1285271049' post='2462398'] GOONS has every right to the actions they have taken thus far in my opinion. OMG my head is gonna explode. [/quote] Despite that i don't like GOONS, they are in the clear on this one. JimKongIl is, going by the definition, a rogue and GOONS has the right to defend themselves. I feel dirty having said that. Would have been far more interesting if it had just been GOONS instead of GOONS and co.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1285269798' post='2462374'] Lovely 'no u' retort, Andre. I'm not the one cheering on rogues and attempting to fight their verbal battles for them (yet failing miserably). If only you could put together a logical conclusion once in a while, instead of your usual Methrage-esque method of addressing an issue, which includes horse blinders and earplugs. [/quote] I did not start the ad hominem attacks remember Besides you displayed an incredible talent for cheer leading so why not give credit where it's due and give some pointers to improve on the performance. The logical conclusions are there, the question is if you're willing to accept them. The frequency at which GOONS friends/allies have to show up does not inspire great confidence in the ability of GOONS to handle things themselves or as they like to put it "to do something about it". If you (GOONS) would like to change that, do something about it and keep those allies out of the brawl. When that actually happens you'll hear a "kudos" from me, surprise me.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1285268003' post='2462347'] I wouldn't put too much time and energy into arguing with Andre27 here...he has something to say about anybody that goes rogue against us, yet doesn't do it himself. He's got his little cheerleader outfit on but hasn't the orbs to strap on the armor and do something about it. GO ROGUES GO!!! YAAAAAAY, TEAM! [/quote] Cheerleader outfit is yours since you do it so well. Just remember to shave those legs when you put it on, the rest of us want to keep our lunches in. Besides what is the point of going rogue on GOONS, I'd be fighting their allies instead of GOONS themselves.