Disturbing new trend in CN

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='WorkingClassRuler' timestamp='1323584080' post='2873451']
So what you're saying, and I completely agree with you if it is, is that there are justifiable reasons why an alliance wouldn't automatically join a war? Just like there was two years ago, just as there is now.
[/quote]

Regardless, we received word after MHA was hit that you would be enter the war by hitting Non Grata, another TLR ally. The declarations you seen a few days ago would of probably been the same except you would be fighting 3 members of C&G, TPE, Hooligans and probably a few NG allies.

[Devilyn Caster]

[quote name='unpronounced' timestamp='1323584320' post='2873461']
To be clear: Do you think MHA should declare in "defense" of Fark, ie. activating the oA part of the treaty? Or do you think that Fark is not the aggressor and thus MHA should activate the MD part of the treaty?
[/quote]

How is defending Fark from counters from TLR/NG etc. an oA? oA would have been you attacking NPO.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323584008' post='2873446']
Let me reiterate. I included MHA based on the fact that there were no declared Defensive wars. I had heard no plans for MHA to enter the conflict. Now if what you are saying is true, then great. I am just making note of the fact that several alliances ganked your MDoAP partner and you did not declare in their defense, while you had no allies on the other side whom were under direct attack. Am I wrong?
[/quote]

Sorry, but I was under the impression CnG attacked us because they heard we were going to attack their ally? Is that not the story? I was sure that was the story.

Secondly, thank you for once again proving this [i]is[/i] a personal callout and now not only are you are a hypocrite, you are also a liar.

Thirdly, most, if not all, of our allies are at war. Do you think it's feasible that we would declare war on every single alliance who have attacked every single ally - or come up with a plan that would use our force more productively? The only other alternative is asking us (and indeed anyone in this situation) to line up to get slaughtered and that can't possibly be the crux of your argument. Because then it would appear that you - CnG, having been similarly lined up for execution once before - are now trying to cheer on the execution of others? Is that honestly what you're trying to propose here?

It would actually be far more noble, more loyal, more the CnG that you think you are, for you to stop helping this war. It is cowardly of [i]you[/i] to be sitting there making jibes at [i]us[/i] and I am convinced you would never have the guts to say any of this if you were on the other side.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323584431' post='2873472']
Regardless, we received word after MHA was hit that you would be enter the war by hitting Non Grata, another TLR ally. The declarations you seen a few days ago would of probably been the same except you would be fighting 3 members of C&G, TPE, Hooligans and probably a few NG allies.
[/quote]

That's exactly my point. Yes, we would have entered this war. The only delay was coming up with the right plan to enter, which anyone would (and has) experienced in the same circumstances. Can you please tell the OP this so they can stop with this nonsense?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1323583185' post='2873398']
Well isn't that a turd in the punchbowl of your narrative. You may commence painting it as strategy on the part of your coalition, but cowardice on the part of your enemies.
[/quote]

It has never been any different. The same template can be applied to peace mode.

[hornguard]

[quote name='Chaoshawk' timestamp='1323564822' post='2873023']
I don't think its a new trend at all. It's always been there, but it has progressively gotten worse as time goes on. Although, it has been the worst during this conflict with all the hesitation going around.
[/quote]
I blame it on when wars became weapons free...silly pixel huggers

*goes hugs his pixels*

[Doitzel]

GATO set the precedent over 5 years ago. It's not a new trend; it's one of the old constants.

edit: Oh, all due credit to The Legion as well.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Doitzel

[Krack]

[quote name='unpronounced' timestamp='1323584320' post='2873461']
To be clear: Do you think MHA should declare in "defense" of Fark, ie. activating the oA part of the treaty? Or do you think that Fark is not the aggressor and thus MHA should activate the MD part of the treaty?
[/quote]

My guess is that you could explain it to him 20 times and he still would have little to no grasp on the point you are trying to make.

