Benjamin Arouet

Oh yah SOM, cause sorry is going to save us from nuclear apocalypse. Also, lovin' that sexy treaty.

Pshht it's okay, we know what matters... we'll just have to keep this race going all the way to the top, then they can't ignore us. Also, the stats were a few points off, we're back up by .03 Edit: (sp)

Pshht, who needs a "what if?" version? To war I say! The similarity in stats is pretty amusing/remarkable, though.

Pshht, always neglected, even on the rare occasions we do take biggest gainer. Just remember, one day, we'll nuke you all. CSN

Already expressed this to you destro, but figured I'd post it here as well. It's always a shame when a venture like this doesn't work out as planned, but it was great being friends with The Republic for the whole ride and we're very happy to welcome everyone into the Commonwealth who wants to come.

Funny, what Karma's been saying is that the point of surrender terms is that they get precisely what they want. Last I checked, Karma is one side, and moreover is the victorious side. The post you're quoting says that the point of surrender terms is not that both sides get exactly what they want, implying that it is an unequal relationship, which it is. If you lose a war, you also lose the right to dictate your own surrender terms. The response you quote does not, as you suggest, imply that Karma must compromise. Rather, it implies that at least one side must cave in negotiations, namely the NPO. This should be obvious considering he says "Your government of all people should be well aware of that," referring to the fact that the NPO has acknowledged this unequal relationship and used it to their advantage numerous times. I do concede that it's a lot easier to argue your case if you intentionally misconstrue other peoples arguments, but that doesn't make it right.

Uh... If you wanted an alliance that abhors terms which nudge their enemies towards disbandment, you picked the wrong one. I know it's awfully unfair to have the past practices of your own alliance applied against you, but I think you're just going to have to deal with it. Also, this argument that you're more deserving of life than the communities you destroyed is ridiculous and is NOT doing NPO any favors in this thread. If your leaders presented the same argument, they'd get twice the rep demands they've already received.

Look, I've talked to USN leaders about this thread, and we've both agreed that we want it to die. Now, if you've read anything in this thread, you know that relations are somewhat strained between us, so us coming together to say even that much at this point is something. So congratulations, I suppose, for keeping the dialog going. At the same time, I'd ask you (as well as deja, sorry man this thread has run its course) and everyone else without something ORIGINAL and COMPELLING to add to this thread at this point to just respect the wishes of all the governments involved and let it die. Everyone has said their piece. I know USN isn't asking anyone to continue arguing on their behalf, because they've already gotten their words in and their government has already told us they've had enough with the thread. So stop. All the points and sides have been elaborated on, lets just take a step back. At this point, any attempts to continue the thread with such a negative tone are meddling in the future potential for relations between USN and CA signatories, which are more than I think many understand. To address your post specifically in an attempt to clean this up: CA is not attempting to slander USN. If you'll look at it, many if not all of the examples you're using come from NON-LEADERSHIP folks, and many in NON-CA alliances. We cannot control what these people say, please stop equating it with policy. No one wants USN off Maroon, yes there are some hard feelings about the manner of their exit but no one wants to force them back into CA. Any suggestions otherwise are false. Now for the love of admin, respect the wishes of all involved parties and LET THIS THREAD DIE. If there were a way to request threads to be locked still, this one would be.

I suppose pointing out that NPO nations must check in once every 20 days wouldn't convince you that the idea that the 90% thing is unfulfillable due to seasonal inactivity is ridiculous?

Why would they?

This has been rebutted several times. Stop saying it.

VE also has no particular reason to be very interested in keeping its nations in war mode right now so long as it has enough there to fulfill its needs. Even if NPO couldn't get 90% in war mode, they have the option of removing those members from their ranks. Also, allow me to express my skepticism that NPO would have difficulty communicating with those nations if white peace were suddenly to be declared and their funds were needed for rebuilding.

Your accusations seem to get more ridiculous by the thread, no matter which alliance you're flaming. I may not particularly agree with the necessity of some of these terms, but the fact is that the facts about VE you reference are totally irrelevant. Clearly the Karma alliances want NPO to stop keeping some of its top nations in peace mode and let them take damage. Applying that to VE is ludicrous because they're not on the losing side of the war and therefore their putting people into peace mode is not motivated by the same reasons. Victorious nations have the right to make demands before they give peace. What you're saying is equivalent to: "VE didn't pay reps for winning the conflict, so why should NPO pay them for losing it? Hypocrites!" See how silly that sounds? It's how silly your assertions are.

Ah, we really do have the whole supporting cast around! If nothing else positive comes out of this thread, its nice to see a lot of old friends from USN throughout the ages.

I think I would define the essential question of many as more: "Why USN? There was no reason." I don't want to get too nitty gritty here, but I think one of the reasons for this attitude is that rodrod and perhaps others have stated in this thread and in private that the reason was to avoid conflicting treaties. I still don't see a specific conflict between CDT and CA, and certainly I don't see how anything has changed between these groups in the recent past. You're obviously not required to explain your reasoning beyond that, but this confusion is where a large part of the question descends from, imho. I think Freelancers screenshot, however inappropriate it may be, illustrates this perfectly. USN felt the need to choose between CA and CDT, but what is still unknown is why they suddenly felt this need, as we certainly didn't feel there was the same level of conflict between the treaties as they apparently did. Regardless, it's very sad for me. And directed to everyone else: I don't think it's possible to comprehend how close USN and CSN were at one point. Disappointment can easily be confused for anger, but we really do hope USN can find their place in the world after all of this. We may not agree with the decision made here, but we do accept it, and wish our old friends good luck. Edit: Also thank you popsumpot, and thanks for listening. At this point all anyone can hope for is calm dialog, proper reflection, and a happier future.

