GOD Declaration of War

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1341469597' post='3003843']
To the moralists: Why is this war any different from, say, War of the Coalition? Other than the fact that, I guess, MK (the hegemon) initiated the war, this is basically starting a war for the simple reason of starting the war, replacing MK with Val/TOP/GGA and SF/XX for the Polar groupings. Why is this war any different from TOP/IRON v. Polar? That war was done simply to roll Polar (geez, this seems to be a trend here). And furthermore, how exactly are alliances like IRON, TIO, TPF (d34th's own ally), GATO, The Brain, etc's actions are any different from what NPO has done? They're fighting for their allies, plain and simple. That's coalition warfare. You all are just whining out of your ass because MK has the power to do things, while SF has enough enemies to merit a lot of alliances to jump in against them. That's just the way it goes, folks.

although I will say the comparison with Bobby J is pretty funny
[/quote]


Some of us are not pleased at all to be in the position we've found ourselves in, nothing to do with "morals". But the main difference in our case is we followed an MD clause and not an optional clause. I'm not even happy about that because ultimately my alliance is aiding MK in their war of extermination.

[Mogar]

Your allies chose this path, perhaps you should be having your government discuss with Brehon his long game plan, from what he has publicly stated on the radio and on these forums, I think Schatt is close to hitting the nail on the head, we're the easy target, next war will be DR/PF vs MK/CnG, with us sitting out, like Pacifica did to recover from their two beatdowns, I am not sure why Brehon feels this is the better choice though, forcing MK into a losing war this time around would have been better long term than kicking the already weakened potential enemies.

[berbers]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341458665' post='3003755']
Like I said, I dont care what you did or did not do. But do not pollute the reality with rubbish like that sentence, for Admin's sake, man up and admit you were playing treaty web chess.
[/quote]

If that's what we did, I would admit it. We were asked to play the treaty web chess by countering you, as our NPO ties would prevent them from entering in your defense. That was before the other front opened on NG when the line of thought was that NPO coming in was a bad idea. So actually, when we were asked to use our NPO ties, we said no. I can get someone to provide evidence to support this if you need to see it. NPO said they supported their allies and we would not put them in a situation where they couldn't defend them.

No matter what happened, we were going to support R&R in this war. This is about as clear cut reason for treaties existing as any I have ever seen, there was 0% chance we were leaving R&R out to dry. So we went and hit MK who wasn't a direct ally of NPO, but was at war with R&R.

We thought we would get countered right up until Leet Guy posted we wouldn't in our [u]DoW thread[/u] because to be honest, NPO was very up front with us about this war and so we said from day one if we got countered we would not activate that treaty. I can get someone to provide evidence of that to.

So no Rush, I don't need to man up and admit anything, we avoided playing treaty web chess out of respect for NPO.

Edited July 5, 2012 by berbers

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1341482149' post='3003867']
If that's what we did, I would admit it. We were asked to play the treaty web chess by countering you, as our NPO ties would prevent them from entering in your defense. That was before the other front opened on NG when the line of thought was that NPO coming in was a bad idea. So actually, when we were asked to use our NPO ties, we said no. I can get someone to provide evidence to support this if you need to see it. NPO said they supported their allies and we would not put them in a situation where they couldn't defend them.

No matter what happened, we were going to support R&R in this war. This is about as clear cut reason for treaties existing as any I have ever seen, there was 0% chance we were leaving R&R out to dry. So we went and hit MK who wasn't a direct ally of NPO, but was at war with R&R.

We thought we would get countered right up until Leet Guy posted we wouldn't in our [u]DoW thread[/u] because to be honest, NPO was very up front with us about this war and so we said from day one if we got countered we would not activate that treaty. I can get someone to provide evidence of that to.

