Peace and all that Jazz

[kerschbs]

Tim I disagreed with you the first time it was suggested we give MHA peace without an admission of defeat, and I objected to it when dream suggested it now (as did laslo, laser, manis, magic, and most of the GA.) There is no insult in asking for a losing party to admit defeat. Not to mention your agreement with them was close to a month old at that point anyway. To suggest that we are going against our principles because we asked for a surrender and no re-entry is simply ridiculous.

Also, to claim that we forced MHA to surrender by the threat of calling in NPO is disingenuous and I think you know that (especially since Brehon already outlined what happened anyway.) However if calling in NPO got MHA out of the war quicker, isn't that the point anyway?

I know you have greivences with Kubla, but you aren't making yourself look good (or us look any worse) with your posturing. This is coming from a friend.

[Reyas]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343236896' post='3015157']


I think that after months of chest-thumping it is absolutely peachy that GATO had to actually threaten escalation to get an alliance so widely regarded as awful as MHA to agree to explicitly admit defeat. But what else was GATO supposed to do, really? C&G is busy, (still no help from Duckroll, ODN?) and you're absolutely starved for a victory after, what, 4 years? Remember, my gaunt GATOan friends, that you shall rupture your stomachs if you eat too much after so long a famine.

You may have won this little war, but you certainly didn't win any acclaim. More green for NPO's wiki, I say.
[/quote]

We hold no treaties with Duckroll, why would we (or you) expect them to help us? Your preoccupation with us is unsettling.

[Mr Vicarious]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1343235333' post='3015131']
I don't particularly care if they got terms or not. I think they should have actually fought though, even Sparta put up a better show. They shielded themselves in peace-mode and basically didn't do much at all
[/quote]

Yes, all alliances with more than 1/3 of their total # of nations in PM should be greatly punished for denying their opponents targets.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343230226' post='3015081']
I don't think reps are necessary for fringe alliances at all, but if you're going to declare war and then don't fight, terms of bringing upper tiers out could be utilized. I mean, really, how else can Umbrella have fun?
[/quote]

...so you wanted MHA's upper tier to come out...so Umbrella...MHA's ODP ally still...can attack them

..the logic is astounding

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Reyas' timestamp='1343237845' post='3015170']
We hold no treaties with Duckroll, why would we (or you) expect them to help us? Your preoccupation with us is unsettling.
[/quote]
Why, indeed.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1343238378' post='3015178']
...so you wanted MHA's upper tier to come out...so Umbrella...MHA's ODP ally still...can attack them

..the logic is astounding
[/quote]
No one accused Neo of coherence lately. Anyway, as long as Umbrella holds onto such a tragically terrible FP, they might as well attack MHA themselves.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Brehon]

A statement of events is not a threat or a promise its an accounting and notification of action. Yes I know, its good and fun to add a twist or spin. I delivered at the beginning of this war what NPO would do. I personally on several occasions talked to those involved about what we would and wouldn't do. Talking with MHA is no exception.

But hell twist it how ya want. NPO defended her allies in the best aspects and directions for each situation. No shame in that.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Reyas' timestamp='1343237845' post='3015170']
We hold no treaties with Duckroll, why would we (or you) expect them to help us? Your preoccupation with us is unsettling.
[/quote]

The Crap-pile landing on our front lawns is evidence of our importance, so how could Bob's finest strategic analyst [i]not[/i] be preoccupied with us?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1343238836' post='3015185']
The Crap-pile landing on our front lawns is evidence of our importance, so how could Bob's finest strategic analyst [i]not[/i] be preoccupied with us?
[/quote]
I thank you for the accolades, perhaps with your endorsement your wayward fellow ODNista will come to terms with my statement as one not made without due diligence on my part.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1343238760' post='3015184']
A statement of events is not a threat or a promise its an accounting and notification of action. Yes I know, its good and fun to add a twist or spin. I delivered at the beginning of this war what NPO would do. I personally on several occasions talked to those involved about what we would and wouldn't do. Talking with MHA is no exception.

But hell twist it how ya want. NPO defended her allies in the best aspects and directions for each situation. No shame in that.
[/quote]
Brehon, one day you're going to have to stop crying "spin" every time anyone says anything you don't like; it wears thin. You told MHA that if they didn't do what GATO wanted, then NPO would attack them. If you're [i]soooooo [/i]not ashamed, then stop trying to put lipstick on this hog.
And congratulations on doing with words what GATO couldn't with arms.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Brehon]

Well !@#$ Schatt you are going to have to stop decrying what I say and give it new meaning or what have you. It does wear thin. See how that cycle works. I mean hell I said the words, I did the actions. I would say I have a much greater authority of what my meaning and intent are far beyond you deciding what it means.