[Devilyn Caster]

[quote name='WorkingClassRuler' timestamp='1323584951' post='2873494']
Sorry, but I was under the impression CnG attacked us because they heard we were going to attack their ally? Is that not the story? I was sure that was the story. [/quote]

My personal knowledge, not my alliance. I actually was unaware of CnG's intentions to declare on MHA until after the fact. I'm just a lowly senator after all

[quote]Secondly, thank you for once again proving this [i]is[/i] a personal callout and now not only are you are a hypocrite, you are also a liar.[/quote]

You are the one making this about MHA not me. I have said several times that this is not a personal callout, it is my thoughts on the current "strategy" that seems to be prevalent in this conflict (i.e. waiting days to do anything and then declaring on the least threatening alliances). You are not the only ones mentioned. I harbor no ill will towards MHA. These were my observations. You came here to change my mind. We are having a discussion. Simple as that.

[quote]Thirdly, most, if not all, of our allies are at war. Do you think it's feasible that we would declare war on every single alliance who have attacked every single ally - or come up with a plan that would use our force more productively? The only other alternative is asking us (and indeed anyone in this situation) to line up to get slaughtered and that can't possibly be the crux of your argument. Because then it would appear that you - CnG, having been similarly lined up for execution once before - are now trying to cheer on the execution of others? Is that honestly what you're trying to propose here?[/quote]

No its not feasible to declare in support of all your allies. Thats why you have to prioritize your treaties. and you do have allies on both sides of the conflict, I do understand that. But the difference (for me at least) is the level of treaties on both sides of the conflict as well as the nature of the conflict. No one is asking you to come get slaughtered, but like Rush said drawing out your entrance draws out the conflict and hurts everyone, including your allies you are trying to defend. A quick war is better for you and your coalition than an extended one.

[quote]It would actually be far more noble, more loyal, more the CnG that you think you are, for you to stop helping this war.[/quote]

As soon as Fark and NPO have reached peace, I will use what limited say I have in my gov't to end the conflict. Is that fair enough?

[Devilyn Caster]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1323585883' post='2873529']
My guess is that you could explain it to him 20 times and he still would have little to no grasp on the point you are trying to make.
[/quote]

Sorry, sometimes I forget about the non-chaining clauses. Being in an MADP block will do that to you

[Cameronious]

If someone could bring Mr. Caster a list of all the alliances of the "other side" who have defended an ally this war, I'm sure he would appreciate it.

My question(s) is(are) this: when victory is pretty much impossible, can you honestly say that damage mitigation for the majority is more important than the integrity of the 'dying' few? How, when one alliance goes to their defeat willingly, do you justify sitting aside and watching them burn alone? What purpose does sacrifice serve other than to make a statement? If an alliance agrees to defend another, how do you justify not defending that statement?

It's not a matter of what the alliance asks but what is best for them. If an alliance sacrifices themselves for the wellfare of another and then that other jumps into the fire after them, sure, that is not honouring the relationship or the message, but that is not what has happened.

Alliances like Fark are burning for a cause, what is being done for that cause by their allies?

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323586397' post='2873552']
As soon as Fark and NPO have reached peace, I will use what limited say I have in my gov't to end the conflict. Is that fair enough?
[/quote]
When your government laughs in your face, our door is always open.

[Proest]

Yes, MHA is soo dishonorable that we were going to do [i]nothing[/i] at all while our allies were being attacked. /end sarcasm

I apologize if we upset the anti-NpO coalition by not immediately responding to the attacks on Fark for attacking NPO and for the connected attacks on SuperFriends -- like was planned by those who attacked the aforementioned alliances. Am I truly to believe that the GATO Declaration of War video was put together in ONE singular day because *gasp* the other side felt we were going to attack an ally of theirs?? lol, please. That video took at least 2-3 days to create. The attack on MHA was planned whether it's admitted or not.




EDIT: Grammar.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Proest

[unpronounced]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323580636' post='2873233']
Things can change a lot in two years. Allies drop one another and become enemies, sides change, old enemies become friends. Although we remember the sacrifices you made for us years ago, we can't overlook the possibility that you may seek to bring harm to ourselves or one of our allies. We saw the MHA, a large,uninvolved alliance who had a valid reason to hit us or one of our allies and took action. Simple as that.

