shilo

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281713112' post='2414353'] While it has been pointed out that we find it counter-productive for the Sith to be engaged in peace talks with us, all the while bashing us and making it out like we are in the wrong ... it isn't the reason peace talks have stalled. I find the repeated posts stating that it is the reason to be the worst spin I have possibly ever seen. [/quote] Well, the question is: do such posts really bother you? Last I remember, one of the precedents from the last war is that posts don't matter at all unless they are coming from .gov and are clearly marked as official posts. And since 2006, apologies and the like have been shown to be as long-lasting and heartfelt as that alliance is on the weaker side, so I wonder why you would want NSO to concede something as a pre-condition for talking surrender when you know this isn't the honest opinion of NSO. Or do you plan to war them until they [i]honestly[/i] feel sorry? So by any definition, if peace is what you want to happen now or very soon, it's pretty much completely in your power to give it. Just when you don't want to give it now would a delay really make sense in my opinion.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281572729' post='2411785'] Depends on the system of government I would say, if you were a democracy and ran for your position on a specific platform and a government decision went contrary to that platform then it would be appropriate for your name to not be on it, and your disagreement should be public (or at least public to your membership). If you have an executive or executive council type government then no, once the decision has been made that's it that's what you are doing and its your duty to your alliance to support it. [/quote] I think especially in a democracy, where leadership changes more regularly than in non-democratic forms of government, potraying a public face of unity is more important, not less important, than elsewhere. There is nothing that would (and likely in such cases won't have) stop(ped) that person to make their position quite clear, but when at the end the vote is called and tha majority felt otherwise, one should accept that the government is there to serve the alliance as a whole, and not one self. No one would stop that person to voice opposition internally, while at the same time showing to the outside world that despite differences in opinion, the government still functions as one. I would wonder about the functionality of any government were their position of FA not one, rather a collection of individual opinions changing on either presence and opinion.

[quote name='Matt Miller' timestamp='1281442171' post='2409529'] But, but, but they aren't as bad as NPO!!! [/quote] Their viceroy was less hegemonistic Matt!!

[quote name='Fulgrim' timestamp='1281430734' post='2409389'] This is the only good thing to come out of this thread. Excellently put. [/quote] Plus when someone from the Hegemony comes knocking at your door and attacks a member they consider a rogue, don't ask for due process, better attack that member yourself, and offer your surrender before they attack you for "providing a CB". Oh, this feels so old-school in many ways, yeah, the good old days, we got them back.

Two cool alliances now being allied. Something positive for a change.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281351997' post='2407292'] Yeah man. For example in the noCB war, Chickenzilla did a TECH DEAL with Hyperion, as an anonymous reroll. That was one heck of an offensive and aggressive action that Hyperion performed, let me tell you... they did a tech deal with an anonymous reroll that happened to be on someone's EZI list. Which never existed, amirite? But you know what? There isn't a slippery slope here. There wasn't a slippery slope for GR when they decided to get rolled with Hyperion. There wasn't a slippery slope with MK when they decided to get rolled with GR. There wasn't a slippery slope with Athens when we decided to get rolled with MK. There is no slippery slope, not for alliances of high ideals and integrity. It's not about disagreeing with an ally's action. It's about whether or not an "ally" is, in your judgement, deliberately trying to start a war. But even then, I do believe one should follow the letter of the treaty. However, I don't think you owe such an "ally" one jot or tittle more than the bare bones letter of the treaty obligations in such a case. Where there is friendship, the bond of friendship is owed, and it covers a multitude of sins. But when a war is deliberately provoked by an "ally" at your expense, then you regret you ever signed with such a snake, grit your teeth, and honor the letter of the treaty and not one bit beyond. GATO has done this. I see no reason to condemn then in any way. [/quote] We can just switch Hyperion with NSO and Gato with CnG, and you outlined exactly what GATO should have done. And in the same post, you then go ahead and attempt to justify this? It's a rare case of someone clearly outargumenting himself in the very same post before trying to make the actual argument.

