The Overtime Accords

[Ardus]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304702871' post='2707555']
Really? 18 of the current 22 nations would have probably fought in March had you never made your demand.
[/quote]
While I'm well acquainted with the problem of having to refuse a course of action simply because somebody demanded it (especially if it is demanded publicly), I seriously doubt you'd have brought them out.

It's a shame we'll never know what would have actually happened~

[Letum]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304703893' post='2707562']
Something like 3/4 would have been fine.
[/quote]

3/4 is 66% higher than the figure you just described as "reasonable".

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304704154' post='2707570']
3/4 is 66% higher than the figure you just described as "reasonable".
[/quote]
You're still missing my point but whatever, enjoy the rest of the war.

[Letum]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304704545' post='2707574']
You're still missing my point but whatever, enjoy the rest of the war.
[/quote]

Oh, I understand your point. It would have been easy for us to do "something" and end this war sooner. Hell, we could have just gone full out since January, and we would be in a better position than we are now. My point however is that there's no way we can rationally assume that voluntarily doing (doing, not just offering) a fraction of what you've asked will somehow satisfy you.

[Choson]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1304692805' post='2707480']
The average CoJ warchest was 40 days, we fought 40 days. We would've fought longer but Umbrella wouldn't give us 10 billion dollars.
[/quote]
How many of your 32... wait, 21... maybe, 18... or was it 17 members actually fought?

[Groucho Marx]

Quote a bunch of people, argue every single point. Post a witty picture to illustrate how you don't understand my point. Back up argument with evidence. Continue to dissect the evidence for others so they may understand. Complain about how I am not being understood properly or how you are twisting my words around. Empty posturing.

Can't we do better? The war is over, it's time for drinks not futile bickering.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Emperor Marx

[Dagrr]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1304709372' post='2707605']
Quote a bunch of people, argue every single point. Post a witty picture to illustrate how you don't understand my point. Back up argument with evidence. Continue to dissect the evidence for others so they may understand. Complain about how I am not being understood properly or how you are twisting my words around. Empty posturing.

Can't we do better? The war is over, it's time for drinks not futile bickering.
[/quote]

We can have drinks in three weeks.

[Ubermeir]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304704868' post='2707576']
Oh, I understand your point. It would have been easy for us to do "something" and end this war sooner. Hell, we could have just gone full out since January, and we would be in a better position than we are now. My point however is that there's no way we can rationally assume that voluntarily doing (doing, not just offering) a fraction of what you've asked will somehow satisfy you.
[/quote]
just write "i'm rubbery and you're glue 100 times. According to those posting in here there had never ever been anything done right by the victors and the vanquished are a bunch of angels. I don't care how many times I read it, it rings hollow, and comes off as so much whining for what is essentially light terms.
What isn't whining is the threats of retaliation. Seems there will be no forgive and forget. Wait, are the victors supposed to wipe the slate clean as paid in full. Is this part of a new tab?

Edited May 6, 2011 by Ubermeir

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ubermeir' timestamp='1304711106' post='2707614']
What isn't whining is the threats of retaliation. Seems there will be no forgive and forget. Wait, are the victors supposed to wipe the slate clean as paid in full. Is this part of a new tab?
[/quote]
Threats of retaliation?

In what dreamworld do you live precisely?

"Forgive and forget" is not exactly your side's motto either.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304703893' post='2707562']
UOKMB were never pressured into disbandment, they were unable to negotiate with us for whatever reason and went on their way, getting individual terms (PZI was never on the table). FnKa, on numerous occasions, and even in their goddamn disbandment announcement, stated that we had nothing to do with their decision to disband, you illiterate !@#$%^&. I've never even heard of GCU so I can't imagine we ever exerted pressure on them to disband.
[/quote]
"Unable to negotiate" is a nice little catchphrase.

All three were at war with you when they disbanded, and instead of allowing them to disband peacefully you pursued their former members. In UOKMB's case, it was not until after ODN interceded that you allowed alliances to pay reps to let their nations continue to exist.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304716514' post='2707666']
"Unable to negotiate" is a nice little catchphrase.