So no Rush, I don't need to man up and admit anything, we avoided playing treaty web chess out of respect for NPO.
[/quote]

The denial is ridiculous. You were asked to play Q-B3 and you castled instead, big deal. You know what else? Its 100% ok that you played treaty chess. Everyone does it. Everyone also denies doing it, and its really quite silly. War is about making life hard for the enemy, and tbh, you did that, successfully. I dont begrudge you for what you did, I would, and have, done the same things. But if you REALLY expect to believe that conversation of "lets see if we hit MK, nobody can conceivably counter us because C&G does not want to push NPO to the other side" did not happen in some way shape or form, then your leadership is 1 of 2 things: 1) disingenuous (which is OK, we are on opposite sides, you have no obligation to be genuine) or 2) Incompetent. Ironically, Im giving you credit for NOT being incompetent.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341489349' post='3003883']
The denial is ridiculous. You were asked to play Q-B3 and you castled instead, big deal. You know what else? Its 100% ok that you played treaty chess. Everyone does it. Everyone also denies doing it, and its really quite silly. War is about making life hard for the enemy, and tbh, you did that, successfully. I dont begrudge you for what you did, I would, and have, done the same things. But if you REALLY expect to believe that conversation of "lets see if we hit MK, nobody can conceivably counter us because C&G does not want to push NPO to the other side" did not happen in some way shape or form, then your leadership is 1 of 2 things: 1) disingenuous (which is OK, we are on opposite sides, you have no obligation to be genuine) or 2) Incompetent. Ironically, Im giving you credit for NOT being incompetent.
[/quote]
The premise of your posts is wrong. We do not have a broader obligation to assist SF/XX in their war. We have an obligation to R&R. The decision from NATO's perspective was always a matter of how we could best honour our obligation to assist R&R, rather than how we could be used optimally as part of the broader SF/XX coalition.

So, you are still wrong. If we had wanted to play treaty chess, we could have countered TLR or GATO, where we might have been able to hope for fairer treatment at war's end, or where we would have maximised treaty conflicts in order to prevent further counters. That was not our objective. As I said and Bambi confirmed, we entered with no expectation regarding whether or not we would be countered. The decision to enter against MK was a least-worst choice with regard to treaty conflicts given the scenario your side presented us with.

[Charles Stuart]

I love the logic found on Bob. When you help an ally who is losing you are honorable. When you help an ally who is winning you have to somehow disguise your reason for doing so in order to justify your action.

Just drop the !@#$%^&* brehon and say "yes, we backed NG because for years we were pariahs and finally the hard work in FA has paid off and we aren't gonna mess it up by not honoring a treaty". It will lead to less headaches along with the fact no one is really buying your current argument. No one really thinks NPO has it in them to take back the throne, they are just bawing in a thread because they have something to baw about as long as you keep your current "we didn't choose a side, we are just helping our allies" argument.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Branimir]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1341490905' post='3003887']"we didn't choose a side, we are just helping our allies" argument.[/quote]
I already said it, but Ill repeat.

If this is all about sides and one can not look pass that, and there are only two that of MK or GOD,...then both options suck ass terribly
Maybe you should ask yourself, why does NPO have ties it has now which after GOD attacked NG brought NPO, by your logic, on the MK side.
We all know that NPO tried to have treaties with SF alliances, but that was stopped by the same force that brought NPO into this war by hitting its ally.

Now, go baw more as its only you who are doing it actually.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Branimir

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341489349' post='3003883']
The denial is ridiculous. You were asked to play Q-B3 and you castled instead, big deal. You know what else? Its 100% ok that you played treaty chess. Everyone does it. Everyone also denies doing it, and its really quite silly. War is about making life hard for the enemy, and tbh, you did that, successfully. I dont begrudge you for what you did, I would, and have, done the same things. But if you REALLY expect to believe that conversation of "lets see if we hit MK, nobody can conceivably counter us because C&G does not want to push NPO to the other side" did not happen in some way shape or form, then your leadership is 1 of 2 things: 1) disingenuous (which is OK, we are on opposite sides, you have no obligation to be genuine) or 2) Incompetent. Ironically, Im giving you credit for NOT being incompetent.
[/quote]

Your disbelief that anyone could be motivated by [i]anything[/i] other than pure politics is noted, but you're still wrong.


They're not on your side — sorry.
They didn't have [i]any[/i] expectations in terms of support and you over-thought their involvement — sorry.


I'm going to call BS on your assertion that you would have done the same thing... simply because you've been talking down the need for anyone to help LSF over the past couple of weeks — this isn't to redirect to INT or anything like that, just an observation about your current attitude and priorities. If you had a choice between sitting on your hands and waiting for victory to come to you or being proactive in supporting an ally on the losing side of a conflict, knowing it would still be a loss as in this scenario, don't pretend you would take the latter option.


