shilo

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281857771' post='2416507'] To be fair, most of the whining is coming from people not in the New Sith Order. [/quote] To be fair, as with the word talking, most people have different interpretations than you seem to have. So in normal speak, I have to assume your word whining must also translate into discussing, cause that is what took place here.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281805861' post='2415802'] How many different ways do we have to tell you that we [b]did[/b] talk to them before attacking? Yeah, this is where you say "ok sorry, I will stop repeating this over and over and over again ..." Yes, we wanted to start a war so we got this guy to tangle with our protectorate, convinced the Sith to accept him and protect him, and [b]then[/b] tricked them into sending aid. We are flipping masterminds over here. I mean seriously, that is amazing stuff. [/quote] Ok, maybe I simply used the wrong word here: I meant [i]discuss[/i] Of course you made it clear that you were planning to violate their sovereignty from the start, and obviously with hindsight, knowing that you wanted the war, it would have been real smart to simply ask you whether you wanted some more sugar with your cup of tea instead of trying to actually solve the situation to the satisfaction of both parties - which is this odd concept called diplomacy I have been referring to when I meant "talking". As you can see by Heft's post [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281812457' post='2415896'] The conversations prior to the attacks ended with us asking that we be contacted with further evidence or claims prior to the attacks being launched, and rampage not disagreeing or giving any sign that this was an issue. The claim that you believed sedrick spied first wasn't even [i]mentioned[/i] until I went and asked why you were attacking him, and still remained little more than a presumption. [/quote] , he too was going with my definition of talking it over, ie talking until a solution agreeable to both sides has been found, not talking until the hitlists had been updated (if that even occurred simultaneously). And once more more, you attacked a nation under NSO protection, and then you attacked NSO directly because they dared to aid that nation. And of course, if one thinks in your terms of "talking", that is a straight line of logic. What kinda bugs me is that you had shown no effort to work on a solution that would not a) lead to war with NSO b) give NSO the time to make a clear cut decision on whether they wanted to protect him in [u]this[/u] instant as well or not, and I do wonder why you were in such a rush? Why did it only take you one hour to explain that you wanted to start a war? Why didn't you take another 24h to work on a peaceful solution - and even (I know how far this is away from your concept of talking) maybe used the mediators that offered their service - and then still you could have curb stomped NSO like you are doing now. Of course, there is one reason that explains your rush: you were afraid that NSO might find out your intentions and jump to peacemode before you could effectively curbstomp them. Then of course, all this makes a whole lot of more sense. But then we also know you weren't looking for a solution, you were looking for war.

Excellent issue, Sir Paul!

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281797754' post='2415704'] You know as well as I do that neither war nor peace is ever necessary or [i]italicized necessary[i]. What "people" (most OWF poster "people" anyway) really like is to give their personal opinions about how necessary or unnecessary a decision was. Emotive words such as "war-mongering" are merely devices used in an attempt to give weight to their opinions. [/quote] I don't think so. There are quite many that truly are warmongers, on an individual level as tech raiders, and on an alliance level, for example when you use a 4k NS nation to start a war. Both means you wanted war, both means you don't care for diplomacy to attempt to solve the situation before a war starts. And there are quite many that think that talking before taking action should occur. This is where the whole "necessary" comes from. Necessary means you ran out of diplomatic options. Which by all means definitely wasn't the case here. Warmongers don't run out of reasons to start wars.

