The Crimson King

It was an honor working with you all this past war. Thank you for the recognition Onwards and upwards my friends o/

Classy move here by LoSS We thank you for your assistance in this matter

Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure working with all of you over the span of Sanitarium's existence. Both the alliance, and her membership have been nothing short of a class act and it is a privilege to welcome you into our family. Also to echo what was mentioned in the OP, TPF's protection of the Sanitarium alliance and her membership will remain in effect for another 2 weeks from the date of this announcement

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1306818722' post='2721164'] Corinian, perhaps you should be a little bit more respectful, especially since TOOL is merging with an ally of yours. [/quote] Part of the joy of being allied to the Sith is listening to Sir Dop drop his nuggets of wisdom publicly on areas and topics of dispute regarding allies and friends. As always they are on point and clearly indicative of the outlook of not only their allies but also the alliance he represents. Or maybe they are just the musings of one who has his own opinion and can't but help share it with all of us

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1306816112' post='2721123'] The other side now formerly admits they are TOOLess....bout time [/quote] I must admit I find myself not only in awe of your fantastic play on the TOOL acronym but furthermore your stellar use of smug in a disbandment thread should also be applauded by all

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1306811754' post='2721063'] Great. Now who are we going to fight? Sad to see you go TOOL, but it was for the best. I hope ya'll have fun in TPF. [/quote] I believe this is the point where we brandish our swords, puff our our chests, and rise to you call out... Or perhaps just tip out hat in recognition of your kind words.

This is obviously a time for mixed emotions within TPF. TOOL has arguably been our staunchest ally for nearly 5 years. Our communities may have differed slightly, our leadership may not have always seen eye to eye on every topic, but in the end we always shared the same core values. Personally it saddens me greatly to see one of the alliances I have been closest to come to this decision, yet at the same time I am very happy to extend the offer to the members of TOOL and welcome them into the ranks of TPF. It has been an honor and a great privilege of mine to work with the TOOL over my years, and through this merge I only hope that TPF can live up to your memory. To the allies of TOOL we not only extend our thanks in your support in protecting your allies, but also pledge out protection over the TOOL alliance until their membership finds new homes. To the members of TOOL that have chosen to call TPF their new home, we welcome you with the greatest humility. It is an honor for us to welcome you into our family and together we hope to be able to have your legacy burn bright within our ranks. For the final time o/ TOOL

It was an honor to fight with you guys again. Good to see this finally completed

I am glad to see this finally wrapped up There were individuals on both sides of the fence who put in a lot of work to get this finished. I extend a thanks to those across the aisle who participated in the talks and worked tirelessly to represent their side and bring this to a close. To the alliances that fought on our side, I personally would like to extend a thank you to all of you for the trust you placed in both myself and TPF throughout the war in the role we took on. To our allies, I can only say thank you for staying the course with us. This was not your war, yet you remained true and went to hell and back for us, and there is no words that can express my gratitude for that. May everyone rebuild quickly, and may we all learn some lessons from this war that will help us put the past behind us once and for all.

Good to see this is taken care of

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1303539666' post='2697553'] [b]For those of us who bother to read the whole thing,[/b] I think it is rather obvious it was not written by anyone of consequence. [/quote] May your brave army of one always find shelter in these desolated lands...

[quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1303415690' post='2695766'] As the former leader of 64digits it might be better to focus your efforts on how you're gonna accomplish those reparation payments instead of nitpicking how many times we hail Allarchon. [/quote] Well technically speaking given that HoT has been stripped and banished from his own alliance the responsibility now falls on Tamerlane to deliver the 20k tech from 64D to MK.

And 5 minutes I will never get back has been wasted..

