WorkingClassRuler

[quote name='Stetson' date='01 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1265015589' post='2150182'] I've given up on this argument, but this really tickled me. Some would say that's exactly what Gre did. I know, I know, paperless friends and convenient definitions and all that, but it's still funny that someone defending an attack on an alliance based on "feelings" would question the validity of someone else's reason for war. [/quote] [Insert multiple reasons for joining this war versus unprovoked and opportunistic attack on uninvolved parties] because I, too, tire of repeating myself. Plus if this was TOP's DoW thread and I had made the complaints first, you might have a point, but I am still just responding to other's comments. I'm not whinging about having to do so, but this is the second time now that I've had to explain that I'm merely replying to complaints made by others. As if I somehow have to justify why I'm defending our position when others have criticized it.

[quote name='Methrage' date='01 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1265012698' post='2150149'] So you guys already viewed TOP as an enemy before they declared. [/quote] Because that would completely justify aggressively attacking them without real provocation?

Well I can only argue from what I know and feel. If there's information that I am missing that could influence my opinion, I'd be more than happy to hear it - in PM if so desired. But until then, I'll be a dog with a bone when defending our position as I know it.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1264962721' post='2147948'] While I can get on board about this attitude, my bolded alteration is all that's needed for it to apply to TOP/IRON as well – pre-empting C&G's entry on the raider side was just a strategic way of helping the Polar coalition win. And yeah, WCR is trying to claim that you guys were 'dragged in' (i.e. obliged to enter). [/quote] Trying? Come on Bob, I think I've been doing a pretty good job. Anyway, there's obviously been a confusion of conversations here. My comment regarding getting dragged in was in response to a TOP criticism of our actions, and I was making the point that it was because of TOP and IRON's actions that brought us here. Regardless of the reason why, it was from their aggressive attack that we entered. Had they not attacked, I believe we would have stayed out, so I found it highly hypocritical for a TOP member to criticize us in that regard. And yes, I do argue that we were obligated to defend but I'm not at all saying that's the only reason why we're here. On the contrary, Ive mentioned several other reasons why - most notably a desire to help our Aqua allies. But that hasn't been the topic of conversation, it's been about treaties and e-lawyering. So allow me to make it clear that apart from those reasons, I believe we joined this war because we wanted to help out CnG. And I have no problem defending that position either, just so that we're clear that the two reasons are not mutually exclusive from each other.

All the best to you too, Hell. And yes, you will always be considered a Härmlin to me.

[quote name='avernite' date='31 January 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1264939444' post='2147373'] If you can use nonexistent treaty text to justify things, I can too. Either don't use the treaty text at all, or keep the treaty. [/quote] Oddly, that's not the argument being made. The argument is that the relationship level between Gre and MK remains the same regardless of the treaty, which was the point of going paperless to begin with. It just so happens that at the level that MK and Gre were on, they considered an attack on one to be an attack on the other. That has not changed, hence Gre and Härmlins has defended MK.

[quote name='HellAngel' date='31 January 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1264939254' post='2147369'] Just as MK cannot control their members talking on here, neither can I. Heck, im not even upper gov. I have an opinion and thats it. Just like you formed your opinion about the perceived aggression of TOP. And we dont ask for compassion, in fact we are pretty much enjoying the fireworks. We're just sick of getting trash talked on this [ooc] forum [/ooc] as the sole initiator of this conflict (which is also one of the main reasons we see you guys on the other side now). We might have made a mistake, but we are no different alliance from the one you once allied to (and has been allied to for a long time). [/quote] Sorry, but in your last post you commented that I was "bashing" my former allies, whereas I felt I was constantly having to rebut their many accusations and complaints. If TOP is enjoying the fireworks so much, then you don't appear to be showing it in this thread. Of course that's going to affect my opinion of my ally, as now that we are on opposite sides of a conflict, we are treated as an enemy. Speaking personally, I wished IRON, TOP, and TORN the very best of luck in your own threads. The same cannot be said for TOP's members. I know you don't control them, and I'm not asking you to, I am merely commenting on their conduct and how their conduct has affected my opinion. If TOP wants to remain allies, they are going the wrong way about it - which, considering the "mistake" already made, is really sad to be honest.

[quote name='HellAngel' date='31 January 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1264938659' post='2147354'] We can all argue back and forth about who was the aggressor. Fact is, both sides wanted this war to happen or it wouldnt have come this far, but i wouldnt exactly include MHA and Gremlins in there. I dont think the first thing they thought when seeing \m/ raiding those alliance was "GUYS WE GOTTA HELP THEM". It's just sad you are now bashing on your former allies because they made a mistake. Yeah we should have waited two more days until CnG finally got out and declared. Thats the whole story, not more not less. What we did was taking a strategical advantage and you guys took the chance to finally come out and say you would rather be on CnGs side than ours. No big deal, I expected that to happen after Ram took over Gremlins. [/quote] Unfortunately I am forced into such a position when members of TOP and IRON repeatedly come into this thread to argue about one word in a treaty article, or other such nonsense. We can both recognize that everyone wanted a war. But it seems that now that TOP/IRON have it, by their own doing no less, they're doing a heck of a lot of complaining about it. You want compassion for your mistakes? Then start showing understanding for the position you put your allies in.

