Announcement from the Imperial Assault Alliance

[Dagrr]

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1307997969' post='2730723']
Maybe it's just me, but when you have the Emperor of IAA saying the treaty wasn't the only reason VS NPO saying that it is the only reason.....I'd say the ball is in your court to produce evidence?
[/quote]

Why would I have evidence? I'm not IAA or TIO. If either party cares to pander to people wondering about the reasoning, they'll elaborate about it. If not, people will continue speculating. I never had the ball.

edit:

[quote]As I make it clear, the upgrade with NPO was a large factor, but personal distastes between members and a general lack of cohesion and pleasantry was a major deciding factor, as well.[/quote]

See Chimaera I'm just not buying that without a better explanation. What personal distaste? Why wait until now if the NPO upgrade was not the reason?

Edited June 13, 2011 by Henry

[Chimaera]

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1307998230' post='2730727']
See Chimaera I'm just not buying that without a better explanation. What personal distaste? Why wait until now if the NPO upgrade was not the reason?
[/quote]
We waited until now because this is when Synergy was ended. The two things were better done in conjunction.

As for 'what personal distaste', is that any concern of yours? Private relationships between members of alliances that are not your own should be utterly irrelevant. I am sorry you are incapable of taking me at my word.

If you would prefer to believe we canceled on TIO simply out of spite for Pacifica, you may do so. I'm certain it will aid in the preservation of your psyche. However, it is simply not the case. Many members of our respective governments simply do not get along anymore, and it was causing undue tension on both our alliance and our bloc.

Of course, you seem to be unable to comprehend that, sometimes, there are multiple intertwining reasons behind moves in foreign affairs. Such is the case here.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1307998230' post='2730727']
See Chimaera I'm just not buying that without a better explanation. What personal distaste? Why wait until now if the NPO upgrade was not the reason?
[/quote]

It's called a straw, and straws are pretty good at breaking camels backs.

[MitchellBade]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1307998980' post='2730737']
It's called a straw, and straws are pretty good at breaking camels backs.
[/quote]
Whats up with you and straws and camels these days TL?

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

NPO really seems to cling to the "you guys need to forget all the bad things we did to you, it's all in the past now!" without ever giving any form of reason as to [i]why[/i] anyone would want to do that.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1307986089' post='2730635']I was labeled 'too dangerous to live' by Pacifican government (a title I adore very much, thank you).
[/quote]
Man, if I had that going for me it would at least be my forum title! That's pretty great - something to strive for.

[Rogal Dorn]

i'm gone for a few days and this happens

[Mathias]

I don't get the argument that NPO had to be the only alliance seeking EZI for Chim for him to not like them. I'd not be too fond of anyone who sentenced me to EZI, regardless of who else did it.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Mathias

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1308009064' post='2730813']
I don't get the argument that NPO had to be the only alliance seeking EZI for Chim for him to not like them. I'd not be too fond of anyone who sentenced me to EZI, regardless of who else did it.
[/quote]

I AGREE WITH YOU MATHIAS.




I do however think there is a lot of misinformation here in this thread regarding NPO "forcing IAA to disband". I wasn't even around at the time and I know better than that.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Jacapo Saladin

[Chimaera]

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1308011616' post='2730821']
I AGREE WITH YOU MATHIAS.




I do however think there is a lot of misinformation here in this thread regarding NPO "forcing IAA to disband". I wasn't even around at the time and I know better than that.
[/quote]
We were given two choices - expel our Emperor at the time for crimes he did not commit, or be held at war into perpetuity. Disbandment was the only option that could save the members of the alliance. In all actuality, we were given no true option. IAA is not an alliance to martyr one of our own for something he did not do. I had already resigned as Emperor at the start of the war, as I knew my leadership of IAA was something they would use to prolong the war, as well.

While 'you must disband' was never explicitly said, it was the only real option the Empire had. And so, it did.

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1308011776' post='2730822']
We were given two choices - expel our Emperor at the time for crimes he did not commit, or be held at war into perpetuity. Disbandment was the only option that could save the members of the alliance. In all actuality, we were given no true option. IAA is not an alliance to martyr one of our own for something he did not do. I had already resigned as Emperor at the start of the war, as I knew my leadership of IAA was something they would use to prolong the war, as well.

While 'you must disband' was never explicitly said, it was the only real option the Empire had. And so, it did.
[/quote]

And is it not true that the opinion of the vast majority of IAAers both present and ex is that Junkalunka pushed so hard for disbandment because he was too much of a whiny spineless coward to face ZI on his own?

[Chimaera]

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1308011858' post='2730824']
And is it not true that the opinion of the vast majority of IAAers both present and ex is that Junkalunka pushed so hard for disbandment because he was too much of a whiny spineless coward to face ZI on his own?
[/quote]
I would agree that Junkalunka is a whiny, spineless coward. But he was not guilty of what he was accused of.