I recall listening to a Spartan member rant about the war who went on to say that they wanted to see a neutral C&G or a C&G that could've avoided your front all together if we wanted to. I don't see how this is possible after your bloc mate aggressively attacked a C&G member's ally. Another Spartan member would proceed to call us out in their DoW thread. Our bloc has always prided it's self with the simple fact that we defend our allies regardless of the odds or consequences, a trait that is slowly dying in this universe. [b]It's nothing personal, just business[/b].
[/quote]

I take it personally, and I'm not even in MHA.

This attack on MHA is obviously planned long before it was declared (as pointed out by Proest above). Way to repay MHA's help during the Bi-Polar, C&G!

Edited December 11, 2011 by unpronounced

[Alterego]

For nearly all of their hstory the alliances in question have known one kind of war. They dogpile you and rape you for reps. It seems they dont like the other kind of war and wont even bother their arse fighting if it happens. For this reason these alliances must never be able to dogpile again and must be bled out in this war even if they dont want to enter fight themselves. If they only fight one type of war ant that type of war always leads to rep rape and attempts of forced disbandment they they must have all their power (NS) taken from them.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Alterego

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='unpronounced' timestamp='1323593379' post='2873734']
I take it personally, and I'm not even in MHA.

This attack on MHA is obviously planned long before it was declared (as pointed out by Proest above). Way to repay MHA's help during the Bi-Polar, C&G!
[/quote]

come at us bro. :3

Of course it was planned. Who the hell rushes into a war unplanned?

[Stewie]

NG planned their UPN war in 4 hours.

[Dilber]

I see MHA bringing up defending CnG, but where were you when NPO needed you?

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1323609593' post='2873823']
I see MHA bringing up defending CnG, but where were you when NPO needed you?
[/quote]

The message was quite clear that NPO didn't need MHA for at least 4-6 months prior - if indeed we had ever been needed for anything but as a meat shield made to think we were important. Unfortunately those who succeeded you Dilber couldn't muster even the slightest interest in maintaining a real partnership. Narcissus was too busy staring into the water to hear anything we had been saying.

There's also an on-going theme here that MHA doesn't support aggressive preemptive attacks, despite them becoming common place nowadays.

[IYIyTh]

9 times out of 10, your enemies aren't going to do what's in your best interest.
This isn't because they're cowards, but because they possess the ability to reason and by some miracle have a relationship with their allies that enables them to jointly decide upon a course of action.

While honor's nice and all... the point of war isn't to die for your country, but make the poor sap die for his.
If my allies and I agree that doing less now leads to a better outcome in the future, those whom we disappoint are of no concern.

Maybe i'm just getting old.

[NATOrounds]

whoops

Edited December 11, 2011 by NATOrounds

[Devilyn Caster]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1323587684' post='2873608']
When your government laughs in your face, our door is always open.
[/quote]

I appreciate the offer but I think I will stay put for the time being

[wickedj]

[quote name='WorkingClassRuler' timestamp='1323611419' post='2873840']
The message was quite clear that NPO didn't need MHA for at least 4-6 months prior - if indeed we had ever been needed for anything but as a meat shield made to think we were important. Unfortunately those who succeeded you Dilber couldn't muster even the slightest interest in maintaining a real partnership. Narcissus was too busy staring into the water to hear anything we had been saying.

There's also an on-going theme here that MHA doesn't support aggressive preemptive attacks, despite them becoming common place nowadays.
[/quote]
Sooo that whole gunna hit NG in a day or two ...that was just you lot talking out of your ass?

Either way, elawyering out of treaty obligations has been around for-EVER and will never go away. You can point at people like ODN/LoSS from way back in NoCB or you can point to FOK in the Darkfist-NEW war(theres more i want to mention, but dammit im not allowed to)

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1323609593' post='2873823']
I see MHA bringing up defending CnG, but where were you when NPO needed you?
[/quote]
They also promised to stay out if FARK was'nt hit in BiPolar.

Edited December 11, 2011 by shahenshah

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

[quote name='Proest' timestamp='1323588256' post='2873637']
The attack on MHA was planned whether it's admitted or not.
[/quote]


Being in CnG gov, I can honestly say that it wasn't.

You can take my word for whatever you think it's worth, Cuba, but it really wasn't.

There were a lot of blue balls within the bloc, yes, but to believe that CnG would just attack MHA just because they can is just a flat out lack of understanding of our modus operandi.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Ayatollah Bromeini