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1281753477' post='2415266'] I know you are an attention whore, anyone who has read your dialog since the Gramlins fiasco can attest to that but are rhetorical questions you already have determined the answer too really necessary at this point? Do you expect to win an argument? Do you expect that the sides will somehow crumble to your superior analysis of the issue? Hardly, your significance is largely tied into your apparent need for attention. The evidence of what occurred prior to his arrival on the Sith AA is out there for anyone to see and has been remarked on clearly by our side. I know you have read the replies, however if you choose to ignore it or see it another way that's wonderful, but your bordering on Herooftime foolishness now. Your working both discussions and essentially espousing simplistic rhetorical jabs that don't progress your arguments at all, because frankly the Sith themselves have already taken that wind from your sail. They acknowledge they screwed up, you screaming "fire" in the remnants of a burnt out building is similar to your shouting down of Gramlins as they whittled away to 12 members and you were still squawking about their term offer 2 months prior. I'm sure you'll get some takers though, it's a good opportunity for people to take shots and score their PR points. You are providing a great service and your renown as a mouth piece for nonsense will greatly enhance the value and progression of this conflict. [/quote] I don't know who you are, I saw you a couple times in the gRAMlins thread posting silly stuff. That said, considering that you have actually more posts than I do, you are at least more of an attention-whore than I am [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281758664' post='2415345'] The ruler in question actually told them he was going to be attacked before he joined. On top of that, and I have already stated this several times, we [b]did[/b] advise the Sith that the nation in question was a rogue and that we intended to attack him. If you're going to use this angle, it should be "the NSO accepted a nation at war with a known RoK protectorate without bothering to contact the protectorate or Ragnarok" ... [/quote] NSO accepted a nation that was involved in a petty conflict where by any shown proof so far, the protectorate started it in the first place. Going from this to attacking the nation without having a chat with NSO before commencing attacks is what started this conflict. It's quite obvious you had no interest to treat NSO in any respectable manner, you planned to roll through them and knew it wouldn't matter on whether you got them to release him or not. The only time you attempted diplomacy was when you stalled to prepare for an assault on NSO as a whole. [quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281796806' post='2415692'] You're missing the point. Explain how it is that a DoW was necessary to remedy this situation. It wasn't at the point that it was issued. People like to see that the war was [i]necessary[/i]. If the war isn't necessary, then it's war-mongering. No matter how valid the CB is. [/quote] Indeed, starting a war over a 4k NS nation while at least the alliance that had accepted him in was willing to talk, even after an assault had already been started, means you wanted to have one. I would actually understand if NSO had ignored attempts to talk to them, accepted him in, and after finding out about his history, sent him aid just to spite RoK. But none of this happened, what happened is that RoK wanted to start a war, and got it.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281751908' post='2415233'] You're getting your definition of rogue wrong here. The nation became a rogue when he started attacking RoK's protectorate and was not absolved of his crimes simply because he joined NSO without them properly checking why he had active wars. He remains a rogue until he accepts punishment for his actions and paying for reps. Just because NSO was too arrogant in trying to look like a tough guy in front of RoK and are getting beat down because of it is their own fault really. [/quote] So being spied on is just a friendly prank, nothing aggressive deserving a military response? So what you say is only actually attacking a nation means committing an aggressive act? Then it's clear we currently have a rogue coalition, since no one doubts that RoK hit NSO before NSO had made any supportive move ingame at all. To me this seems like a clear cut event in trying to bully someone weaker: first the nation because TENE can do what it wants to him, he may not respond but if he does he has to pay reps. And RoK can attack any member of NSO - if they tell NSO before. When NSO does something on the nation level, they were the ones that actually provoked the incident. I admit I love this logic, somehow there NSO and the nation in question is always wrong, and RoK and Tene are nice guys interested in diplomatic solutions for problems.

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1281752090' post='2415239'] Because that would be a lie. Regardless of your boredom you simply cannot change the facts and the fact is prior to Sith's choice to commit an act of war there was no active plan, alliance wide desire, or master stroke to engage the Sith. It all happened rather fast and rather surprisngly actually, but espouse whatever it is you need to do to squeeze a little more juice from your dillusion. [/quote] So when you attack a member of an alliance without bothering to talk to the alliance before, you usually expect that this alliance will say "go right ahead, have at him?"