Congratulations for being free again FEAR

Lame move. First of all you weren't even asked to help, rather the opposite. And because NSO wasn't chatting to you guys parallel to being blackmailed by RoK, they violated the treaty? Well, it's a cowardly move, I guess GATO thought they would be involved in the curbstomp and looked for a way out until they realized it wasn't even necessary but then went ahead anyways. Obviously, the spirit of the treaty was gone before all of this happened - at least I hope so, so the current events only serve as a pretense to get rid of a in many ways inconvenient treaty. Still, I expected better from GATO here, and I have been disappointed...

I am disappointed. This is nothing worth going to war for, rather something to be settled in a day's worth of talks. In which case NSO would get the due process they owe to their newly accepted member, and RoK could defend their protectorate. But I guess one could skip the whole talking business and do an oldschool curbstomping - the way to show that things definitely have gotten better.

[quote name='Gamemaster1' timestamp='1281050668' post='2402107'] If it was Mike and Ertyy, Ram should take it up with them and you [i]shouldn't[/i] be taking it up with us all over the forums. [/quote] This. But considering the posting style in the other much larger thread, the subtle hints that someone may have done something wrong with the backtracking in the next post is the usual posting pattern. Not subtle enough though...

[quote name='Xerxer' timestamp='1280848321' post='2399499'] While not justifying the nature of this war, I would argue that with the signing of the 'eternal treaty' they lose a bit of their sovereignty to the party they signed with. The Harmlin Accords is worded almost as if the two alliances were merging, but staying separate at the same time. All the talk of 'dual-membership' and 'Harmlin counterparts'... they became sister alliances. [/quote] And then still, the almost merger (not even talking about the "spirit" of the treaty, where I hear some MHAers would argue it was broken a long time ago), eternity, brotherhood, it all ends the moment one of the two parties wants to end it. Treaties are and will always be promises. Promises should not be broken, but they can, and they will be. The reasons for breaking a promise are endless, I do understand some of them even if I may not like it. All I am talking about is the absurdity of trying to make treaties into anything resembling legal contracts we know from other realms. They simply are not, they are many things, but definitely not a legal contract.

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1280847732' post='2399491'] I agree. Though to add, there is always the "public court" as this things stick to an AA to be used against it by not friendlies. I would know. The outrage I suppose has various angles. Honestly saying, talking about it for some NPOers, I believe its miss channeled bad feelings lingering from how our treaty with MHA went a year ago. And then there are those that actually stick to the principle of the wording. Anyway in regards to that as said, I am more on your side. No more "eternal" treaties thats for sure, heh. [/quote] Oh, I definitely get where they are coming from. Obviously, being able to do whatever can be done within existing boundaries does not exclude anyone from all the possible consequences of those actions. Those however are two pairs of shoes. So anyone arguing about a supposed "legality" of the cancellation really has no clue, everyone however can judge said action as they please. As you, I think the only thing of some relevance coming from this thread is that eternal treaties are stupid, and that the will of your ally to defend you is the only thing that will ultimately get that ally to defend you.

Any of you who thinks a treaty cannot be canceled, please go ahead and sue MHA for violating international law at the International Court at... oh right, there's neither international law nor an international court. The outrage is cute I admit, but unless alliances stopped being sovereign entities at some point, any alliance can pretty much do what ever the hell they want.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1280834024' post='2399366'] It's the alliance that !@#$ on your closest ally and kept them at war for a long time while you sat on your $@! doing nothing. [/quote] They were annoying, but they mostly $%&@ed with themselves and continue to do so now. But really, someone with your AA isn't really in the position to bash our friends for something they were prevented from doing so by your very alliance and your friends.

