[Rush's thoughts on various alliances.... Wartime edition....]

Your statement was vague so I'll do my best to respond to it. IRON's diplomatic missteps were their own to make and they are responsible for them. Their incompetence during that war has little to do with the rest of us- nor should it reflect poorly on the rest of the participants.

In terms of targeting, IRON volunteered for the CnG front, they refused GATO as a target, and TLR was settled on at their preference. That IRON took flack for this was not part of our calculation, or something we particularly cared about. It was IRON's job to consider such things and IRON apparently didn't. That they didn't follow through in that front and allowed 90% of your alliance to get to peace also reflects poorly on them and further contributed to the flack they got form our side (mainly from the people that were fighting along side them). So here I would affirm your false alternative yes IRON in this instance was either staffed by fools, or was completely duplicitous (to honesty both sides of the war). In either case they were not set up to fail, they chose to fail.

In terms of LoSS again this was a matter of helping an alliance affiliated with the coalition to avoid an uncomfortable diplomatic situation. The problem was raised for discussion it floated around and ultimately it was executed without a real go ahead. IRON's characteristic absence on IRC ended up screwing them here as they failed to contribute to the discussion- they failed to make their own particular interests well known and they failed to weigh in. IRON's response was impulsive, it was rightly criticized, but it blew over after they had reaffirmed their affiliation. They were not here set up to fail, they were simply not around, and because of that the state of their unique situation was not part of the conversation.

IRON was one alliance among many, each with their own treaties and each with their own interests to balance, that IRON failed to be attentive and make their challenges known is something they themselves are to blame for. You said it yourself several years ago before EQ: IRON as an alliance is systematically incapable of taking responsibility for their mistakes, they are pathologically reactive, and they blame others before examining themselves. You were right then, and I was wrong. Their behavior in that war, and their narrative after are simply one more item in that catalog you started.

IAT, I doubt that IRON will say that they didn't screw up in that war.. but, the facts are that the coalition apparently took every measure to make sure that they ended up looking bad. Blaming the LoSS declaration to coincidence requires that people should be able to trust the word of TOP but it ends becoming a "he said.. she said" argument. The history of TOP and the fact that you guys have historically been good with realpolitik makes it difficult to take your word for it.

It might be just me but I find it difficult to associate incompetence with TOP.

IRON's declaration on TLR was indeed a bad choice and based on my interactions with their membership, that was one of the reasons for the lack of support from membership and bad performance in the war. Then again, since TOP seems to have a lot of inside knowledge about IRON membership and govt, you probably know about it more than me.

[Rush's thoughts on various alliances.... Wartime edition....]

I think he meant that claiming incompetence will not get them anywhere.