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1281751606' post='2415227'] wrong again, NSO was made aware he was a rogue before the attacks, NSO was also made aware of what would happen if he was aided, are you even putting effort in anymore? [/quote] NSO was made aware of what was available in public. And how telling NSO that RoK disagrees with their current membership count (ie by declaring on a NSO member and somehow assuming this would not find a response) is supposed to justify what we have now is beyond me. Why is it so hard to admit you just wanted to crush them. I might disagree with it, but it's hard to tell someone that they aren't allowed to enjoy a good war. [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281751751' post='2415230'] RoK was defending and helping its protectorate by attacking a nation that kept continuing its attacks. Honestly I would have informed NSO first before attacking him, but they have every legitimate reason to fight him and declare because as far as the standard of the world goes, nations should not be accepted while having active wars. The nation deserved to keep getting hit and aiding the nation was a terrible decision. Claiming RoK declared war by its attacking the rogue that was fighting RoK's protectorate is a terrible stretch, but I mean if that's what they believe...fair enough? Then they can both keep fighting it out till they're satisfied. [/quote] You see, that is what I am talking about. I don't particularly care about the nation at the source of this conflict (read: not at all) but I do find the idea disturbing that attacking any nation within a AA without talking to the government is the supposed right thing, and that understandable angry responses (and I find aid to be the most diplomatic thing, instead of Frenchtalk on IRC or simply responding with an all out nuclear strike). And I don't see it as a stretch, only if you don't want to see the other perspective. As far as I believe, accepting in a nation with active wars is no problem per se, it allows that nation to at least not be tech-raided while you can have the government of that alliance try to work out getting the war issues solved. It doesn't mean that alliance is now planning to support stupidchildish100NSnationwarno.79797979. NSO had made no move supporting that guy except try to talk to RoK - even after RoK just felt like attacking them. So all we have is a nation accepted in by NSO without having received any support for previous problems, except trying to get them solved. How one can try to construct NSO having "supported" the nation is beyond me, unless you don't think an alliance isn't allowed to try help a new recruit end stupid conflicts.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281751300' post='2415218'] Really? Attacking a rogue that was fighting their protectorate since before he got admitted into NSO is now a declaration of war? So I'll just accept the next guy who goes rogue on you and then I can claim a defensive war, right? Oh wait, I have to aid him first then I can say it's a defensive war! [/quote] Since when is responding to aggressive acts roguery? Does this mean you consider the current coalition fighting NSO a bunch of rogues? Cause it's hard to say yes to one, and no to the other without leaving out logic in the argument.

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1281750814' post='2415208'] "Last night, war was declared on Sedrick of the New Sith Order. Shortly [b]after[/b], Heft contacted me and asked about the attacks" i bolded the main part for you [/quote] Yes, so it's quite clear that RoK attacked a NSO nation without having talked this over at all with NSO, and then later declared war on NSO because aid was sent to a member attacked without having talked it over with NSO. Meaning RoK had declared war on NSO before Heft had contacted RoK about this, and way before finally aid was sent to the nation in question. So how does the CB citing "aiding a rogue" fit together with what happened and no one even denies? At least NSO thought they were still in talks when RoK had long since settled on DoWing NSO. That's at best an unfriendly act.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281748045' post='2415149'] How does the motive not make any sense? The fact that you aided a nation at war with RoK's protectorate? In any situation at all, after being forewarned, that is an act of war. [/quote] I wonder why everytime this comes up, it is forgotten that RoK had just previously attacked a member of NSO. Sending aid was the most diplomatic response to just having been DoWed on by RoK. And saying that you are gonna do that doesn't in any way legitimize doing it, it just shows that diplomacy by this definition means "do what we want or you will get stomped in the ground - you have been informed, anything else is your fault".