Thanks for all you have done guys, you have our eternal gratitude.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302479745' post='2688102'] I might be wrong, but from looking at MK's rankings, most of their nations in peace mode are nations who were brought down to those tiers after fighting. In regards to NPO precedent we're talking of nations who never exited peace mode. There's a slight conceptual difference even though you might not want to admit it. [/quote] I was talking about nations who never left PM. Look harder.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302473936' post='2688052'] First, you can pull the "you're not sure NPO was not going to enter" card all the time you want. [b]I am sure.[/b] My leaders were fairly sure too when they took the decision they took. That said, and once again, the reasons why this started are irrelevant for the way it ends. [/quote] My point had little to do with why this war started, but rather the fact that you are acting surprised that your choices and actions are speaking louder than your propaganda/words, and are thus going to be a much more accurate reflection of how this war is remembered, and how your role in it is portrayed. But by all means I will bite on the bolded. hell I have been asking Roq for 2 months now to put up or shut up with the proof on NPO's guarnateed entry. Now you are also claiming you are positive they were entering, so by all means I will extend the same offer to you. [quote] Second, this has a lot to do with pride sure, but it also has to do with not allowing the precedent of running for Peace mode to settle. If NPO wanted, this war would have been over 2 months ago. [/quote] When you try to set a precedent you should first make sure that you are also not guilty of the same thing you are rallying against. Case in point, tell MK to get the alliances in their mids out of PM that have been hiding there the entire war. Otherwise you are setting precedent all right, but it has nothing to do with peace mode. [quote] Third, it's my understanding - and as such, it might be wrong - that RoK threw their support behind the VE DoW on Polar and then pursued to turn around when the internal pressure kicked in. I am not exactly sure what it makes of them and their leaders, if weak or strong but stupid. Eitherway, they get more praise than they deserve. [/quote] And this also has zero to do with anything I posted, but thank you for making your opinion on RoK's approach to this war known.