That said... you're being overcritical at best and trying to diminish the NATO/NPO relationship, by wrongly stating that NATO were using NPO, at worst. You have different priorities to NATO (maintaining political relevance vs. loyalty? evident by their support of NPO over the past three years, RoK over the past few months and R&R this war, at least) and so it's not even a matter of incompetence. They aren't heavily invested in the political game like TLR, but nor are they removed from it and they present as the best allies any alliance could hope to have — they're not people who will [i]ever[/i] screw you over to save themselves, for better or worse.


So: stop trying to push NATO into a corner by only giving them a choice between using NPO or being incompetent. If you had a single shred of respect for them you'd instead give them credit for showing consistent loyalty and answering honestly. You think of self-preservation as avoiding a loss; NATO think of self-preservation as refusing to sacrifice their own integrity and principles — acting bitter about that doesn't do anything to help you.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1341490581' post='3003886']
The premise of your posts is wrong. We do not have a broader obligation to assist SF/XX in their war. We have an obligation to R&R. The decision from NATO's perspective was always a matter of how we could best honour our obligation to assist R&R, rather than how we could be used optimally as part of the broader SF/XX coalition.

So, you are still wrong. If we had wanted to play treaty chess, we could have countered TLR or GATO, where we might have been able to hope for fairer treatment at war's end, or where we would have maximised treaty conflicts in order to prevent further counters. That was not our objective. As I said and Bambi confirmed, we entered with no expectation regarding whether or not we would be countered. The decision to enter against MK was a least-worst choice with regard to treaty conflicts given the scenario your side presented us with.
[/quote]

The notion that you would have countered TLR or GATO to play treaty chess is patently absurd. We all saw what Brehon said his feeling was on any ally hitting another ally in this war. For Gods sake, why do you pretend like that statement had no bearing on your "decision" when it is clear that it did. You can spin what you want , how you want, and there will always be buyers. But if you really think that anyone thinks that you hitting MK somehow helps RnR, then you take the rest of the world for daft fools.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1341495816' post='3003915']
Your disbelief that anyone could be motivated by [i]anything[/i] other than pure politics is noted, but you're still wrong.


They're not on your side — sorry.
They didn't have [i]any[/i] expectations in terms of support and you over-thought their involvement — sorry.


I'm going to call BS on your assertion that you would have done the same thing... simply because you've been talking down the need for anyone to help LSF over the past couple of weeks — this isn't to redirect to INT or anything like that, just an observation about your current attitude and priorities. If you had a choice between sitting on your hands and waiting for victory to come to you or being proactive in supporting an ally on the losing side of a conflict, knowing it would still be a loss as in this scenario, don't pretend you would take the latter option.


That said... you're being overcritical at best and trying to diminish the NATO/NPO relationship, by wrongly stating that NATO were using NPO, at worst. You have different priorities to NATO (maintaining political relevance vs. loyalty? evident by their support of NPO over the past three years, RoK over the past few months and R&R this war, at least) and so it's not even a matter of incompetence. They aren't heavily invested in the political game like TLR, but nor are they removed from it and they present as the best allies any alliance could hope to have — they're not people who will [i]ever[/i] screw you over to save themselves, for better or worse.


So: stop trying to push NATO into a corner by only giving them a choice between using NPO or being incompetent. If you had a single shred of respect for them you'd instead give them credit for showing consistent loyalty and answering honestly. You think of self-preservation as avoiding a loss; NATO think of self-preservation as refusing to sacrifice their own integrity and principles — acting bitter about that doesn't do anything to help you.
[/quote]


Exactly how does my stance on LSF have any bearing whatsoever to me standing up and saying that as alliances we all play treaty web chess? Or that I have and will probably again have to do the exact same thing? That literally makes no sense. My stance on LSF is simple. They chose their path, and I am not one to sit silently while someone else tries to wield my bloc like a club, so I am vocal about how I feel. In fact, the LSF situation, by and large, is a PRIME example of how everyone plays political chess, and in no way exemplifies the exact opposite, as you seem to indicate.