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281750041' post='2415191'] They didn't attack the rogue during talks, so I'm not sure what you're on about. [/quote] I will gladly point you out to the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90345"]OP[/url] of this thread.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281749158' post='2415173'] Now you're just reaching for straws and you know it, please don't turn into a heroftime. I'm pretty sure you're sharper than him. You know that when Any alliance warns you that they're at war with a nation and the war screens prove it and the war screens proved it before he joined your alliance then you should obviously let them continue with their fight or at the very least not aid the nation and by virtue of doing so declaring an act of war on RoK. Oh or should I just accept any nation that goes rogue on your alliance then aid them? That wouldn't be an act of war by your standards, right? [/quote] I got his posts turned off - after I read a thread with more than one of his post last year or so. Pretty funny when I am being asked everytime whether I want to read one of his posts That said, no, I am not reaching for straws. A CB "they aided our enemy" doesn't work when RoK declared on NSO by attacking the aided nation before it got aid. Numerous other CBs might work, this one draws it legitimacy from an act committed after the supposed reaction to act occured. Or ar you denying the correct timeline of events here? And when you accept a nation that went rogue against my alliance, I would come to you first ask why you did it, and then point out to you in detail what occured, expect and willingly provide proof for what happened, and then give you time to sort it out how you and your alliance's official stance is on the nation in question. And only then would I consider ingame action. And were I at any time during the process I just described have nations attack the nation we are negotiating about, I wouldn't just accept and understand you aiding that nation, I would even expect your alliance to consider this an act of aggression by mine. RoK attacked the nation in question while NSO attempted to solve it, aid only flowed then. So getting back to "they aided him" CB: How can it be the CB when aid flowed [u]after[/u] RoK had declared war on NSO already? [quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281749304' post='2415177'] If they were so interested in solving the issue, why would they aid him? If you're going to accept a rogue, get him to pay reps or pay his reps for him, it's not that difficult. I believe we here at BRIG have done it a few times. [/quote] Well, this is what talks are for. You have a situation, and you talk from alliance to alliance to resolve it. When we consider the CB used against NPO during Karma, ie attacking during talks, I do wonder why it's so suddenly standard protocol to attack the object of discussion during the discussion, and then claim that anything following this sincere breach of basic diplomatic standards as the original reason of breaking diplomatic code.

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1281748806' post='2415159'] No, the CB is aiding our enemy, that they went against our warning just meant that diplomacy was futile [/quote] So it is a retroactive CB? Well, clearly, committing an act of war against an alliance and getting an appropriate response clearly justified committing the act of war in the first place. I admit, against such circular logic, there is no getting through. [quote name='Arcanis' timestamp='1281748865' post='2415160'] I think telling an alliance "hey do not (insert universally accepted act of war here) or we will be forced to attack you" pretty much legitimizes it, yeah. [/quote] This would have a lot of merit, had NSO, let's say aided him just like that out of spite during talks. Or when they accepted him in. But once more, they sent aid to him after Ragnarok declared wars against the nation in question - while at least NSO believed there was an interest in solving this issue, and while NSO had not yet released him from their protection. What was the rush?

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281747899' post='2415146'] Yes they only aided him after being specifically told that aiding the nation RoK's protectorate was fighting would be an act of war. Really good choice, right? [/quote] Oh, so telling an alliance before that you are declaring on them legitimizes attacking them? Boy, when we get that precedent settled, we might finally stop having to read those awful attempts at justifying wars beyond the real reasons for figthing them. CB: we told them we would attack them if they didn't change their flags to ours, when they didn't comply they declared war on us, clearly

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1281747045' post='2415130'] This is basically how I feel about the events as of late. Hopefully, this will end with a handshake, an apology from each side, and white peace. Somehow, I doubt that'll happen. [/quote] When you consider what's being fought about, and the fact that it is being fought about at all, well, reasonableness seems to be something I wouldn't hope for as the term to describe this whole affair and its possible resolution.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1281746345' post='2415114'] It's almost as if they shouldn't have aided a nation that was at war with the protectorate of RoK, right? [/quote] Well, they only did that after RoK attacked the nation without having talked that over (and saying that you are gonna do what you want isn't talking) with NSO, ie when RoK declared war on NSO. Indeed a small fact, but I think it should be added when mentioning this specific incident.