In fact, disbandment was my idea. I wanted to save as many Imperials as I could. Disbandment was the only way. I will bet you money that any peace terms with the Empire would have included a clause that I could no longer have been in government/a member/Emperor. Ending the alliance (and, quite frankly, transferring us all over to our friends at GR) was the easiest way to save nations to fight again another day.

Junka agreed with me; perhaps it was out of personal goals, but it was also the right choice for IAA given what we faced.

The only decision I regret was stepping down. Junkalunka should never have been Emperor.

[beyondthelandofice]

Even though I am a bear of little brain and a relativly new member of IAA2 (and that I was in IAA1 for only a brief time) I think that the dropping of TIO is a good thing.

The way I see it is that (based on the evidence avalible) TIO did not tell IAA in good time, dispite the fact they knew about what NPO did AND I have not seen any discussion about this or even a thread asking our onion about it on our forums.


edit: IAA o7



[size="1"]
ps. If you think I am wrong about this, [i][u][b]give[/b][/u][/i] me evidence[/size]

Edited June 14, 2011 by beyondthelandofice

[pd73bassman]

Congrats IAA on taking out the trash

[Lord Levistus]

Signing a high level treaty with an alliance one of your allies detest and not telling them?

Yeah, that's grounds for a cancellation.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1308012036' post='2730826']
I would agree that Junkalunka is a whiny, spineless coward.
[/quote]

I don’t think Junka’s a coward. In all likelihood he declared war on NPO because he wanted IAA to come out with a good reputation, sure, but that doesn’t mean that he’s spineless. An argument could be made that it was cowardly for IAA to disband, but you yourself have just said that was your idea. I don’t think disbanding IAA was cowardly anyway, when you consider that IAA were flattened to the point where they could never recover and even their top nations were hammered (including Junka’s top 3% nation.) Bear in mind of course that Junka made a poll regarding whether he should resign to facilitate negotiations with NPO and the majority of voters backed him up. Plus the only terms which were likely to be on the table involved a viceroyship like what happened with GATO which I doubt IAA was prepared to accept. On the upside, disbandment successfully pissed off NPO because it made them look bad.

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1308012036' post='2730826']
But he was not guilty of what he was accused of.
[/quote]

What was he accused of, out of curiosity?

[Goose]

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1307987405' post='2730645']
Because NPO were the ones actually fighting IAA. Valhalla, TORN, and MHA were there just for show.
[/quote]
If it makes you feel any better, I still hate Valhalla, TORN, and MHA. Along with Pacifica and several others reaching back to No Vision.

I applaud IAA for having a clear vision of whom they will and will not be tied to through the treaty web. While friendship should be a major concern when signing treaties, to wholly discount the treaty web leads to nothing but disaster and failure. To allow your alliance to be tied to both sides of the web, you essentially set yourselves up to be !@#$%* allies, open to the mockery of the world if you sit it out, and many hurt feelings if you don't.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Goose' timestamp='1308018587' post='2730873'] To allow your alliance to be tied to both sides of the web, you essentially set yourselves up to be !@#$%* allies, open to the mockery of the world if you sit it out, and many hurt feelings if you don't.
[/quote]

Of course had alliances NOT shifted sides or allowed themselves to become tied to different sides, then Karma could never have happened, and you'd still be under the thumb of the Orders.

I'm not saying IAA needs to allow themselves to be linked that closely to NPO by any means. Just pointing out a very narrow point of view displayed in your post.

[Dave93]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1307981525' post='2730594']
Well, hi there unnecessary controversy. Not what I expected with my morning drink.

Let us go over every single possible factor in this cancellation, just for posterity's sake. You've mostly hit the nail on the head over the course of this topic, but we may as well clear it up.

I, personally, wanted to cancel on TIO for two reasons - the fact that their membership constantly harassed and clearly hated me, and the fact that they were about to completely forgo every ally they had worth anything to sign a treaty with an alliance that, quite frankly, has never brought anything but pain and destruction to thousands of nations, including their own allies, across five years. I attempted to talk them out of it. I am quite sick of the 'changed' slogan that Pacifica is using in order to convince more alliances to return to their side - anyone with half a brain has seen this before, and seen the results. Pacifica will do what it does best - try to win every situation possible. The ends have always, and will always, justify the means. I firmly believe that TIO is starting down a path that will lead to their untimely demise. I intimated as such, and that it was a path I would not let the Empire follow.

Say what you want about the current global power structure, but it is a hell of a lot better than it was in 2007 and 2008. There have been no forced disbandments, no eternal ZI sentences, none of what amounts to incomprehensible war crimes. I will never allow my alliance to indirectly be complicit in the revival of the former power structure. We would not go down that path with TIO, no matter how much we like their members.

TIO went anyway. The treaty simply had to go.

IAA, professionally, needed to cancel the treaty because of the lack of mutual trust and cooperation between the two parties, along with the latter of my two reasons above. The lie was simply the last straw. Our alliances had been drifting apart since they were brought into Synergy (a huge mistake, by the way, that I take a significant amount of responsibility for), and it had gotten to the point where our only daily interactions was TIO government members telling me what a terrible human being I am and how I am an awful Emperor.