Edit: Nevermind, this is getting off topic...taking it to PM.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302436498' post='2687796'] I am not making an argument because that is pointless. No one with a little bit of common sense would see us an hegemony. We do not have the capacity, the support nor the strength to oppress the whole Planet. [b]On the other hand we do have the capacity, support and the strength to make NPO surrender to our terms. But that, as far as it goes, makes us an hegemony over NPO (lol), not the Planet.[/b] [/quote] Technically this is accurate of any winner in any war that has ever been fought here. The winner always holds the upper hand in being able to dictate terms to the loser. It is in large part how they use that power that then defines them to the community. This was true of us when we were on top, and it is true of you now that you are. One of the reasons that RoK does not get grief from the community about the 2 wars they started since Karma, is that their actions showed they are smart enough to know when a war is won, and they will walk away at that point. Both the NSO and the TPF wars were ended after a short period of war, and in both cases were not escalated. RoK had their target, they took their swings, scored their punches, shook hands and left the ring. People can claim that the NSO war was really about NPO, and while no one doubts the wolves were waiting in the shadows frothing at the mouth for NPO's entry, RoK does have the ability to point to their actions in that war to swiftly discredit those accusations. Now if you can't see the difference between that and this war then you are either blind or being purposefully obtuse. Putting a double agent in play and planting info to give to an alliance (that just happens to be MDoAP with your allies) and then using it to roll them. Dragging another alliance into a war they had no involvement in via aggressive declaration, demanding reps from alliances multiple treaty chains out from the center of the conflict for an aggressive war you started, continuing a war over the "threat" posed by 19 total nations remaining in PM, peacing out the supposed main antagonist in this war (with white peace) so the actual supposed wronged party in this war (VE) can re-declare on other allies of NPO while peace was being discussed, and claiming they are doing so to "force" people to take the generous reps being offered by MK, and, as you said, refusing to back down from your demands out of nothing but pure spite so that you can show NPO who is really boss, are all actions that speak volumes about the bloc and the individual alliances still at war here. As both you and Bob have said, this is no longer about NPO being a threat, it is about proving a point. You are keeping people at war on both this side and your allies (who are still the ones with the bulk of the actual wars here, and yet are also the ones willing to walk away with white peace) over what ammts to nothing but simple pride. So yes you are making a point, and you are reinforcing that point every-time you roll out onto en mass on the forums telling everyone how badass DH is for still pursuing this. You "point" has been made crystal clear by now, and while it is certainly yours to make, your choices and actions will be what other people judge you on, and by some extension those alliances you are tied to and those still fighting for you. That is no different then when Q was on top, and it is eventually why some people decided it was time to distance themselves from us rather than get painted with the broad strokes of that same brush.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123'] Already said that NPO didn't have a treaty chain at the time because such an arrangment was actively facilitated. [/quote] So if someone facilitated a manner in which to keep them out of the war (like you said in your DoW) then that means they were going to enter the war...gotcha.. [quote] Preempting wouldn't have been necessary if unexpected actors didn't switch sides as the hand of NPO's allies would have been forced earlier. YOu've mentioned oA chains and that's one way of getting into a war despite not having any treaty link into it the night. All that has to be done is for one ally to use a defense clause to change the map drastically. [/quote] Which we have already covered. Should NPO have entered on an OA or MD or OD or piat or dusted off the Moldalvi Doctrine you were still in a position to not only counter, but basically take them out. For them to go in, their allies would of had to commit in some fashion, therefore removing the already limited back-up they did have on the pre-empt making your ability to take them down even easier. This is the simple fact of the lay of the land at that time. There is no way you can spin NPO's entry at that point into a "threat". So no, there was no way for the map to change drastically. [quote] The war wasn't going to be over until VE and co. felt they had done enough damage or achieved goal x, seeing as it still took time after the preempt for that front to peace out, rather than it peacing out right away. It didn't make sense for us to wait for NPO whenever it was ready given by that point, peace moding was already being implemented as a strategy and more nations would have gotten into PM by the tie any such declaration occurred. Not preempting would have allowed substantially more preparation. Most of the alliances that were pulled off the Polar front were fighting polar allies that were just sticking it out in a moral sense rather than it being an actual diversion of resources, so ODN for example sitting on UINE was never going to happen and having C&G stay on Polar solely wasn't going to make them quit sooner. The diehards for Polar were going to stay in until the end regardless of the fact that they could no longer cause damage so C&G being stationary would have had no inherent benefit whatsoever. It was completed in a numerical sense on the side fronts as NpO allies weren't in the best shape at that point, but peace hadn't been agreed to. [/quote] At the time you hit NPO the entire hand had played itself out on the Polar front. There were no other alliances that had yet to enter that would have changed the scope of that front. As you mention elsewhere CnG was lightly deployed and had the ability to move on to more pressing fronts (such as the iFok pile on) and other alliances on your side not in DH would have been more than able to handle any other alliances that may have entered at that point if any choose to do so. For all intents and purposes the chain of events played out over the first week and the war was basically over at that point. It came down to when VE et al wanted to offer Polar peace. Should NPO have entered they could not swing the tide...you still had the firepower out of the war to counter them. Which in turn gets back to the entire point that at the time there was no point in hitting them if the Polar war was the only objective here as is being claimed. The question you keep dancing around is this...why hit them at all. If they entered then you were in a far better strategic position to take them out then you would have been by preempting, if they did not enter and they would have been so open and prone post war for a take down then you would have been better getting them then. And no, no one is going to buy "they could have got to PM so we had to stop them from doing so". You have already shown that you will not simply walk away here and will fight a war of occupation until they release from PM, so preempt or not we would still be at this point. Of course you can try to sell that you used a lot of political capital and pissed off a lot of people with this move for what amounts to stopping another 10 or so nations in NPO from getting to peace than what they would have been able to get there when they entered via standard means, but that would even further make the expenditure seem worthless in that context given the situation you are facing now anyway. I would also argue that alliances like FoK and VE clearly see piling on an alliance that is still in a war for what amounts to morale purposes to be something they very much think is a worthwhile expenditure of resources. We need look no further than their current entry on this front to back that up. So one would think they would have appreciated CnG helping them to knock some sense into those alliances that still wanted to do something crazy like leave the field with their treaty partners and not beforehand. Afterall it is a technique that is used to draw a conflict to a close quicker, so one would assume it to be just as successful over there as over here. [quote] Not really. Like I've said before, NPO not entering entirely was not seriously considered because it would have made zero sense for them not to and there was enough reason to believe they would. To be honest, a war against NPO on virtually any CB even if it was incredibly stretched would have been popular. So if there was an assurance that NPO would not enter, it would not make sense to pursue them when you'd get less flak for going after them on anything seemingly traditional. Let's say instead of NpO of getting attacked based on the Lennox thing, it was NPO or if a similar thing had happened after the Polar war was over. Few people would give a !