Silly, you should have mentioned it in your DoW then. Would have saved you a lot of trouble.

[quote name='Stetson' date='31 January 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1264936774' post='2147324'] I am honestly curious if there are any treaties who actually use these words. I've only ever seen treaties that state "an attack on one signatory will be [b]treated as if[/b] an attack on the other" or something more along those lines. The point being they are not actually an attack on the other party, but shall be treated as such. It may be called semantics, but it is a real difference and not just a convenient definition. [/quote] Of our current treaties, Härmlin is the only one to state exactly that. The others are mostly "an attack on one signatory is [b]considered[/b] an attack on the other." According to the MK-Gre treaty, however, they [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52697]stated[/url]: [quote] Defense Both signatories recognize that if one is directly attacked, the other is attacked. In short, mess with one, and the other one is going to beat you in the back of the head with a stick. [/quote] I argue therefore that the same principle still applies to MK and Gre, it's just not written down anymore.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1264935287' post='2147306'] So you weren't part of a coalition which was planning for TOP's entry and working out how best to counter it? In fact by attacking IRON you are, by your own logic, attacking TOP by proxy [i]right now[/i]. You're certainly adding a lot of power to the anti-TOP side, relieving them from fighting IRON and directly leading to a great increase in damage to TOP nations, without any obligation to do so. [/quote] If by "Coalition" and "planning" you mean our allies telling us that they were likely about to get attacked by IRON and would need our assistance? But let's cut the crap - TOP and IRON both did exactly the same thing when they planned this war with others. The only distinction is that TOP and IRON were the ones first going in aggressively and attacking offensively, whereas Gre/MHA were defending their friends as a result of IRON/TOP's attacks. Our involvement in this war wouldn't have occurred without TOP and IRON's planning and initiation of it.

[quote name='Stetson' date='31 January 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1264934616' post='2147296'] What you have laid out here makes perfect sense from your perspective and I'll agree to disagree on Gre's new paperless policy being a legitimate foreign policy stance. There is no convenient definitions however, that can turn an attack on MK into an attack on Gre. An attack that Gre may have felt justified in countering yes, but an attack on them? Come on, that's not even close to reasonable. [/quote] I see the distinction, but it seems to be stating that just because Gre and MK no longer had a paper treaty stating "An attack on one signatory is an attack on the other", then that somehow makes it untrue? So if they still had the paper treaty, it would be perfectly acceptable that an attack on MK would be seen as an attack on Gre? The whole point of going paperless was not to have definitions and articles for friendship, but it's always been very clear that the relationship between MK and Gre had not changed - thus an attack on one was always going to be seen as an attack on the other. The only thing missing is the article that you can point to "prove" it, but surely Gre's promise of continued defense and their fulfillment of that promise, makes it just as true as if the treaty was still there? Having said that, as I've said in private, I don't believe that Harmlin article has been activated at this time, nor have I personally seen any discussion about activating it. We'll see when the dust settles how MHA-TOP relations will continue.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1264934440' post='2147293'] Don't be ridiculous. TOP did not make any aggressive action against Grämlins. Even if you still had the treaty, it arguably wouldn't be true, but since you do not, there is simply no grounds to make this argument. Or would you say that Grämlins were making hostile actions towards TOP 'and by relation MHA' by planning the war against them (yes you were)? [/quote] Wait, are you saying that Gre was planning offensive action against TOP now? I can't think of anyone on Bob who would have been stupid enough to actually plan an aggressive war against TOP.

[quote name='HellAngel' date='31 January 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1264933588' post='2147287'] Hypocrisy? I think the DoW was one of the most honest ones of all time. We didnt bother to bring up stuff from 6 months ago, we also didnt bother to look if someone was spying on us. But well, todays scapegoat is TOP, might as well go with hypocrisy. [/quote] Please, Hell. I was referring to Methrage's hypocrisy. He came in here trying to insult us because we were in the stronger position, to which my response was TOP and IRON had done far worse when they offensively declared on the uninvolved CnG, which is what brought us into this war. Then someone else quoted my post and so on. I didn't say TOP's DoW was hypocritical. Stupid, unprovoked, and unnecessary, I would call it however.

