Earl Dumarest

[quote name='Naomh Fionnbharr' date='07 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1265553605' post='2166799'] The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round [/quote] I approve of this message

Sadly, it looks as if we need to remind WAPA members posting in this thread of our policy towards the war, which is on public display here; http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 . [quote]4. If we do enter the conflict we will be doing so purely for the sake of our friends we have previously agreed to help. We have no axe to grind and [color="#FF0000"][i][b]no wish to re-open old wounds [/b][/i][/color]or cause new ones.[/quote] I have highlighted an important part in the quotation above. All WAPA members are therefore ordered to refrain from posting disrespectful comments in this thread, and to further refrain from arguing about the events of the Karma war.[b] This is official order from your government[/b]. I would also like to request that any non-WAPA posters also respect that policy. Now, for some possibly unpleasant facts. 1. TFD did NOT surrender in the Karma war. They had a white peace. 2. WAPA was not responsible for that peace. FOK can probably take the credit. 3. I personally fought against several TFD targets during the Karma War and found them to be fine opponents. 4. I like TFD, and find it an immense shame that we are once again pitted against each other, but their decision to engage us cannot be faulted.

[quote name='suryanto tan' date='05 February 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1265356462' post='2161175'] Suppose today, TOP/IRON is winning the war with overwhelming odds, will you still enter the war against them via your optional aggression pact? Can I safely assume that you will stay true to your principle despite of being in the losing or winning side of the war? [/quote] I would hope so, although a defensive entry would have been preferable. Obviously I am not happy at the reactions people have posted here. We felt we were dealing with possible conflicting treaties by picking a side, and sticking to it, in a similar way to how NEW did in the previous war. A difference was that we posted our notice in a public area of our own board, rather than risk being trolled on the OWF. Was that wise?

[quote name='suryanto tan' date='05 February 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1265355335' post='2161140'] I think it is only fair if we give you a benefit of the doubt that your entrance to the war on that side is for a good reason. Is it because the aggression by TOP/IRON against CnG is so against your sense of justice that you decided to fight against them? Or perhaps it is because the war is against your principle and is against your interest? Most people will point at you and assume that you have chosen to enter that side because it is the winning side, but I would rather not assume and ask a question here. [/quote] See here; http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 .

Mods, please lock this. It has served its purpose.

[quote name='Bower3aj' date='05 February 2010 - 05:54 AM' timestamp='1265349289' post='2160714'] hello there. I am from the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. We have no treaty with you. [/quote] Correct; I must apologise on behalf of Hassman. The list he posted is our friends, not our allies. There is some overlap, of course, and he *is* easily confused.

[center][img]http://api.ning.com/files/qqA5684D-gtWU0A1W0qCimOAVRtr5sdZNhM7I4TwfJr2Akj2ly0XFtZ8DeTsv34rtb28pKtCmkJH*QfXBIM418pE18bCuSZS/TheScottishFlag.jpg[/img][/center] "We hereby enter with the Optional Agression clause of our MDoAP with 1 Touch Football against the alliance of NATO" To NATO Good luck and have fun. [u][b] Signed on behalf of We Are Perth Army:[/b][/u] Andymac64 Burnsey Earl Dumarest We will stand strong. EDIT: Mods, please lock this. It has served its purpose.

This is a welcome announcement. Thank you, NEW.

I can confirm that yes NEW did talk to us before posting this. Perhaps it's curious that anyone who isn't from TPF, WAPA, TOOL or FEAR feels qualified to comment on the announcement. I cannot speak for the other allies but can confirm that WAPA's friendship with NEW has not been in any way diminished by this. If anything, this is a brave stance that deserves increased respect. NEW seem to have a good grasp of the bigger picture. They know who is really "ruining the game".

Anyone who reads the OP as a Declaration Of Neutrality really ought to go and re-read it!

Yes, that makes perfect sense!

You list WAPA with a date of December 12, 2006, and yes, some other sources do also quote that date, however they are clearly wrong. Look at the alliance seniority dates of these 3 members... http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55225 http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55722 http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=56240 This evidence shows that WAPA has been in continual existence since at least 23 October 2006.

Burnsey's successor as Blueheaven editor lasted less than a day in the job. He took one look at the previous issues, realised he couldn't match the awesomeness, and ran off a screaming gibbering wreck. From there, things went downhill...

We can't talk about blocs, without mentioning that the one we feel closest to is AZTEC. Of those you mentioned, we like C&G, and Superfriends. Citadel? Who?

Yes, we still have a core of members who were in \m/ and remember that time fondly, myself included

I have a compromise. You could let her ride the bomb, Dr Strangelove fashion. Then we'd all be happy.

Those wars were a long time ago, before the majority of our present day members joined us. We are a changed alliance now, and have made huge efforts to move forward. Our foreign policy objectives are aimed towards closer ties with all alliances on the White sphere. This means that for the majority of our members, and as far as our official position goes, we bear no ill-will towards STA. That said, our members are free to hold their own opinions, and I would be surprised if there were not some among us who have longer memories and are less willing to forget what happened.

This is clearly not an alliance announcement. Why is it still here? Even I am more qualified than this Jack, whoever he is, to write anything at all, about the NAAC in any incarnation.

That last nation at the end of the chain is known to WAPA. He claimed to be a leader of his previous alliance. I can show you the calibre of the guy; We were so scared!

This is all good Did I see someone say "epic fail"? Well yes, those words do apply to the original EPIC, however the guys we are protecting are the new EPIC Nations.

Camping - A sign that a nation is sledding, or is improvement swapping, i.e. it has multiple labor camps to keep the bills down. Example: "He's 18 days inactive, but it's OK, he's camping".

AC: Aircraft Carrier

A Foreign Airforce Bace is a FAB, not a FAFB. Needs multi and gravedigging.

LOL, trying to get rid of us? Just kidding, I know that that's not so

I'm not sure it's even possible to just announce the dropping of one article, in one of our two treaties, as a way of doing this. The Treaty of Aschaffenburg contains a lot more than just a team senate voting arrangement. It is however true that we have agreed with TGE to end that team senate voting arrangement.