Thank you defense isn't always done with nation crashing.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Brehon

[Pingu]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343239315' post='3015189']
I thank you for the accolades, perhaps with your endorsement your wayward fellow ODNista will come to terms with my statement as one not made without due diligence on my part.
[/quote]

Actually, your statement/question was bizarre, and my respected friend's riposte was on point. Why would anyone expect DR to come to our defence against the Crap-pile? We don't. You yourself seem sceptical. So why did you even bring it up, particularly in GATO and friends' victory announcement?

[Schattenmann]

Brehonnnnnn, you're my bro, hon. I don't think I've decried anything you've said since the Fark peace terms thingy. You simply aren't matching your closings to your statements, and I have to assign the correct closing.

Look, NPO doesn't want to be seen as the boogeyman, so, no, you're not going to say "We threatened to tonk MHA." Ok; I/we get it. But it's simply disingenuous for you to come in here and go "we didn't threaten them, we made them an offer they couldn't refuse."
Me, spin? You're attempting to create distinctions where there are none for purposes of PR. I don't even have a problem with the action.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1343238378' post='3015178']
...so you wanted MHA's upper tier to come out...so Umbrella...MHA's ODP ally still...can attack them

..the logic is astounding
[/quote]
My statement didn't apply specifically to MHA. It was a statement that could generally be applied to the opposing coalition.

Your assumptions are astounding.

[bkphysics]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343238759' post='3015183']
Anyway, as long as Umbrella holds onto such a tragically terrible FP, they might as well attack MHA themselves.
[/quote]

That would require beans in the beanbag so to speak

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343230226' post='3015081']
I don't think reps are necessary for fringe alliances at all, but if you're going to declare war and then don't fight, terms of bringing upper tiers out could be utilized. I mean, really, how else can Umbrella have fun?
[/quote]

Who cares about Umbrella??? I don't. While I understand your sentiment, I don't care what tactics the other side uses, if they fought well in whatever ranks they have out and fought long enough, then lets have peace. I would rather have peace and fight a war later on, than force an alliance to bring out their already small upper tier just so some slathering idiots in another alliance can have fun. That means the next war, they will not have an upper tier and only exasperates the problem. While I also may not agree with the PM tactic in so much as it does give a stigma to said alliance and side.

But there are always two sides to every coin.

[quote name='TimLee' timestamp='1343231108' post='3015088']
I meant to the extent they went to ensure that term was included. It wasn't anything any of the other alliances in this conflict did. It's not even GATO. It's Kubla.
[/quote]

Ahhh except the other alliances would not leave without GATO. Though to be honest, it was kind of stupid of MHA to fight that term considering it should have been a non-issue. If MHA wanted to fight that term as they did, they made the war last just as long as ebil GATO did. I could understand if GATO was trying to leverage MHA into paying reps or even into bringing out their upper tier to get demolished but frankly, both GATO and MHA $%&@ed up over a simple term such as "Admit Defeat".

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343236896' post='3015157']
And yet you stupid little fringe allies keep doing their dirty work. It's an easy problem to solve if you [i]actually[/i] cared (but let's not kid ourselves, here).

I think that after months of chest-thumping it is absolutely peachy that GATO had to actually threaten escalation to get an alliance so widely regarded as awful as MHA to agree to explicitly admit defeat. But what else was GATO supposed to do, really? C&G is busy, (still no help from Duckroll, ODN?) and you're absolutely starved for a victory after, what, 4 years? Remember, my gaunt GATOan friends, that you shall rupture your stomachs if you eat too much after so long a famine.

You may have won this little war, but you certainly didn't win any acclaim. More green for NPO's wiki, I say.
[/quote]

I am in TIO dude. I fought to protect LoSS, not GATO and not NPO. NPO did not even enter on this front so has no victory here. So not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything...

As for us helping to maintain whatever it is you think we are helping to maintain, if you don't like it so much, then maybe you should put your alliance where your mouth is? You talk a lot but don't do much at all to change the status quo. "All it takes is for good men to do nothing"

As for GATO, I addressed that above. Both GATO and MHA $%&@ed up. GATO for pushing it like they did and MHA for simply being dumb enough to not jump at a simple term like that. An admission of defeat literally hurts no one, particularly given if MHA had fought a different set of alliances, they could very well have had to put their entire upper tier out of PM in order to gain peace. So having a term such as "admit defeat" added on after refusing the original terms, they should have felt rather lucky instead of delaying peace.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343241362' post='3015213']
Who cares about Umbrella??? I don't. While I understand your sentiment, I don't care what tactics the other side uses, if they fought well in whatever ranks they have out and fought long enough, then lets have peace. I would rather have peace and fight a war later on, than force an alliance to bring out their already small upper tier just so some slathering idiots in another alliance can have fun. That means the next war, they will not have an upper tier and only exasperates the problem. While I also may not agree with the PM tactic in so much as it does give a stigma to said alliance and side.