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1281745325' post='2415090'] this is irrelevant purely because you have yet to provide any proof that the nation i linked did anything aggressive to Sedrick (which is the only way his attacks would be defensive), unless you're suggesting that a CB now applies to the guy who spied you and any 2 of his friends? EDIT: i think warriorconcept put it in a much simpler way [/quote] Well, RoK attacked an alliance of more than 100 members because of one 4k NS nation, so attacking a couple nations for spying seems more reasonable, but is definitely in line with the CB from RoK. Generally, the conflict though seems so petty that it still amazes me that someone actually managed to construct a war out of this.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281742280' post='2415014'] Here is where you fall on your face. If we take your assertions at face value that NSO was accepting him as a member no questions asked then NSO inherits his wars no questions asked. Taking him in and offering him material aid makes NSO supporting him and his actions. So NSO made it a war right then. So which do you want? NSO provoked a war by aiding a wanted rogue, or NSO provoked a war by taking in and supporting a rogue? [/quote] Since I am a third party, I can't claim to know the exact details of the timeline, but of what I heard, there was a conflict going on between RoKs protectorate and the nation in question. Since I am not privy to more information, the conflict there simply looks dumb to me, in the sense of "you spied on me, I attack you for it". Stupid wars between small nation and assorted conflicts of this magnitude usually seem like training material for junior diplomats imho. But anyways, we got this conflict, and until then NSO is unaware of any previous problems except the one I mention above, one that is accessible to the public. RoK then declarers war on the nation, which since it wasn't released by NSO, meant RoK declared war on a member of NSO, thus also on NSO. Then we get aid sent to the nation in question, which is considering RoK just had declared war on NSO, a pretty standard thing to do. So I do wonder, just looking at this possibly incorrect timeline, how the CB for the war "NSO sent aid to rogue" happened to occur after RoK actually declared war? Afaik, there are no retro-active CBs, or did we just invent them for this? Aside from that curious question, I still wonder why RoK proceeded like a steamroller and instead of first trying for more than a day to get that nation released from NSO's protection, and [u]then[/u] take action once NSO clarified their position. Usually there is no diplomacy involved if you kindly inform the government of another alliance that you will violate their sovereignty soon and that they best back off. But I do concede the possibility that I fell on my head somewhere and thus confused many things, and I will gladly hear your kind explanation straightening out my few curious questions.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281740135' post='2414960'] NSO ended diplomacy when they committed an act of war after having specifically been warned against it. Its laughable that you would expect people to keep talking to you after a warning about war and after you spat in their face over it. When Hoo said sending aid would be an act of war, your answer should not have been "hurr we send anyway" if you wanted to seek a diplomatic solution, it should have been "well what gets him off your hitlist?" or at the very least "we'll have to get back to you after consulting the rest of government". That latter option by the way is a great way of saying nothing, admitting nothing, and conceding nothing, while buying you time to come up with a reasonable response without the hazards associated with provoking a war. The time for diplomacy past the instant NSO sent that aid. [/quote] Out of mere curiosity, was it NSO that ended diplomacy when they aided one of their members under attack, or did RoK end it before when they attacked said member in the first place? Isn't, at least most of the time, attacking a member of another alliance without getting consent from that alliance, a simple act of aggression? And I mean a direct one, not in the line of "our protectorate was really stupid to someone, he was stupid back, and now we are at war with you unless you back off".

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281738831' post='2414936'] Didn't realize RoK had to explain anything to anyone except maybe their allies. [/quote] They don't. They are at war with NSO. Any alliance can do whatever it wants as long as it got enough allies to back it up. That's all there's ever been to having "justification" in CN for any action, and that's all there will ever be.

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281733172' post='2414782'] No, seriously. It's not that common to admit someone with active wars regardless of the circumstances. I've been here four years and that is pretty much a constant. You work out the issues on behalf of the applicant before admission, admittance before solution has historically led to problems. That's why they make "XXX Applicant" alliance affiliations. [/quote] I never said that this was a typical thing to do, or something that is always easy and without complications, just that it's not as unique as you said. I also don't deny the fact that the nation in question had those active wars, and that it was spied upon. All I wonder is how quickly a very small, controllable issue that in some cases might not even be dealt with by the highest government level suddenly escalated into a full war. Usually, when you want to deal with a member of another alliance for any past baggage, you first try to talk to the alliance in such a manner that after talking, you can deal with the nation without involving the other alliance. Saying "get out of my way or don't, I really don't care cause I am gonna do what I want anyways" isn't diplomacy, it's also not a fair warning. It's trying to intimidate, threatening, aggressive, bullying. Diplomacy doesn't fit in there. And I am mentioning this because obviously there was previous baggage that had to be sorted out (I definitely agree here), if I were to handle that, I would present my case, and looking at the current situation, especially that part that can't be seen by anyone able enough to check spy and warscreens, but all the stuff that happened before, lay it out quite clearly with proof, and then ask "do you support those actions?", and I would then make sure the highest authority there is, not the one currently available, agrees with that course as well, and only once I got a final response, would I then go ahead and follow through with ingame actions. Maybe I got this all wrong, and then I apologize, but to me it doesn't look like anyone waited for NSO to decide on the issue, but one simply "informed" NSO, rather blatantly, that anything but going out of RoKs way would mean war. And then went ahead and attacked the nation without ever trying to get NSO to kick that nation out [u]before[/u]. When you then judge Heft sending aid to that nation, obviously it wasn't smart, cause well... RoK is in the position to do what it wants and NSO ultimately is outgunned... it clearly looks like an attempt to solve a situation diplomatically where looking at the facts - RoK just declared war on NSO by attacking a member. Usually at least, until NSO lets that nation go, that is what happens when you attack one of their members, or any other alliance. I think that responding with a nuclear first strike is actually more in line with what happened, sending aid imho is the message "ehm, I know you just declared war on us, and we don't stand a chance, but I gotta protect the very basics of the concept of any alliance - protecting its members from aggression - but I also want to still try to resolve this peacefully". Calling this a clear CB - well... if you were looking for one, you got one there...