All three were at war with you when they disbanded, and instead of allowing them to disband peacefully you pursued their former members. In UOKMB's case, it was not until after ODN interceded that you allowed alliances to pay reps to let their nations continue to exist.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. FnKa wanted to go out with a bang, so we let them, if you read their disbandment notice it says there, clean as day. I quote, from http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93585 :

[quote]Also, before the peanut gallery tries to use FnKa as thier PR banner, just don't. GOONS didn't force us to disband. Those nations that have expressed a desire for peace will follow the GOONS terms to be specified below; those who have yet to decide will have the option remain open to them.
[/quote]

UOKMB were unable to negotiate because they had no leadership/chain of command/etc. They were treated as rouges under an AA, for good reason. They were given individual terms like all rogues. GOONS has never disbanded an [I]alliance[/I], period. We have always provided reasonable paths to peace.

I don't know why I'm bothering though, the facts have never stopped you in the past, they will probably not stop you now. Perhaps I should have voted for you in WPE.

[D34th]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1304686243' post='2707457']
No, because declaring yourself pretender is more than just posting one's opinion. Is it your opinion though that one can say anything about anyone or anything and if action is taken against him he's being persecuted?
[/quote]

Declaring yourself pretender is nothing more than a opinion posted in a funny/sarcastic way. Sir Paul thread was nothing more than a joke who cause no harm to MK and how MK answered it? First vocally supported(and then messed up the staggers on purpose) a rogue who were a well know MK member, said rogue declared himself Emperor of Pacifica and then attacked NPO members, after that MK used Sir Paul's thread as one of the [s]reasons[/s] excuses to attack NPO. For an alliance who makes fun of everybody MK is very sensitive with jokes about them what is laughable.

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1304686243' post='2707457']
Or there actually is no threat of getting attacked just for voicing your opinion.
[/quote]

Very unlikely, Sir Paul's thread and NPO members supporting Polaris side show otherwise.

[Taishaku]

[quote]8. The New Pacific Order will give The Federation of Armed Nations one pretzel.[/quote]

This is the most outrageous instance of revanchism that I have ever seen!

[Azaghul]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1304661849' post='2707362']
Like I said, sitting on your hands for 2 years and trying to [i]avoid[/i] war as much as possible, is the [i]exact opposite[/i] of gunning for anyone. Your argument is beyond absurd.
[/quote]
Avoiding wars you will lose is not the same as avoiding wars entirely. There's a big difference between the two. I've personally experienced that difference because I started out in GPA, completely neutral, and went to MK while it was blacklisted and trying to avoid being curbstomped, but still a warring alliance.

NPO was slowly trying to position itself into a winning position, part of which involved a PR campaign against several alliances (mainly MK).

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1304687131' post='2707462']
In other words, you've got nothing.

The problem is that you keep trying create proof where it doesn't exist. The attack on NPO was always a judgment call. There's no proof that NPO was planning on doing anything.[/quote]
There's no absolute proof, that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. This isn't a courtroom.

[quote]A massive bloc of NS stays permanently locked together in treaty. When any portion of it is threatened, ghosts of 3-4 years ago are conjured. No, in your mind they are the bogeyman and they are that powerful. The problem is that now you're beating up an old man, not world champ. Until you see NPO for what it really is now, you'll keep going back there. If not in 6 months, then in a year. It's kinda sad really.[/quote]
Saying that any major grouping is "permanently locked together" is naive. NPO wasn't the world champ before this, but they were the #2 alliance.

As for going after NPO, DH + FAN and later Nordreich were tasked to them but we could have been tasked to other alliances in the initial coalition. You can't ignore the fact that the preemptive strike came in the context of the VE/NpO conflict.