But there are always two sides to every coin.
[/quote]
You act like politics aren't fluid. If alliances put serious effort into changing the sides up, maybe we could have some upper tier fighting. The problem isn't that the other side has no upper tier nations, it's that they don't want to take a risk putting them on the line in return for political capital. Nobody wants to ally a coward, and a good fight can make friends of some of the most heated rivalries (ie: MK-TOP)

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343241362' post='3015213']
I am in TIO dude. I fought to protect LoSS, not GATO and not NPO.[/quote]
While it may make it easier to look yourselves in the mirror, drivel like this has always been just that: drivel.
Like NPO's statement of intentions, you/TIO can protest the effect of your support for this war all you want, but it doesn't not change the reality of your actions.

[quote]As for us helping to maintain whatever it is you think we are helping to maintain, if you don't like it so much, then maybe you should put your alliance where your mouth is? You talk a lot but don't do much at all to change the status quo. "All it takes is for good men to do nothing"[/quote]
I would love to t-bone TIO for being reluctant toadies whose members apparently see themselves as detached from the rest of the world rather than as the cogs that they are; promise not to run crying to Brehon to come and "talk" to me about "what will happen" if we do?

But, my friend, your challenge belies your lack of comprehension. CoJ is already walking our talk, unlike you. We espouse a certain set of beliefs about treaties, war, etc (link in my sig) and we act upon it. You'll never find me blushing behind a podium explaining why we're fighting a war we don't believe in: and that's not an accident.
Someone like you who doesn't understand anything except war will always find yourself shooting yourself in the foot; how foolish do you have to be to talk about how you're just going to war, not supporting it from one side of your mouth while attempting to criticize alliances whose actions are aligned with their philosophies out of the other? CoJ is already what you wish you were. What a tragically comedic critic you are.

[quote]As for GATO, I addressed that above. Both GATO and MHA $%&@ed up. GATO for pushing it like they did and MHA for simply being dumb enough to not jump at a simple term like that. An admission of defeat literally hurts no one, particularly given if MHA had fought a different set of alliances, they could very well have had to put their entire upper tier out of PM in order to gain peace. So having a term such as "admit defeat" added on after refusing the original terms, they should have felt rather lucky instead of delaying peace.
[/quote]
You'll find no argument from me to the effect that the term in itself is bad; you're barking up the wrong tree.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[D34th]

So after all the months of people saying how MHA is an awful alliance GATO had to threaten them with escalation to get an admission of defeat... So the terms should be re-written to:

[quote]After a long and honorable fight the combined forces of NEAT, PPO, GPF and MHA agree to admit defeat to [s]LoSS, TIO, DT, Hooligans, The Brain and GATO[/s] NPO[/quote]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343241548' post='3015218']
You act like politics aren't fluid. If alliances put serious effort into changing the sides up, maybe we could have some upper tier fighting. The problem isn't that the other side has no upper tier nations, it's that they don't want to take a risk putting them on the line in return for political capital. Nobody wants to ally a coward, and a good fight can make friends of some of the most heated rivalries (ie: MK-TOP)
[/quote]

I already stated I agree with y'alls argument against PM but I can also see the other side's argument as well. That is fluidity. Your side is stuck on one single interpretation, that is not called being fluid. Politics can line up as well. Yes, MHA hid their upper tier but they fought rather gallantly in the lower tiers and stayed in for what a month or so? I would say that is bravery along with cowardice.

The problem though has everything to do with one side having no upper tier. You bring up MK-TOP. At that time TOP was at their height and had a huge upper tier. I would almost wager, TOP had as much upper tier as the current coalition opposing MK/Umb has or at least rather close to it. So that is not exactly the greatest example. While, I would wager that TOP would have kept their nations out of PM (except to cycle) but they had the nations to do it with.

Frankly, if politics were as fluid as you stated, then things would change regardless. But politics are nearly as fluid as you claim. In order for the opposite coalition to progress in politics, they have to accept your coalition's premise on politics. That is not fluidity, that is stagnation. Fluidity is compromise (I would wager Sparta gaining peace without having to bring all of their upper tier out and MHA gaining peace without any such term are good examples of actual fluidity).