Everyone here from Maroon knows why. It's not the fact that they're Maroon, it's the specific circumstances of the case. I'm fairly calm, and I try my best to be respectful. I understand that you are defending your allies even if you don't know the full story. I would just advise you to be careful with the direction of some of these responses as passions are high and I don't think anyone wants this thread to get more ugly than it is already, but that is the direction it's going. There aren't expectations for any Maroon alliance, but there is room for disappointment with one whose reasons for backing away are maybe not as pure as you're trying to insinuate. Also, while it's their call and they are sovereign, there is no right for an alliance to be immune to criticism of their actions. That part comes with sovereignty, and in my opinion this is an action worth at least some criticism (though I think some have also taken it too far.)

It's a passionate color, what do you want from us? In many of the situations I know it's difficult because, as I've seen, someone posts a mildly critical post, USN responds, they feel the USN response is insufficient and they respond. Even in this situation, there is some dirty laundry which doesn't belong out in public, so while USN and the CA alliances know what's being talked about, outsiders likely do not. Perhaps none of it should be said in the first place, but its a messy situation. I think most CA alliance members are in agreement on where the majority of the mess originates, and what I really think you're seeing here is how much Maroon cares about USN. If we (as in Maroon) did not care about them, we wouldn't be so hurt and angry by a new FA course which we believe is a result of a situation that the USN we've known the past 2 1/2-3 years should never have found themselves in. The discussion you're seeing is a passionate representation about how much both CA leaders and ex-USN members still care about the direction the alliance takes, and how sad this situation has made us all. Edit: Also hey Freelancer, long time no see indeed.

I understand completely what you guys are saying, and if my sole impression of the incident or incidents leading up to this was from this thread, I'm sure I would feel the same. That said, you are completely wrong (though as I emphasized you could not know that). There are many things that have been going on in the past weeks and months leading up to this that have gone unsaid because they are private business and, while we may be publicly criticizing USN here, there are many things which most of us on Maroon have too strong feelings for them as friends still to say out loud. Suffice to say that what is being said here is not the full story. Maroon alliances have long shared a bond, at least at leadership level, that I think is shared by no other sphere. There are many people being extremely critical because, I think, we know so much about each other, and therefore know too much about USNs decision to fully accept the reasoning given by some in this thread for their actions. I would encourage anyone that has not spent time in the Maroon circle of leadership who is reading this to be careful judging anyone who has, USN members included, because odds are you're commenting with insufficient information at your disposal. Anyways, just my own 2 cents.

I badly wish this move had never become necessary. Good luck on your revised course USN, whichever direction it may lead.

It's true, she was.

Jees, another bizarre treaty with the unnecessarily lengthy signatures of our prestigious government members on it? You'd think they were having delusions of grandeur, perhaps brought on by some hallucinogenic material, maybe even something fo... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD Cheers to our new protectorates, may your hypnosis have more sway on the decisions of CSN's leaders than the pitiful pleas of the downtrodden masses. o7 Angelite o7 CSN o7 Hypnotoad

Wouldn't want people getting the wrong impression is all.

My sincere apologies... That is obviously not permitted, as attacking anyone without permission from the government is absolutely forbidden, but everyone gets their share of overeager idiots from time to time.

I understand what you're saying, however I feel that an alliance that has been unjustly called out on the main boards by a single nation without any consultation with their government has a right to be a bit miffed at the person if all of their accusations turn out be flatly inaccurate. Threads like this, if they are taken seriously (which fortunately this one was not) tend to do significant damage to reputations, and should not be made after one glib conversation with another alliances government and none with your own. Such action amounts to no less than libel. While there's nothing to particularly stop libelous accusations on Planet Bob, I believe any alliance has the right to confront such accusations defensively, and to point out all the flaws in their verbal assailants arguments. Also, we don't make serious threats, while I haven't seen anything that could be construed as a threat in this thread, if it was uttered I'm sure it was in jest. CSN has been to war 3 times in 3 years, we're not exactly looking for an excuse to go pound on any little guy, our own personal joking around aside. As someone whose been with us for quite a long time, I take comparisons to the "Hegemony" personally, and will do whatever I can to assure you that you have misinterpreted our behavior.

Err.... I don't get it? We made no threats, GDA and CSN are both happy about how all issues brought up in this thread were resolved and are simply addressing the concerns of one disgruntled member jointly. We have refuted all the evidence provided numerous times, with confirmation from GDA officials. Unless you're implying that Rajistani is the "opponent" that you refer to several times here, you're totally off base. CSN and GDA government have nothing but respect for each other as has been emphasized numerous times by both governments IN THIS THREAD. I guess I could make a list myself though: Apparent inability to read the thread and take stock of all facts presented - done! Selected ignorance of evidence presented which refutes the original statements - done! Desire to make a complete non-issue between two governments into something that it isn't - done! Extreme stretching of the facts in order to compare them to the supposed evils of the former Hegemony - done! Criticism of the alliances involved made clearly without knowledge of either party in pursuit of your own geopolitical agenda - done! See, making lists of the evils of your "opponent" is so easy anyone can do it! BAD CSN.