[quote name='Stetson' date='31 January 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1264932751' post='2147270'] I was merely pointing out that you placed significant emphasis on the fact that they were attacking a weaker opponent. Yet by the time you guys declared, you too were attacking a weaker opponent. Nothing personal, just like to highlight convenient definitions. [/quote] Well yes, that is correct, because TOP and IRON attacked a whole bloc, and this bloc has a lot of friends, TOP and IRON are now in the weaker position. It doesn't excuse what they did in the first place - which is the hypocrisy that I was pointing out.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='31 January 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1264931460' post='2147255'] Right, NATO is in Blue and not your treaty partner. Not the first time you have ignored more than one treaty, o\ TOP, NATO, for mostly harmful allegiance you have got going. [/quote] Is NATO in CnG? I think not. You make absolutely no sense. Edit: You've gone and made your post friendlier, which is appreciated. Have a good fight, IRON. And yes, Pudge is awesome.

[quote name='Stetson' date='31 January 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1264923592' post='2147098'] Not by the time you guys decided to bandwagon in. Unless it really is all the same war, unlike what your side is claiming? [/quote] Which would be correct if we were talking about [i]after[/i] TOP and IRON were countered, but we were not. When they declared on CnG, they were attacking an uninvolved weaker party. Why this fact is important, we must remind ourselves, is why we're doing this in the first place. To stand up for friends who have been unfairly and opportunistically attacked.

[quote name='avernite' date='31 January 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1264918258' post='2146904'] C&G was actually not really a weaker party, statistically. Unless of course we were just supporting NpO, in which case our opposition was weaker than we were. [/quote] According to your DoW you were supporting Polar, so that means your opposition was weaker than you were.

I know I shouldn't be condescending but it's bit hard when you're repeating yourself for the umpteenth time. I said that we were dragged in. Those were my words. TOP and IRON declared an Offensive War, without provocation, against our friends and Aqua allies who were uninvolved at the time. There are multiple lines from us to CnG, including a direct line from Härmlins to MK, and thus we were dragged in. I do think we (just MHA) have treaty obligations here - albeit chained ones - as well as friendship, but regardless of the multiple reasons why we've defended our friends, my point was actually not about treaty obligations, it was about TOP and IRON's actions. Had they not declared on CnG, we probably wouldn't be in this fight. Regardless of which side we ended up on, it was their action of declaring an Offensive War against uninvolved parties that lead to our involvement, that's what I meant by them dragging us in. In regards to official obligations, apart from treaties and friendship, it does say in our Charter that we will defend Aqua alliances. Aqua is our home and our way of life, so even if we ignore the Härmlins-MK friendship, or multiple lines from MHA to CnG, or even Aqua ICE Defense Pact, MHA had a dog in this fight the moment IRON and TOP declared on our Aqua brothers. It is our written legal Code of Conduct to help defend Aqua. Your last point seems to be enforcing a legal code on us, on behalf of Planet Bob, when none such exists. Grämlins made it quite clear that they would defend MK without a treaty. If you want to take their statement confirming that they would defend MK without a treaty as a written "contract" or perhaps a one-sided "Agreement", then you could say that it was a written obligation to defend MK. Heck, their announcement of such was signed by the Government and supported by MK, so you could very well argue that. But just because a "treaty" in the way that YOU know it does not exist, doesn't mean a legal right to defend MK doesn't exist. Just because VE or others do not prescribe to the paperless FA movement, does not mean it's invalid. Would you say the same thing of the Moldavi Doctrine? You can spout "this is CN Norm" at me all you like, but it doesn't mean Gre or MHA has to follow, and if we do NOT follow, it doesn't make our actions illegal or illegitimate just because [i]you[/i] don't think it is.

Please, we've been over that earlier in the thread. Don't bring it up again like you're making some new point. It's been covered. Edit: Must. Not. Give. In. To. Stupidity.

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1264909764' post='2146458'] To be more specific by what I meant by "good" is you wouldn't jump into wars your not involved with to join the side with the number advantage. I thought Gremlins were against that type of stuff, never saw you as the opportunist type. If you were going to do this why even give peace in the Karma War? I used to respect you guys more than any other alliance, yet now your hitting our ally when they are already heavily outnumbered and I don't even know why. [/quote] That is the biggest load of guilt-trip !@#$%^&* I have ever heard. You attacked a weaker party without provocation, without defensive obligations, in order to opportunistically and aggressively strike them while their friends were tied up in another conflict. You started this mess, you dragged Härmlins in, you should be the one apologizing to us. And do not think for one second that anyone is going to fall for your hypocritical protestations.

Yes, we get it. I got it when I proved you were incorrect, I got it when I proved you were simply biased against MHA and that's why you were posting. Your assertion, however incorrect and biased, has been noted. I also proved several pages back why this was defensive action, as does the OP of this very thread. Don't pretend there's something left to prove just because you have ignored it. Cheers, thanks, have a nice day, so long and thanks for all the fish, you're done.

o/ JimmyK and our other founders Rich and Vinny.

I wasn't aware that \m/ was in CnG now.

Our general policy on peace is thus: Going on history, if we were to discuss/give peace, it would be most likely white peace or something close to it. I'm not Gov, so I cannot make that call.