Also, bitter? Are you even reading what I say. I have not one single issue with what NATO did. How can I be bitter about it? You made a choice to commit to a side in a war, for Admin's sake that puts you ahead of nearly everyone on your side in the decision-making process. Im not bitter at all, quite the opposite, I respect what you did. But to insinuate that you never took even one second to consider possible treaty chains and conflicts in your decision on who you hit, is just disingenuous. You may want to feel all warm and fuzzy and believe that it was a 0 impact decision, but it was not. That is my issue. Own the reality man.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341496839' post='3003920']
The notion that you would have countered TLR or GATO to play treaty chess is patently absurd. We all saw what Brehon said his feeling was on any ally hitting another ally in this war. For Gods sake, why do you pretend like that statement had no bearing on your "decision" when it is clear that it did. You can spin what you want , how you want, and there will always be buyers. But if you really think that anyone thinks that you hitting MK somehow helps RnR, then you take the rest of the world for daft fools.
[/quote]
Of course NPO's wishes had a large bearing on our decision. That is the whole point. Once TLR/GATO countered R&R, NATO was faced with a decision of how to honour a pre-war understanding to defend/support R&R, while [i]minimising[/i] treaty conflicts and taking into account the direct interests of our largest treaty partner. That left declaring on MK as the only other option. Declaring on MK helped R&R by freeing their war slots up to defend against the counters, instead of having them tied up with wars against MK. Given that I do not see any wars being launched by MK against R&R, then yes, I do believe that declaring on MK somehow helped R&R. How else were we supposed to honour our treaty?

Edited July 5, 2012 by Sir Humphrey

[Daimos]

Most DoW’s in this war were pretty predictable once the shooting started. The only DoW I am puzzled by was GoD’s declaration on Non Grata.

Yes, it was in response to NG’s attacking one of GoD’s ally but why NG and not MK? No slots on that front? So what, by declaring on MK you keep the war contained.

By declaring on NG, you basically opened a new front that does not benefit GoD’s coalition. I am very interested to hear the reasoning over this decision.

[Gibsonator21]

Reminder to Bambi, Berbers, and SH: You're arguing with Rush. Everything works one way in his mind, and it's his way or the highway.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1341519463' post='3004097']
Reminder to Bambi, Berbers, and SH: You're arguing with Rush. Everything works one way in his mind, and it's his way or the highway.
[/quote]

He's a funny guy, when he queried me on irc shouting the odds about his block I thought someone from The Last Republic was on acid.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341497544' post='3003925']
I am not one to sit silently while someone else tries to wield my bloc like a club,
[/quote]

This is precious.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1341510789' post='3004036']
Most DoW’s in this war were pretty predictable once the shooting started. The only DoW I am puzzled by was GoD’s declaration on Non Grata.

Yes, it was in response to NG’s attacking one of GoD’s ally but why NG and not MK? No slots on that front? So what, by declaring on MK you keep the war contained.

By declaring on NG, you basically opened a new front that does not benefit GoD’s coalition. I am very interested to hear the reasoning over this decision.
[/quote]
based your nation age, you fought in Karma, was it fun fighting an enemy 5x your size? GOD came in to relieve some of the pressure on RIA(who was aggressively attacked without any provocation, but I'll leave that line of argument for others because it's be shown to fall on deaf ears.)

[berbers]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341496839' post='3003920']
The notion that you would have countered TLR or GATO to play treaty chess is patently absurd. We all saw what Brehon said his feeling was on any ally hitting another ally in this war. For Gods sake, why do you pretend like that statement had no bearing on your "decision" when it is clear that it did. You can spin what you want , how you want, and there will always be buyers. But if you really think that anyone thinks that you hitting MK somehow helps RnR, then you take the rest of the world for daft fools.
[/quote]

Rush I we can only push this forward so many times, but you underestimate the respect for NPO in NATO. We never wanted to end up opposite of NPO, but unfortunately that happens sometimes.

Our #1 preference for this war would have been to have someone not allied to NPO hit R&R so we could simply have countered and gone on our way, when you and GATO hit them you essentially left us with 3 choices. Keep in mind there are only 3 AA's at war with R&R: GATO, TLR and MK.