Yes, a good fight can make friends, but so can actually trying to resolve differences and grudges without the use of war. From the claims (at least on the OWF) it appears that the only way your side is willing to allow politics to actually change (aka become fluid) is for the opposing side to be completely crushed regardless of how long the grudges/grievances/etc have been held. But please continue to tell me how your side promotes fluid politics?

[Ogaden]

Speaking of peacemode, NG please take more midtier nations out of peacemode, especially the ones without SDIs. I want them to earn some of my respect.

[Daimos]

This thread entertainment factor just went up. Thanks Tim Lee.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343242348' post='3015226']
While it may make it easier to look yourselves in the mirror, drivel like this has always been just that: drivel.
Like NPO's statement of intentions, you/TIO can protest the effect of your support for this war all you want, but it doesn't not change the reality of your actions.[/quote]

So now stating actual fact (TIO for example did not hit MHA to defend GATO, we hit PPO to defend LoSS) is drivel. Okay then. I have not exactly seen anyone claim any such nonsense though. We simply corrected you in who we defended.

[quote]I would love to t-bone TIO for being reluctant toadies whose members apparently see themselves as detached from the rest of the world rather than as the cogs that they are; promise not to run crying to Brehon to come and "talk" to me about "what will happen" if we do?[/quote]

So in other words, you will talk a lot and do only that? Gotcha. Talk about drivel. You just basically agreed to what I said you do. Talk a lot but do little to change !@#$. Keep it up mate.

[quote]But, my friend, your challenge belies your lack of comprehension. CoJ is already walking our talk, unlike you. We espouse a certain set of beliefs about treaties, war, etc (link in my sig) and we act upon it. You'll never find me blushing behind a podium explaining why we're fighting a war we don't believe in: and that's not an accident.
Someone like you who doesn't understand anything except war will always find yourself shooting yourself in the foot; how foolish do you have to be to talk about how you're just going to war, not supporting it from one side of your mouth while attempting to criticize alliances whose actions are aligned with their philosophies out of the other? CoJ is already what you wish you were. What a tragically comedic critic you are.[/quote]

No, CoJ talks the talk but when it comes time to walk the walk, you keep talking about how you can't actually walk the walk. See the quote above about how you are too scared to actually hit TIO because we have allies willing to defend us. Again, where is TIO doing any kind of "blushing". We fought the wars we wanted to fight for the reasons we wanted to fight them. It does not matter to TIO that they happened to support MK or that by that extension you therefore think we are toadies of MK. TIO knows the facts of why we fought where we did as do our allies. That is all that matters to TIO. Your thoughts on the matter, while amusing, are unimportant plain and simple. What a tragically comedic orator you are.


[quote]You'll find no argument from me to the effect that the term in itself is bad; you're barking up the wrong tree.
[/quote]

Except, I never stated the term was bad. In fact, I did state it was a non-issue. Frankly, that term is light and unimportant. What was bad was GATO simply not getting over it when it was refused once or for MHA to refuse it in the first place. The term itself is actually inconsequential due simply to how light it actually is.

[keeology]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1343243506' post='3015241']
This thread entertainment factor just went up. Thanks Tim Lee.
[/quote]


i do agree. time sit back watch and eat popcorn

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343243609' post='3015242']We fought the wars we wanted to fight for the reasons we wanted to fight them. It does not matter to TIO that they happened to support MK...[/quote]
Ohhhh, Dochartaigh, must I remind you what you said just hours ago?
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343228449' post='3015072']
Not really. Fringe alliance is on the fringe of war. If you wanted worse terms for MHA or any other alliance, then by all means fight them yourself or get your alliance to do so. I don't see why our alliances (which to my knowledge rarely resort to things such as reps or ridiculous terms) simply because you and your ilk believe certain alliances should get draconic terms? These are obviously the terms that GATO/LoSS/DT/TIO/Brain/Hooligans all believed MHA and the rest fully deserved otherwise, I am sure there would have been other terms.[/quote]

You are too caught up in fighting/disagreeing with Schattenmann to argue any point.

Even when I explicitly agree with you
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343242348' post='3015226']
You'll find no argument from me[/quote]
You persist in contrariness for contrariness' sake
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343243609' post='3015242']Except, I never stated the term was bad. In fact, I did state it was a non-issue. Frankly, that term is light and unimportant. What was bad was GATO simply not getting over it when it was refused once or for MHA to refuse it in the first place. The term itself is actually inconsequential due simply to how light it actually is.
[/quote]
There really is no point in continuing.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343243609' post='3015242']
So in other words, you will talk a lot and do only that? Gotcha. Talk about drivel. You just basically agreed to what I said you do. Talk a lot but do little to change !@#$. Keep it up mate.[/quote]
What would you like me to do to change TIO? TIO's foreign policy is not something CoJ can change. But I can point out to you just how silly it is for you to start up with this "we don't support it, we're just fighting on behalf of it" nonsense, and to point out the alternative, which is a FP that is aligned with internal philosophies such as CoJ's.