[quote]See above. No, there wasn't. Once again, I would have made that call to launch a preemptive strike. On the other hand, I wouldn't have come anywhere near this treaty with regard to terms. These terms blow, even though they could have actually been far worse. All you've done is forced the cowering old man to stand up and pull on his boxing gloves to fight because you weren't satisfied with the war. There's no honor in that and not particularly any sort of justification.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter who the opponent is, the "peace mode every upper tier nation we can to avoid fighting" 'strategy' is unacceptable. These terms are a reflection of that. If they hadn't employed that 'strategy' and fought whole heartedly, I would have supported and pushed for white peace as part of Polar peacing out.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304704868' post='2707576']
Oh, I understand your point. It would have been easy for us to do "something" and end this war sooner. Hell, we could have just gone full out since January, and we would be in a better position than we are now.
[/quote]
It's too bad that you didn't do that, would have saved both sides from several months of trouble.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304722021' post='2707716']
It's too bad that you didn't do that, would have saved both sides from several months of trouble.
[/quote]

Your national interest in continuing the war was obviously more than any "trouble" it brought, so I don't really think you should be complaining about it too much.

[Brehon]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304701012' post='2707535']
You're not listening to what I'm saying. If you hadn't decided to withhold nations as a negotiating strategy, what do you think we'd have asked of you? The answer is nothing. Yes the negotiations for the initial offer was high, but my point is that had you fought normally we wouldn't have had to negotiate it at all, and it would have saved everybody a lot of time.
[/quote]

Monday morning quarterbacking is silly at best. Let us refer to the opening DOW and you tell me how taking a perceived bargaining chip and using it before any agreement could be made would have made any logical sense. You can tell me words don't mean anything and the like, but your own coalition members stated Sir Pauls words as well as those of the BR were a reason to attack. You can't have it both ways. There is nothing to make me believe if we had pulled them out DH et al would not have gone for the prize and tried to disband/continually crush the NPO. But if that is your stance that is fine its just another soapbox sermon.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304701926' post='2707543']
Well then that is why you fail. Had you not just gone with the kneejerk "grab anything we can for leverage" reaction and just offered to come out at a reasonable level, or better yet just come out unprompted in a surprise attack, then we wouldn't have had anything to negotiate about, and things would have been wrapped up much quicker. I feel bad that you can't seem to grasp the bigger picture here.
[/quote]

There was no kneejerk and belittling it like that, while making you feel better or more powerful doesn't change the Monday morning quarterbacking. I also don't believe for a moment the word of GOONS is the same as the word of MK, or the word of Umbrella (I can go on here). So while you may feel that way, in the negotiations themselves you guys often had issues agreeing together what you agreed individually outside.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304702213' post='2707546']
If you think I support this disbandment of alliances, you don't know me very well.
[/quote]

You, GOONS sure, I will buy that. But lets look at everyone else, I say again go look at the DOW and talk to me about what was to be negotiated.

Also putting delays of the negotiations on one side or another is just lame. There was not some great efficiency machine on the DH side or our side, so stop the dogma, its just dumb.

Last but not least, for either side to get all bent out of shape over peace mode is hiding their head in the sand. The war is basically over, put your propaganda away. In the end aren't you all tired of running your mouths? Arguing over the same crap for page after page and yet when most talk one on one they aren't like that. Stop the posturing its getting old. Theory craft is what we do to pass the time, what we play is another story; to argue it non stop is just stupidity.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304723441' post='2707733']
Your national interest in continuing the war was obviously more than any "trouble" it brought, so I don't really think you should be complaining about it too much.
[/quote]
Sure, I was just making a statement. I'm glad to see you say that you would have been better off just fighting from the beginning.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1304725247' post='2707752']
Monday morning quarterbacking is silly at best. Let us refer to the opening DOW and you tell me how taking a perceived bargaining chip and using it before any agreement could be made would have made any logical sense. You can tell me words don't mean anything and the like, but your own coalition members stated Sir Pauls words as well as those of the BR were a reason to attack. [b]You can't have it both ways. There is nothing to make me believe if we had pulled them out DH et al would not have gone for the prize and tried to disband/continually crush the NPO. But if that is your stance that is fine its just another soapbox sermon.[/b]
[/quote]
The bolded part doesn't follow at all from what precedes it. We didn't like your demeanor, you didn't like ours. How does that suggest that we'd go as far as to try to disband or continually crush you?