Eternal treaties are doomed to fail, so I guess this should be a lesson to not sign them or other such silly treaties anymore. As always, opposed to the "but you can't cancel this treaty" or "u r evil cuz u brok da promiz" whining, when a relationship is no longer there, the treaty shouldn't be kept for whatever reasons. Obviously, the relationship was more than broken here, so the logical course was to end it. Of course, gRAMlins made this not more difficult with their behavior in the past months. Good for you MHA

Not sure if this is something to be proud of, but yes: I read it all, at least once... o/ to peace For fun it would be interesting if someone could be bothered to quote all MPK and Erty posts saying they would never accept anything but an unconditional surrender and destroy them all with the recent announcement

Well, Craig and Cata at the helm... this will end well Congratulations comrades

[quote name='Ertyy' timestamp='1280597778' post='2396075'] We would like to clarify that our reasons for continuing this war remain unchanged. We merely recognize that there are no longer any viable means to attain our goals. [/quote] You lost, but we let you go cause firing cms at you has been more communication than any of us desired with you. [quote name='Ertyy' timestamp='1280618870' post='2396484'] I will also say that it does show some redeeming qualities that IRON elected to give us peace at this point. [/quote] It's sufficient to say that since you word is worth nothing, expecting nothing but more trouble from you after anything but a white peace made this the only reasonable ending for this conflict. You were and continue to be the immoral party in this conflict. o/ peace o/ true friends and supporters, definitely including the vocal supporters o/ volunteers for sanity (speaking for DAWN: that goes to you Dochartaigh and Baldr!!! Your efforts won't be forgotten, and thank you very much for your service )

A fine group of alliances all in all, looks good

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1280284062' post='2391966'] It looks like Omas is now in the MHA, so I'm not sure as to whether he actually is willing to make sacrifices for you anymore? [/quote] Omas is a nice guy, and likely the last sane voice gRAMlins had. With him gone, it's highly likely now they will continue until nothing is left. And all of this due to one guy having a too big of an ego, and the rest following him literally to death.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1280200779' post='2390750'] No, not really. I wasn't aware that IRON had already started paying off, I mean I'd just get on with life and get out of terms. I don't really see any "constant threat" coming from Gremlin. [/quote] Of course, there is a hostile alliance with the goal to force unconditional surrender on two alliances that rather gets destroyed than divert from said goal. That is very much a threat, albeit a small one, but definitely one. The only way this threat will be removed is by either them getting off their delusional high horse (unlikely) or by us making sure they cannot be a threat to us anymore. In terms of practical applications, the terms don't really limit that much, so being under terms is manageable.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1280170669' post='2389919'] If I were IRON I'd just stop declaring new wars on Gre and start paying reps to whoever they owe. At this point the war's over except for the paperwork. [/quote] Î assume that you aren't looking out for IRON's best interest when saying that.

