A joint CD, MK and TOP announcement

[Lusitan]

[quote name='bedeur' timestamp='1301057810' post='2675996']
You absolutely didn't break the terms and fully complied to the peace treaty we all signed. But might makes right and of course nobody expected MK and TOP to actually be honest and respectable about it. Congrats on sticking with NSO and I'm sorry you had to bite the bullet on this forced and ridiculous apology.
[/quote]

Technically they did, but not because of what Lord Brendan said.

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='bedeur' timestamp='1301074578' post='2676127']
Of course you did.



Good enough?
[/quote]


[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1301074665' post='2676128']
Your government's signature is on these terms.
[/quote]

You're absolutely right. Our signatures are on the terms because [i]this time[/i], they are surrendering to us. Where in any of that does it include TOP in the aforementioned debate on whether or not CD broke terms? Sorry if my earlier phrasing was poor.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote]
3) Carpe Diem will issue an apology to the signatories of its surrender on the Polar-Viridian Front and to the Mushroom Kingdom for its breach of terms.

[...]

Signed for The Order of Paradox:
GrandMaster Jenko
Grand Chancellor Timberland
Grand Hospitallar Skygreenchick
[/quote]
I don't see where they apologized to TOP... so, please, don't pull TOP into this only because it's cool to make TOP responsable for everything. From our side it was like Richard Rahl said: they attacked MK, we defended MK per treaty, we granted white peace afterwards.

I don't know how happy CD would have been if we stopped the whole process denying our signature under this treaty. So, please call out CD for signing this thing before calling out TOP.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1301029958' post='2675785']
Taking reps is now CSNesque? Even though CSN has done it only once through the entire history? Interesting.[/quote]

My sig pretty much says everything I have to say about taking reparations at this stage of the conflict. If you are insulted, so be it.

As for CSN only taking "reps" only once in its history...is that why the amount you demanded initially was so high? Making up for lost "wages"?

You people end this war as you feel necessary. It's a head shaker now to any outside observer.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1301085015' post='2676285']
My sig pretty much says everything I have to say about taking reparations at this stage of the conflict. If you are insulted, so be it.

As for CSN only taking "reps" only once in its history...is that why the amount you demanded initially was so high? Making up for lost "wages"?

You people end this war as you feel necessary. It's a head shaker now to any outside observer.
[/quote]

That's terrific, you're against reps. I'm not insulted by saying we're bad or anything because we took reps, I actually find it humorous considering the source.

Nope. Not the reason at all.

[Walker Texas Ranger]

I don't happily accept these terms, but I trust our government to have made the decision with due consideration.

Congratulations to all of CD and thank you. Those of us who were in peace mode will make sure you are reimbursed for your efforts.

[Rhizoctonia]

Congrats on peace for all

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1301074844' post='2676131']
Technically they did, but not because of what Lord Brendan said.
[/quote]

Do explain then. It seems like a pretty straightforward violation to me.

MK's attacks on NSO began before those terms were signed if that's what you're referring to.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1301099738' post='2676499']
Do explain then. It seems like a pretty straightforward violation to me.

[b]MK's attacks on NSO began before those terms were signed if that's what you're referring to.[/b]
[/quote]

Oh never mind, I misinterpreted what you said. That's what I meant.

[HellAngel]

I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.

[Cairna]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]
Luckily we don't care. Those we needed to know the full story know.

[Uranus]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]

The best advantage ever! Surrendering to MK and paying 18k tech in reps while keeping our top nations in peace mode so we didn't do that much damage. Man did we ever turn the tide of war or even accomplish that much. If you think we did this for "tactics" or you have some weird thought we were going to win I guess I don't know what to say to you at this point. Also for the record we knew no other allies would be joining us in this so no it wasn't some backhanded way to get Aztec back involved and after our falling out I would hope you could see this was the case also. So you're wrong but you sound pretty hurt about it so there is probably no reason to go any further with it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]
Can you flesh out your opinion for me? I'm not seeing it.

[Heft]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]
Your opinion is dumb and you should feel bad for holding it.

Also, let's just pretend I said something witty about a TOP member criticizing others for supposedly seeking tactical advantages rather than doing the right thing.

[Kubla Khan]

o/ CD
Congrats on peace and standing up for what you see as right

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Tactical advantage? What? CD came into a losing war to help out two of its closest friends with the knowledge that they'd be getting harsh terms. How exactly is that gaining a "tactical advantage?"[/color]

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]


...What

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1301298648' post='2678957']
[color="#0000FF"]Tactical advantage? What? CD came into a losing war to help out two of its closest friends with the knowledge that they'd be getting harsh terms. How exactly is that gaining a "tactical advantage?"[/color]
[/quote]

Get back in your cage and start belly dancing or else it gets the hose [i]again[/i].