There are many, many reasons we wouldn't do that. Most of which should be very obvious, which leads me to believe that your use of the argument that we might have done it is less than honest.

Edit: I really need to proofread before posting.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Azaghul

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304716514' post='2707666']
"Unable to negotiate" is a nice little catchphrase.

All three were at war with you when they disbanded, and instead of allowing them to disband peacefully you pursued their former members. In UOKMB's case, it was not until after ODN interceded that you allowed alliances to pay reps to let their nations continue to exist.
[/quote]
Your history is completely backward here. UOKMB didn't try to come to us to discuss peace. Instead they just left their AA and joined different ones, like UPN, when they got tired of the war. Historically speaking it's not often that a group declares war, fights, and then changes AA and gets off completely free as a result. We pursued them and requested a measly 15m for their release (significantly less than the damages they caused), which anyone was allowed to pay. UPN gave us trouble and even threatened war over it (WCE anyone) despite having lied about just about every step of the process (they already agreed to pay the money). It was after that that ODN stepped in to pay on UPN's behalf to prevent a war. We even gave ODN a reduced price as a show of good faith.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL6.jpg[/img]

[Brehon]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304726039' post='2707762']
Sure, I was just making a statement. I'm glad to see you say that you would have been better off just fighting from the beginning.


The bolded part doesn't follow at all from what precedes it. We didn't like your demeanor, you didn't like ours. How does that suggest that we'd go as far as to try to disband or continually crush you?

There are many, many reasons we wouldn't do that. Most of which should be very obvious, which leads me to believe that your use of the argument that we might have done it is less than honest.

Edit: I really need to proofread before posting.
[/quote]

I was referring to the words said as having meaning. Your alliance (MK) in particular has stated words mean enough that a declaration of war can be based on it (in part, in whole it doesn't matter, the philosophy is the words have enough meaning). So when using something that was discovered as a bargaining chip we have to weight the decision: Is it enough, is the war enough. At this point we have to refer to your (DH) public words very directly:

[quote]We cannot allow any chance of a return to power by the New Pacific Order.
A first strike is not deplorable when against a foe of strength, but one must make sure their political situation is unassailable before doing so.

Or, perhaps it is even more simple than that.

Maybe it's just a matter of loathing. Maybe it is because we believe that Everything. Must. Die. Maybe it is because we think you deserve to burn.

It doesn't actually matter. Whatever reason we decided to state, our foes would take their own, believe it, and attempt to spin it to their benefit. I welcome them to try. I wish them good luck, even, for they will surely need it. As for us? We always hear people saying "Do something about it!" with great bravado, so how about this?[/quote]

That is taken directly from your DOW. If its loathing, if "everything must die" if we deserve to burn, those are not words which anyone can take as anything but destroy or end an alliance. It is not like our alliance gov were talking, so we must go off the DOW.

If words are important enough to you, you can't belittle us for making your words important. That is the meaning behind "you can't have it both ways". To say my words are in any way a lie is going much too far. Talk to your leaders, I have been true to my words from day one.

[Brehon]

PS my post above does nothing to address "The NPO must never raise to power". So to think you would continually beat down an alliance: Yup, by your own words

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304726039' post='2707762']
Sure, I was just making a statement. I'm glad to see you say that you would have been better off just fighting from the beginning.


The bolded part doesn't follow at all from what precedes it. We didn't like your demeanor, you didn't like ours. How does that suggest that we'd go as far as to try to disband or continually crush you?

There are many, many reasons we wouldn't do that. Most of which should be very obvious, which leads me to believe that your use of the argument that we might have done it is less than honest.

Edit: I really need to proofread before posting.
[/quote]
Oh nothing at all except the dow thread, the terms announcement and the hundreds of posts, that's all.