Now then, let me address the 'you should cancel on Polaris' part of this thread.

No. I love Polar. They have stood up for the Empire time and again, and we have for them. I have and will again go to hell for Polaris.

That should quite well address that. I am certain some of you will dissect my comments a million different ways, so have it, boys.

-Chimaera
[/quote]

Ok Chim I'll play ball.

Firstly, you seem to think you were the only party that was disrespected, while I can't ascertain whether or not my members harassed you because I don't have the logs of it so feel free to supply them, but you sure did a fair amount of disrespecting back to us, what was one of the first things you did when you became Emperor again? Oh right, come and try and poach TIO gov members for IAA, and then when I approached you about it your defense was "you guys poached IAA members after you founded" which is not true, your former members left of their own accord.


Secondly, when we first came to speak with you about the NPO upgrade we told you we were considering it, but you obviously thought considering meant that we'd already agreed to it and had signed it. While it is true we have signed it now, we only did after we found out you were going to cancel on us. So no, we never lied to you as you say, you got information from another source which had no truth to it, and then you believed it even after said it wasn't true.

Thirdly, with regards to a lack of communication between our alliances, name one active government member aside from TheListener from the time before you were Emperor? Cause we as hell didn't know of any.

But anyway, way to stay classy in a cancellation thread IAA, I'm not saying you have to like us cause frankly I don't like you (specifically you, Chim) but there are right ways to cancel a treaty and wrong ways, and the wrong way is to try and drag our name through the mud.

[Taget]

This thread makes me sad as TIO has a lot of former IAA members and friends who I'm fond of. But it is what it is. Good luck to everyone involved.

As for debates over years old grudges. They say the past always repeats itself. First as tragedy. Then as farce. At this point it's just stale.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Taget

[D34th]

[quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1308015937' post='2730854']
Congrats IAA on taking out the trash
[/quote]

Congrats on being so classy.

[Omniscient1]

[quote]Thirdly, with regards to a lack of communication between our alliances, name one active government member aside from TheListener from the time before you were Emperor? Cause we as hell didn't know of any.[/quote]


Hey I was active!!!!

[ooc] We even had skype convos together[OOC/]

[Goose]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1308019061' post='2730876']
Of course had alliances NOT shifted sides or allowed themselves to become tied to different sides, then Karma could never have happened, and you'd still be under the thumb of the Orders.

I'm not saying IAA needs to allow themselves to be linked that closely to NPO by any means. Just pointing out a very narrow point of view displayed in your post.
[/quote]
You seem to have misread my post. I didn't say anything about it being unwise to shift sides, as every alliance must decide where they want to be and whom they want to associate with. If one circle of friends no longer suits their foreign policy it would only be prudent for them to shift out of that circle. But, to clearly have a circle of allies in mind and set your foreign policy to work towards strengthening that circle is a good decision. Too many alliances refuse to look at the treaty web and sign treaties simply out of friendship. Leaving them to be mocked for inactivity or reviled for choosing one side over the other when war breaks out and they're stuck wringing their hands over what to do because they refused to have a clear and concise foreign policy.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Dave93' timestamp='1308019099' post='2730877']
Firstly, you seem to think you were the only party that was disrespected, while I can't ascertain whether or not my members harassed you because I don't have the logs of it so feel free to supply them, but you sure did a fair amount of disrespecting back to us, what was one of the first things you did when you became Emperor again? Oh right, come and try and poach TIO gov members for IAA, and then when I approached you about it your defense was "you guys poached IAA members after you founded" which is not true, your former members left of their own accord.


Secondly, when we first came to speak with you about the NPO upgrade we told you we were considering it, but you obviously thought considering meant that we'd already agreed to it and had signed it. While it is true we have signed it now, we only did after we found out you were going to cancel on us. So no, we never lied to you as you say, you got information from another source which had no truth to it, and then you believed it even after said it wasn't true.

Thirdly, with regards to a lack of communication between our alliances, name one active government member aside from TheListener from the time before you were Emperor? Cause we as hell didn't know of any.

But anyway, way to stay classy in a cancellation thread IAA, I'm not saying you have to like us cause frankly I don't like you (specifically you, Chim) but there are right ways to cancel a treaty and wrong ways, and the wrong way is to try and drag our name through the mud.
[/quote]

1. Every nation leaves it's alliance of their own accord.
2. Really could care less about this point.
3. Yea I'm aware I was the only active government, why does that matter I mean seriously?

As far as dragging your name through the mud, there was no such actions occurring until your new allies decided to try and stick up for you. Not our fault that TIO has made it so easy for your name to be dragged through the mud.

[James Wilson]

Bye, TIO. Enjoy being Meat shields.

Oh, by the way Dave, one tends to respond to an insult with an insult.