1) Hit GATO/TLR on the MD - Not something we wanted to do as a council, as it would be "playing treaty chess" with our NPO ties, which we have to much respect for them to do

2) Hit MK on an oA - Not an unnatractive option for us to be sure, but mostly due to us not liking them as opposed to thinking we could avoid a counter

3) Sit the war out - Not an option, if you don't defend your allies who are fighting against someone who declared war for "loldave93", then you don't deserve allies

My respect for TLR has been increasing alot for the last few months, especially when I realized how good of allies you have been to NPO. I want you to know the reason I am spending the time responding is because of that newfound respect, I don't want you guys having the wrong opinion of our rationale. I will categorically state here that we did not try and drag NPO onto a side against the majority of it's allies, that we 100% support NPO's decision and expect no succor from them for ours and that we went out of our way to pick the option that caused the least damage to NPO or it's direct allies, while still allowing us to honor our treaty with R&R.

We also fully expected counters and I flat out told our coalition that if we were countered we would not request help from NPO. The funny thing about this is how you think we made the wrong decision, I had alot of people tell me from "this side of the war" that it was the wrong decision as well, that we should activate our treaty if the opportunity arises.

So maybe we are incompetent, and maybe we pissed off both coalitions. Hell, maybe we end up as international pariahs and completely irrelevant after this war. But we can be proud of the fact that when faced with a difficult decision, we did the best we could by all of our allies. Hopefully they understand.

I won't respond anymore in here, this is GOD's show after all, if you want to continue this conversation, look me up on IRC or send me in-game PM's.

[Litha Riddle]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1341520756' post='3004107']
based your nation age, you fought in Karma, was it fun fighting an enemy 5x your size? GOD came in to relieve some of the pressure on RIA(who was aggressively attacked without any provocation, but I'll leave that line of argument for others because it's be shown to fall on deaf ears.)
[/quote]

Actually yes it was. It was the best war I've ever taken part in to date.

The fact that things were finally honest made it all the more fun.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1341520756' post='3004107']
based your nation age, you fought in Karma, was it fun fighting an enemy 5x your size? GOD came in to relieve some of the pressure on RIA(who was aggressively attacked without any provocation, but I'll leave that line of argument for others because it's be shown to fall on deaf ears.)
[/quote]

Not sure how effective GoD's DoW on NG relieved the pressure on RIA.

Maybe it did but at a cost of another ally (VE) and pulling more alliances to pound on their coalition, escalating and probably prolonging the conclusion of this war.

I am not digging on GoD but it just seemed that thier DoW on NG and not MK made it worst for their coalition. What am I not seeing?

Edited July 5, 2012 by Daimos

[Akama]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1341522753' post='3004116']
Not sure how effective GoD’s DoW on NG relieved the pressure on RIA.

Maybe it did but at a cost of another ally (VE) and pulling more alliances to pound on their coalition, escalating and probably prolonging the conclusion of this war.
[/quote]

I'd love to take responsibility for shaving off ~2mil of NG's NS, but there were other alliances that declared too. Except, I'm sure those other alliances don't matter at all to you. You just want your shot at GOD.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Akama' timestamp='1341523049' post='3004121']
I'd love to take responsibility for shaving off ~2mil of NG's NS, but there were other alliances that declared too. Except, I'm sure those other alliances don't matter at all to you. You just want your shot at GOD.
[/quote]

We would gone in regardless who attacked Non Grata but why your coalition chose GoD does not make any sense to me.

Are any of them have a treaty with VE? If so, than yea my argument is mute if not then why sacrifice one of your oldest ally?

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1341524286' post='3004148']
We would gone in regardless who attacked Non Grata but why your coalition chose GoD does not make any sense to me.

Are any of them have a treaty with VE? If so, than yea my argument is mute if not then why sacrifice one of your oldest ally?
[/quote]
Because they have an MDP+ treaty with RIA, and NG attacked them without cause. Are you saying GOD should have let RIA burn to protect VE?

[Daimos]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1341524888' post='3004155']
Because they have an MDP+ treaty with RIA, and NG attacked them without cause. Are you saying GOD should have let RIA burn to protect VE?
[/quote]

They also have a MDP level with CSN. Attacking MK would have kept VE out of harms way.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1341525238' post='3004160']
They also have a MDP level with CSN. Attacking MK would have kept VE out of harms way.
[/quote]
and left RIA to burn?

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1341525238' post='3004160']
They also have a MDP level with CSN. Attacking MK would have kept VE out of harms way.
[/quote]
What really should have happened is you shouldn't have activated an optional treaty to facilitate an unprovoked war of aggression against us.