Edited May 7, 2011 by William Bonney

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1304728101' post='2707779']
I was referring to the words said as having meaning. Your alliance (MK) in particular has stated words mean enough that a declaration of war can be based on it (in part, in whole it doesn't matter, the philosophy is the words have enough meaning). So when using something that was discovered as a bargaining chip we have to weight the decision: Is it enough, is the war enough. At this point we have to refer to your (DH) public words very directly:



That is taken directly from your DOW. If its loathing, if "everything must die" if we deserve to burn, those are not words which anyone can take as anything but destroy or end an alliance. It is not like our alliance gov were talking, so we must go off the DOW.

If words are important enough to you, you can't belittle us for making your words important. That is the meaning behind "you can't have it both ways". To say my words are in any way a lie is going much too far. Talk to your leaders, I have been true to my words from day one.
[/quote]
[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1304728248' post='2707781']
PS my post above does nothing to address "The NPO must never raise to power". So to think you would continually beat down an alliance: Yup, by your own words
[/quote]
Everything Must Die was a fun slogan, you're taking it way to literally, and since I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your intelligence, being deliberately obtuse in doing so. As for "must never rise to power", why go through peace now?

Since I apparently need to state the obvious, here are the reasons why we would not have engaged in permanent war:
- The FAN war proves that it doesn't work. You can't destroy an alliance with permanent war that is determined to exist in this world.
- We don't support the idea. We may dislike some people and may want to wreck their nations in war, but we aren't out to destroy communities. This has been stated plenty of times.
- We've never tried to disband or held anyone in perpetual war. It's been years since anyone outside of GOD (who have been yelled at by almost everyone else for it) has tried to do that.
- The PR would be absolutely horrible. The "old hegemony" comparisons would be rampant and would be justified, as that's the most extreme thing people tended to hold against the old hegemony. We'd have almost no support in it. At best we'd do as bad as y'all did against FAN, at worse end up like the Gremlins.
- It's not in our best interest to have permanent war in our lower tiers. Especially for GOONS which is majority lower tier and for everyone who buys tech from them.

[Brehon]

[quote]
Everything Must Die was a fun slogan, you're taking it way to literally, and since I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your intelligence, being deliberately obtuse in doing so. As for "must never rise to power", why go through peace now?[/quote]

In simple words, in the beginning we had nothing else to go on but the posted words. Taking initial war decisions (where we only had the dow to go off in regard to intentions) and then using the knowledge (from rather in depth discussions with the main Govs) are two very different things. As for why go through peace now is simple, we (the various govs) have communicated and intentions are known, so we can move forward.

As for the reasons why you listed you guys wouldn't do that, simply you wont find me disagreeing with you. But again that is using today's knowledge vs yesterday's. If I had today's knowledge and yesterdays moment, would it be different, sure. Hence my initial comment of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and calling Sardonic out on it.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1304734964' post='2707846']
In simple words, in the beginning we had nothing else to go on but the posted words. Taking initial war decisions (where we only had the dow to go off in regard to intentions) and then using the knowledge (from rather in depth discussions with the main Govs) are two very different things. As for why go through peace now is simple, we (the various govs) have communicated and intentions are known, so we can move forward.

As for the reasons why you listed you guys wouldn't do that, simply you wont find me disagreeing with you. But again that is using today's knowledge vs yesterday's. If I had today's knowledge and yesterdays moment, would it be different, sure. Hence my initial comment of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and calling Sardonic out on it.
[/quote]
Please tell me you're smarter than to naively take fun slogans literally while ignoring all the obvious reasons why we wouldn't have done it. None of the reasons I stated didn't apply or weren't obvious then, they didn't require any future knowledge.

Is everyone who declares a individual war with "DIE ___" literally saying they want to see that nation gone? Such rhetoric and sloganeering goes on all the time in wars, in war reasons, on posts, in propaganda. Anyone who takes them literally, especially when it conflicts with common sense, is either incredibly stupid or being deliberately obtuse.

It's fairly obvious that you had those nations in peace in order to keep them from being damaged in the war. I'm not sure why you feel the need to deny that.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Azaghul

[Brehon]

By itself, sure you can dismiss it. That with the other comments, plus everything else you guys stated. Meh, take with it what you want. You can take it all at face value or not, the same can be said about my views and points on it. Frankly I am done going back and forth over the same comment. Have a good day.