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281730005' post='2414717'] NSO is the only alliance I know of that lets in nations with active wars. You aren't suggesting that common diplomacy measures were discarded, you're asking RoK to bend the normal rules of diplomacy because NSO is a special snowflake. This could have been prevented right then if NSO didn't have a policy outside the boundaries of what all alliances on both sides of the web consider normal. [/quote] Afaik, it's nothing unusual at all to let in nations at war and help them sort it out, especially when the ingame information available shows that someone is defending themselves. It's unusual to attack a nation in an alliance after you simply informed the government of that alliance that aiding that nation will mean war, instead of first coming to the government and laying out your reasons for wanting to attack that nation, see on whether the alliance either condones your attacks and kicks that nation out or offers other means of compensating for the faults of that nation, or whether the alliance supports what the nation in question did and thus is looking for a conflict. Only bullies don't explain themselves to others because they know it's not necessary to get what they want, diplomacy has nothing to do with it. But maybe we simply come from different corners of the planet. Any alliance would lose sovereignty if a third party could simple go ahead and say "aid your member and you are at war", if you have any respect for the sovereignty of an alliance, you give them time to settle this internally. And oh, that might even mean more than evening to update. Of course, if you really dislike an alliance, and consider it a bonus to maybe start up a war with more than one other alliance you really don't like by attacking this alliance, then naturally taking your time, giving that alliance time to resolve the issue in a way that both allows time for due process and respects its sovereignty, and then still likely gets you solved the supposed only existing problem, that one nation, of course you wouldn't do that. You would go ahead and "inform" a government member of said alliance that aiding one of its members when you attack that nation is a crime in your opinion and a clear casus belli, with naturally no other way out but start an all out war right away.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281727284' post='2414658'] That heft jumped the gun and provoked a war (against your own policy) before actually learning anything at best, at worst he willfully ignored information at his fingertips to hand over a CB on a silver platter. ((PS, dude, I think your phone does not like CN forums ) [/quote] No one doubts that when an alliance gets threatened with war by the dominating coalition, being more than extra-careful is the smart thing to do, however, isn't it common diplomatic courtesy that before you start filling slots of a nation currently (as was known then) being part of another alliance, you try to give them time to sort this out internally, give them time to judge the evidence that led you to consider him a rogue (and responding to being spied on is only roguery when you think that a nation fighting back at a tech raid is a rogue as well), kick him out, and then start filling his slots? The nation in question wasn't even able to slip in peace mode, so why the rush?

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281714986' post='2414399'] They don't "offend" me, no ... they are just counter-productive. And yes, they come from members of government. Not that it matters since it isn't the reason talks have stalled, though based on Heft's post I can understand why they may think that. Lastly, I don't really care if the NSO are sorry or not. I find public apologies, or apologies of any sort for that matter, to be completely useless. [/quote] Well, good to hear that last line, we need definitely less pseudo-moralists, not more. That said, I sincerely hope that any obstacles to peace can be put away sooner than later, I think this whole "war" wasn't worth being started in the first place, and much less fought for more than a minute or two.