@#$ because NPO is substantially less popular than Polar. I mean I don't think you seem to understand what kind of things you could go after NPO on, even 6 million dollars in aid would be enough. So let's say NPO posts an announcement saying "we will not chain into anything," then there is no reason to hit them at that point because when NPO can get rolled on its own later on with less people caring because it wasn't tied to Polar getting hit which had already stirred bad feelings. There would be no incentive to do it. In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups. [/quote] This entire thing is the rehashed "they should be thankful we hit them now, cause they would have got rolled later" argument you have been pushing the whole war. First of all this is just dumb, period. So now any alliance that finds themselves not part of the "in crowd" should just go asking for someone to roll them because it is an eventuality regardless of what they do? I mean this exactly what you are pushing here. In fact every alliance ever rolled with a lousy CB was obviously disliked (otherwise they would not have been rolled) and by this twisted logic, they should all be thankful for that because people were just speeding up the inevitable for them. This argument also begs the question that if there were so many alliances frothing at the mouth for them that badly and they were willing to go so far as a "NoCB" war to fulfill this desire...why were they not hit in the year since they came out of terms? They would have been no more prone after the war then what they were before it, and yet no one moved on them up to this point. I do not doubt it would have taken a flimsy cb, like something crazy like them not taking kindly to a coordinated raid on their color sphere or something off the wall like that, but they still would have to take whatever bait was tossed at them.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302261964' post='2686701'] If you posit NPO as a random alliance, then what you say might check out. Ultimately, they were lining up to oppose us in a particular conflict and their treaty chains were being maneuveured in a strategic manner so they wouldn't have to enter until they were ready to do so.[b] Have they denied their potential participation as of yet? No, because to say they were going to definitively stay out wouldn't be something they could say in good faith.[/b] Otherwise, they could have followed NATO's route in a different conflict with a declaration of non-aggression if they were worried about getting hit despite being avowedly neutral to the conflict. [/quote] This again? You have been told numerous times that the reason no one (except yourself) can say with 100% certainty what one would have done is because unlike yourself we do not claim to be omniscient. There is no way for any of us to know what would have transpired had this played out since..well..you did not let it play out. I fail to see how this is so hard of a concept to grasp or one you still seem to try to spin into an admission of guilt by this side. The bottom line is that NPO had no treaty chain into the war at the time you hit. Period. There was no way FOR them to enter should they have wanted to. [quote] There was enough to go on and [b]hurting the overall war strategically by allowing it to drag out longer was not in our interests.[/b] It wasn't really proven false in an actual sense. It was denied that it was being done for the benefit of NPO, but not that it was actually happening in some sense. The only solid argument I've seen against doing it hasn't amounted to "NPO wasn't going to enter," but rather "NPO's treaty links hadn't been activated, but they would enter in case of their allies involvement." The issue with the latter is when the alliances that can bring NPO in are being positioned in a manner where they do not enter early on means either we play along with that strategy or attack them. After six days of playing along, it made more sense to just go in. So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency. [/quote] And once again this is where your whole argument really falls flat. As I pointed out in response to crymson a few pages back, DH was already in position and set up to hit NPO should they have entered. IF NPO chained in on an OA with an ally, or waited to counter a counter then they would be engaged on a primary front, and the whole of DH/FAN rolls in and takes them on the flank. It is the exact reason why DH was kept out of the war initially. The fundamental issue with your thinking as posted is that there is no logical reason whatsoever to say it was not in your interests to allow this to drag out. The polar front was already won based on the commitments you had there. You can't debate this fact since you already peaced that front out with just the commitments you had there at the time of your pre-empt. If this war was really about Polar then you and NPO playing the staring match would have allowed VE and co to roll up Polar..war is over. Should NPO entered, you were already positioned with the loaded gun to their head once they walked through the door, you simply pull the trigger....Polar war is over. Either way if rolling Polar was the goal of the war, then your ends were met. By preempting you did not help end the Polar war any faster. In fact, as I have told you numerous times, you escalated this front and there are currently alliances still fighting on it that would have never entered the war in any shape or form had it stayed with just Polar. You had to pull assets such as CnG off the Polar front prior to completion to help address this front or use assets such as TOP on this front exclusively (to counter alliances that would not even be in the war period had you not opened this front) that could have been deployed over there, which in turn would have drawn that conflict to a close faster, and had your allies and friends absorb less damage. Ultimately it can be argued that you in fact caused that front to drag out longer that it could or should have by this decision. The only reason whatsoever to actually open this front is not out of concern for NPO's entry but rather fear they were actually NOT going to enter. You sacrificed political capital, military position, assets, and what ammts to the proverbial high ground here, to push a line that would have been slaughtered should they have chosen to charge. As you already stated a post war environment would have seen NPO isolated and certainly not any threat. Sure you could of went after them...but that would mean dummying up another CB, and doing so so soon after this dog and pony show would not have been preferable. You wanted both Orders with one CB. You got one of them. That was not good enough. So lets dispense with the military planning spin at this point because if this was a pure military decision based on simply bringing the polar war to a close then it was a piss poor one. The only way you consider this outcome to be favorable is if the motivation for the war was this front in the first place. In that case then you have a success, but it also refutes every point and reason you have been providing for the war.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1302207933' post='2686284'] Saying that such is a "FACT" does not by itself make it a fact. That said, it would have been very easy for TPF, Legion etc. to declare [b]and for the NPO to ride in on an offensive aggression clause. [/b] [/quote] Which had they done so, then DH would of had them in the open where they wanted them all along. NPO coming in on an aggro while DH was not committed would have played right into their hand allowing them to hit them in the flank while it was exposed. I have heard a lot of reasons given for the preempt but this is the first time I heard anyone trying to pass off NPO chaining in on an aggro as part of "the threat they presented", given that DH has already said multiple times they would have preferred NPO to commit in any fashion prior to the preempt and were in fact trying to draw them out. Bottom line was DH was already in position to counter this should it have happened, therefore there was no threat posed by NPO in the scenario you are outlining.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1302133731' post='2685790'] So what was the longest announcement thread in history again? Gramlins around 260 or something? [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerishehL5.jpg[/img] [/quote] I was actually thinking earlier today if this thread had now surpassed the NPO peace mode thread from Karma in length (it is clear it has well surpassed it in mindless content) Alas I did not really care enough to actually go look for that one