[Bionic redhead]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1301298648' post='2678957']
[color="#0000FF"]Tactical advantage? What? CD came into a losing war to help out two of its closest friends with the knowledge that they'd be getting harsh terms. How exactly is that gaining a "tactical advantage?"[/color]
[/quote]

Simple. Nobody expects the Carpe Diem inquisition.

[img]http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/tt2.jpg[/img]

Our chief weapons were surprise, nobody expected us to go back to war, and fear of our massive 2.5 million NS ... Our two weapons are fear and surprise ... and ruthless efficiency, by not having any gov online when we originally planned to attack. Our three weapons are fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency ... and a fanatical devotion to ensuring nobody outstupids us. Our four ... amongst our weaponry are such elements as fear, surprise .. dammit, I'll start again.

...

Nobody expects the Carpe Diem inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to ensuring nobody outstupids us, and an awesome pony on our war flag ... oh damn.

[Varianz]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1301150837' post='2677149']
I lost all respect for CD throughtout this. If you want to do the "right thing" dont accept peace in the first place.

You didnt do this to do the right thing, you did it to gain a tactical advantage.
[/quote]
Trying way, way too hard.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1301028439' post='2675722']
Nope, it was considered a violation. Go read the thread.
[/quote]
The terms clearly stated that if someone declares war against their allies ("or equivalent") after the surrender was posted, that CD (or anyone on that list) could enter to defend their ally. That line was completely pointless to include if it held no meaning behind it, which is the running argument held by your side.

Edit: for reference:
[quote]2. The parties of NV, GLOF, WAPA, Colossus, Quantum, AB, CD, TFD, NATO, TNG, TPC, and DDM agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO. [b]These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted.[/b][/quote]

Edited March 28, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[Cairna]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1301351823' post='2679400']
The terms clearly stated that if someone declares war against their allies ("or equivalent") after the surrender was posted, that CD (or anyone on that list) could enter to defend their ally. That line was completely pointless to include if it held no meaning behind it, which is the running argument held by your side.

Edit: for reference:
[/quote]

Can we please not?

[img]http://picchore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/greatest-picture-ever.jpg[/img]

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301179225' post='2677528']
Can you flesh out your opinion for me? I'm not seeing it.
[/quote]
Not that I speak for him, but I believe what he means is that to peace out and then redeclare is a cheap trick to gain a military advantage, not some kind of moral decision. Even had there been no explicit text in the treaty forbidding it, everyone knows that it's against the spirit of the agreement.

When they claim 'doing the right thing' as justification for the stunt, they are implying that when they peaced out the first time they did so intending to stay out of the war. And then that they subsequently changed their minds and decided to return to the war later on. When the obvious truth is that they had no intention of leaving the war at all, and simply wanted to gain a significant advantage in the war by betraying the people who'd just peaced out on them.

If you or they don't have a problem with them breaking their word and betraying the agreement with the alliances they surrendered to, that's fine by me. However, don't you think the people who's agreement they broke, or the people who they subsequently attacked, will want a bit more than just their word that they wont do it again (especially when they literally just did it a week or so ago)?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1301358107' post='2679487']
Can we please not?
[/quote]
I have to, I have to see by what breed of fringe logic Roq figures that only certain parts of the terms apply. I mean, maybe it's just from a "I have a bigger stick, so I can make the terms mean whatever I feel like!" perspective, I don't know. All I know is that the claims being made are not in line with what the terms clearly read, and that CD did not break them.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1301358748' post='2679494']
Not that I speak for him, but I believe what he means is that to peace out and then redeclare is a cheap trick to gain a military advantage, not some kind of moral decision. Even had there been no explicit text in the treaty forbidding it, everyone knows that it's against the spirit of the agreement.

When they claim 'doing the right thing' as justification for the stunt, they are implying that when they peaced out the first time they did so intending to stay out of the war. And then that they subsequently changed their minds and decided to return to the war later on. When the obvious truth is that they had no intention of leaving the war at all, and simply wanted to gain a significant advantage in the war by betraying the people who'd just peaced out on them.

If you or they don't have a problem with them breaking their word and betraying the agreement with the alliances they surrendered to, that's fine by me. However, don't you think the people who's agreement they broke, or the people who they subsequently attacked, will want a bit more than just their word that they wont do it again (especially when they literally just did it a week or so ago)?
[/quote]
I think the heart of the issue lays in your last paragraph. The agreement was worded wildly different than every other one, specifically to allow for CD's re-entry under certain circumstances. In CD's judgment, those circumstances were met; in fact, it is my understanding that the only alliance that had a problem was Umbrella, not MHA or any of the others.

And, yeah, frankly, the "they broke their word!!!!" !@#$ doesn't fly for me anyway in a war started over "that's a nice looking Francograd you've got there, it'd be a shame if something happened to it "