[quote]See the quote above about how you are too scared to actually hit TIO because we have allies willing to defend us.[/quote]
Ah yes, TIO is brave for daring CoJ to attack while NPO stands behidn them, CoJ is cowardly for not doing it.

[quote]Again, where is TIO doing any kind of "blushing".[/quote]
Where, oh, where.
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343241362' post='3015213']
I am in TIO dude. I fought to protect LoSS, not GATO and not NPO.[/quote]
No alliance is an island unto itself. LoSS wasn't randomly at war for no reason, and nor was TIO regardless of whether or not you like the people whose agenda your military was supporting.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343244653' post='3015253']
No alliance is an island unto itself. LoSS wasn't randomly at war for no reason, and nor was TIO regardless of whether or not you like the people whose agenda your military was supporting.
[/quote]
You have stated that when you said
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1343241362' post='3015213']
I am in TIO dude. I fought to protect LoSS, not GATO and not NPO.[/quote]
That you were making a statement of fact about treaty chains, not a political statement. So, if that is the case, we probably have been talking past each other.

Here is the point: No one [i]has [/i]to do anything except stay Black and die. My initial reply was due to your exasperation with Centurius' assertion that terms were too light and that it wasn't TIO's job to do anyone else's dirtywork. But whether the terms were light or not, any alliance--from small fringers like TIO to major players like NPO--who signs away decision-making with compulsive treaties are doing that dirtywork. And the solution is, as I said, very easy: bring the decision-making home.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1343244653' post='3015253']
Ohhhh, Dochartaigh, must I remind you what you said just hours ago?


You are too caught up in fighting/disagreeing with Schattenmann to argue any point.[/quote]

Not even sure what you are saying? TIO came into this front to defend LoSS. Yes, we fought alongside GATO/DT/Hooligans/Brain because that is what a "front" is. A small theater within the larger war. TIO did not fight independently, thus, I labeled all the alliances involved in the peace talks. Not sure how you think I am somehow contradicting myself though.

[quote]Even when I explicitly agree with you

You persist in contrariness for contrariness' sake

There really is no point in continuing.[/quote]

Sorry, I will admit, I misread what you stated. I thought you stated the term was bad. I really need to stop multi-tasking on 4 hours of sleep.


[quote]What would you like me to do to change TIO? TIO's foreign policy is not something CoJ can change. But I can point out to you just how silly it is for you to start up with this "we don't support it, we're just fighting on behalf of it" nonsense, and to point out the alternative, which is a FP that is aligned with internal philosophies such as CoJ's.[/quote]

I don't think TIO's foreign policy needs to change. There are a few things I would like to see have been differently in this war and it is (or should be) well known within TIO. Though I was specifically talking about how you said you wanted to T-bone TIO but won't. Which proved my point about how you are all talk and no action. Now you even state that you can't even change TIO through your talking so basically you are rather useless then?


[quote]Ah yes, TIO is brave for daring CoJ to attack while NPO stands behidn them, CoJ is cowardly for not doing it.[/quote]

You stated TIO will call in anyone. You also stated how you wanted to hit TIO. Again, you talk a lot but don't back it up except with excuses. Next time, maybe you should not bring up how you want to hit TIO but won't due to some hypothetical situation you state will happen. It is not my fault, or TIO's for that matter, that you have few allies willing to defend you should you hit someone like TIO and possibly get hit by an ally of TIO. Though, I will admit, it is entirely TIO's fault we have such loyal and willing allies that will defend us should we be hit. How is it that your foreign policy is somehow superior to that of TIO's? And why is it that it is TIO's that needs to change instead of yours?


[quote]Where, oh, where.[/quote]

Cute. Restating the question without actually answering it.

[quote]No alliance is an island unto itself. LoSS wasn't randomly at war for no reason, and nor was TIO regardless of whether or not you like the people whose agenda your military was supporting.
[/quote]

So by defending LoSS, TIO also helped our other ally GATO? heh... The way I see it, GATO achieved peace with MHA due in part to TIO's help. That is awesome. Now that front is closed and GATO continues with their other front in RnR. I never stated anyone was randomly at war. If TIO truly supported the overall war (aka MK-CSN or Umb-Fark) you would see TIO oAing in somehow to hit the central alliances involved. Yet, now that this front is closed, I doubt TIO will become involved in this war again (though it saddens me this is true, though I can guarantee not in the way you think it saddens me. Those who know, are the ones who matter).