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302127964' post='2685726'] Here we go again. DH has offered terms. Ergo DH wants the war to end. NPO has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue. [/quote] Is your side trying to purposefully parade someone out here every 2-3 pages of this thread making claims about the status of the peace negotiation process that are blatantly false? I am seriously starting to wonder if your governments are not informing you of the status of talks because the level at which you are clambering over each other to make claims and accusations that do nothing but show how little you actually know of what is going on is getting to the point of alarming.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302117172' post='2685607'] Your problem and the big issue with NPO is that you haven't understood yet that the war goes on not because of why it started but because of how it will end. And as soon as you figure that out, sit on the table to discuss the conditions for peace (and by conditions for peace that means negotiating something more reasonable than unconditional peace), the sooner we can all go home. [/quote] And as I said earlier, I suppose it is a good thing that no one on this side has taken a hard line stance on unconditional peace then. Why you guys feel the need to keep coming out here and trumpeting that when it is not the case is another question alltogether. But if you would prefer to talk about things you clearly know nothing of then by all means you are free to do so. Also I somehow doubt us actually sitting [b] on [/b] the table will expedite the peace process, but I could be mistaken

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302103743' post='2685506'] This war was started because [i]someone[/i] asked too many questions... [/quote] To the contrary, on many levels it was started because certain persons did not ask enough...