kingthero

You know what, time to make another post, emphasizing a previous point. It seems to be a fact by now that this war is being driven almost 100% from the original point. You know what? Lets just take this from a noone gives a f side of things. Act I: Tanner Joe, a well known town farmer and leathersmith, walks into a bar. This bar is open to different types of people, from farmers to lawyers to doctors. Joe sits down at a barstool and meets up with the town doctor,Kyle, and lawyer,Steve. Joe: Howdy partners! *It is obvious this farmer is faking this kindness* Kyle: Hello... Joe: So how does my health go? Kyle: Well... At the moment it is alrig....... Joe: At the moment! What do you mean by this? *Steve is sitting there, smirking, while Kyle is up to something* Kyle: So aside from your health, I want to talk about your west side fence... Joe: Whats wrong with farmer john? Steve: It seems to me that your west fencing extends to far north! Joe: WHY DO YOU GIVE A DARN IF MY FENCE IS ONE MILLIMETER TO FAR! THE FENCE WOULD BREAK IF I TRIMMED IT FURTHER! Kyle: One millimeter? Seems to me like you sure like talking about how *big* your farm is. Steve: Well, I am the lawyer to present a case in favor on my client Mr. Kyle, and I am obviously giving you both a fair attempt to explain your sides. Joe: Well, due to the marvelous homestead act of 1946, I am allowed to unknowingly be in a foot of accidental ownership of land. Kyle: Didn't you just tell me exactly how far you were in my territory, even if underexagerated? Why are you trying to justify your fencing if you already know its wrong? Joe: Just because it is wrong does not mean you have to threaten my health! Steve: According to me, it seems that you were the one being hostile at your comment toward Kyle first. These talks keep on going and almost turn into yells, maybe everyone at the bar to want to break and a bottle and start making their own hateful comments in the situation. Take the story how you want it, but its an original. Can't beat an original can we? On a real note, is it possible that we can have peace talks based on the actual issue and not everyone's personalities? Also seems to me some people are not taking peace seriously, so will this ever end? No, but at least we can sign an armistice like NK did with America (Indirect reference to a "Meh" analogy) Edit: Armistice in this situation could be called peace but obviously people never forgive old tensions

Alright, this is another moment where I feel like I just want to get my opinion out there. Yup, its Bernie from SNX, and I heard today Bernie endorsed Clinton and dropped out... quite sad; kinda ruins my name. But, here is where I see it. 1. Illegitimate squabbles- While I do see some reason from both sides in this matter, I admit I see both sides making exaggerated comments past the justification they bring. 2. Legit talks- It seems to me that things were going well, and then all the sudden someone fired a red flare at a bull. It does seem that while SNX was "protecting" its allies at Scotland, it seemed to have gone from a legitimate claim to a cocky situation. After examining the logs from both sides, it does seem that SNX did "trigger" the hostile interactions between both sides. And don't get me started by asking for proof; this is my examination, not a lawyer's prosecution. It seemed to me like this conflict arose from a salty ocean in the wrong side of town. 3. War vs Peace- War was justified, but in one of the wrongest of ways. It seems to have started because one person got out of hand and declared. THIS SEEMS TO BE DRIVEN SO MUCH FURTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL CAUSE! I think it is absurd that one side was making war threats and it was also absurd how much our side flipped out because of it. War threats, while serious, should not be blown out of proportion. Kinda a crap analogy I am about to make, but do you think just because North Korea makes threats to the almighty cocky U.S they declare war? No... My final conclusion is that the war should not be a war. Peace talks should have kept going, and both sides should have had cool minded diplomats in a room talking it out without the excess people in the situation. I feel if 1 diplomat from every alliance were in a room, more could get done in 5 minutes then leaders from both sides could get done in days. Now listen: I think that alliances fighting over casus bellis well organized may be necessary...But it seems to me that while the casus belli originally brought up could have met this, the talks following ruined it. 4. Scotland's Treaty- I feel like the peace deal was alright, except for the part where they wanted to change a tech deal system, and partially the apologetic part, and maybe bits and pieces of everything else that I wouldn't agree with but its not worth argueing. Now, I feel like tech deals between nations should stay between the nations. If they are really that bad, then why are the members not leaving the alliance? Do you think they'd get attacked for "abandoning"? Probably, maybe not though. I feel if the person left the alliance with a reasonable forum post, then just let the person go. I personally wouldn't ever attack someone that left my alliance unless it was under certain circumstances of hostility towards others of the alliance. Now apologies: while this is a simple concept, sometimes its taken a bit to far. Simple enough. 5. Economic downfalls- You know what this war destroys? Not just warchests, but months of economy. War is interesting, but not when it comes to a fact where it is minimally justified. Both sides could benefit from not doing the war... Think about it, if this war is not highly justified, then why fight a war other than for pure destruction? If you are an alliance about pure destruction, which I know some MEMBERS of alliances are, then go right ahead. But I know for a fact no alliances here's goals are for unreasonable wars. 6. Me- Just don't even try to propagandalize me (nice word I made) about this situation. I look at whats brought before me, not after I already make my decision. Final thought: Since both sides have brought bad attitudes to this thing, I say we as a community rethink the decisions made. Lets bring back up diplomacy once the pot has boiled so all the salt stays behind. From this situation I can not even choose a side; so for this moment I am in no wars luckily because I am in peace mode (I did get orders yes, but I don't want to fight in something I don't believe in.) I will defend my alliance if it gets out of hand due to loyalty, but for the start of this war I will remain indifferent.

Alright, here are my thoughts on this (Yes, I just made a forum account for this thread). This shadow that has been drawn between our two prosperous nations has only accomplished pain and misfortune. It seems like loads of formal hogwash from both sides trying to sound like the better man, but you guys are not just both the single spokesperson of your alliance. Making assumptions of your own alliances through time has just made even your own alliance members disgusted of what actions have become. I personally have enjoyed SNX for the economic prosperity it brings to me and other nations; so much so I take part in administrating it. When we went to war last, economics went down the hole and it was a length of pain for what, Prestige? Prestige should not rule an alliance; an alliance should be run by a community working together... Not a formality shadow fight between alliances. Cut the crap... Many of us just want to work together and are up to fight wars that are valid and have an appropriate casus belli. Why ruin our economies for scrutiny and prestige, when we can fight actual wars that result from legitimate reasons instead of this fight.