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717'] I am not trying to say that SF/C&G don't hold power. That would be idiotic. Combined in the way the currently appear to be, they have a huge NS advantage over the rest of the world. The only way you would think this is if you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Power does not need a 'mirror,' all I have said is that the concept of "SG" needs a mirror to define SG. The fact SG is powerful is largely irrelevant for my argument. If it makes you feel better, take it on the flipside, ex-hegemony is defined by "SG." If SG no longer exists, "ex-hegemony" wont either. What you offer as a counter is a 'subscription' I have, and something that doesn't meet any 'historical' analysis. So, while it's nice that you believe this, you don't actually say why these counter my points. Your objection seems to come from the fact that I happen to be a member of a C&G alliance and therefore you assume all I have said is mindless propaganda. Try reading them again and you will see that I question the viability of a successful SG coalition. @RV, that's obviously another way of looking at it. My whole point was based on definition. I might come back to this. @Vladimir: The examples of GATO and WUT are just that, examples. You don't believe that they were ever unipolar powers, if anything, that furthers my point by removing inconsistencies. Your second point about unipolar powers having an opposing force or 'outsider' element is fine, it all comes down to definition. What I have been saying is that unipolar means someone rules, unopposed. People simply get on with their lives, even if they don't like the present set-up. Bipolar has conflict or opposition, regardless of the strength. I believe that the current situation has opposition to the so called "SG" rule, creating a bipolar world, even if it is ineffective. If you don't believe there is any opposition to SG rule, then while I disagree with you, it makes my argument completely and utterly ineffective [/quote] That doesn't make any sense really. By your definition, a unipolar world is technically not possible, simply if one nation declares itself to be opposing all other nations. We clearly had episodes where your "some group ruled, the rest went on with their lives" description would fit reality at that time. It's once again your insistence to base a hegemonic power not on strength and on dominance, rather whether they have opposition or not. By all means, that would mean that tC/1V was a bipolar world simply because MK and a handful others opposed them. While in reality, they were destroyed, isolated and pretty much anyone else tried to live/survive. ODN's history during that time is one big episode of trying to cope with the powers at the time while trying to remain somewhat independent, and not get destroyed in the process. So no, a unipolar world has nothing to do whether there is someone opposing it, rather based on the sheer dominance of said power cluster alone. This should be evident by the fact that the only way tC for example was ultimately toppled was from within. There was always opposition, just not a relevant one. Only when tC slowly eroded and split, and then joined up with the small opposition, and was strengthened by alliances that cooperated with tC without direct membership (like ODN) could tC be toppled. Right now, we clearly are in a position where the only power that can oppose Supercomplaints is Supercomplaints. Naturally there are alliances around now as they always were that are either not part of the group or simply oppose it, but not in any position to pose a threat. WUT served the purpose to first protect NPO, and then take revenge and destroy any opposition. tC and 1V simply cemented what was already on the way. Considering how long this group lasted without actually having a relevant opposition, with all the fun stuff that occurred in the meantime, it's clear that opposition itself doesn't influence whether there is a unipolar or bipolar world. In todays times, I guess we will see how long Supercomplaints can stay entertained by such things like the attack on the red team before turning on itself at some point. The point where an opposition had influence on the state of SC was passed the moment of the polar betrayal. Considering what happened the last time during such a rule, things can become ugly for a long time before they get better, or indeed SC proves to be a coalition of convenience that moves apart quickly as there is no one left to band together for.

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1279751400' post='2383401'] Hmm, you're not really looking at it properly. It's a relatively objective way of looking at the world regardless of who is in 'power,' you're just adding your brand of bias. Read into it how you will, it's just saying that there is no unipolar world. This is hardly ground breaking analysis. [/quote] I never did claim I would make a breathtaking statement explaining the world to you. I simply gave my 2 cents on a topic I find interesting with my points of view obviously not being accepted universally. I can live with that, because like with CBs, there will never be one that is clear cut or universally accepted, rather always interpreted with personal bias and standpoints. Which is also fine imho. Maybe I should add that I was half-jesting anyways

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353'] Only by your own definition, you have no evidence to back this up other than "SG are, like, really strong." You can face 10 to 1 odds and there can still be two sides. There is always a two power pole in CN. When the former hegemony was in power, they had to manufacture enemies to stay united. The current SG hasn't done this, they are united because they genuinely see another power sphere. If they stop believing in that power sphere the world will be a unipolar one, and SG will fall apart. [/quote] This explains why all you guys from Super Complaints try so hard to make a loosely and now often not connected collection of alliances out to be your enemy waiting to stab you in back. Ironically, the only thing that let this lose collection unite for the last time during the last war was the idea (in my opinion completely true) that since the TPF scheme, you guys were out to get us because you weren't happy that Karma didn't completely destroy every of your enemies. Basically, it means those two groups only had some sort of cohesion because they were afraid of the other. If it helps you guys sleep better at night (to speak i Xiphosis words), "ex-hegemony" is dead, and since we got rolled as we feared it would happen anyways, we're passed caring about that as well