MK Foreign Policy

[Auctor]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1356588316' post='3068342']
I talked to a good few MJ gov members, and there seemed to be no interest. I wasn't the only SF gov to have those conversations, either.
[/quote]It isn't all that surprising that there wouldn't've been. Yall may've changed and all *now* but it really wasn't just some kind of funny coincidence that folks all wanted to roll SF at the time.

[bcortell]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1356587431' post='3068329']
That's the difference. SF would have been able to put aside their differences to work to take out DH. But hey, let's just see how that plays out now that DR wants SF's help.

Edit: Also, get on IRC.
[/quote]
You saying you wouldn't help me? Damn you, Gibs.

Edited December 27, 2012 by bcortell

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Auctor' timestamp='1356590334' post='3068366']
It isn't all that surprising that there wouldn't've been. Yall may've changed and all *now* but it really wasn't just some kind of funny coincidence that folks all wanted to roll SF at the time.
[/quote]

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1356590337' post='3068367']
You saying you wouldn't help me? Damn you, Gibs.
[/quote]

I'm not helping anyone, I'm doing my own thing.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1356585689' post='3068317']
Not really. Demand from PB was pretty darn high. While a good portion of PF would have not joined in a beatdown of Mj, they may not have joined in defense of Mj either. DR may have stayed out as well. SF/XX would most likely have joined in the beatdown and CnG most definitely would have.

Mj knew that there was at least half of PB gunning for them.

[/quote]

I disagree.

There were a lot of dynamics going around internally in those blocs at the time. SF and XX were not as close as many of you made them out to be -- something that was confirmed in XX's struggles in recent wars to maintain a coherent unified directive (With itself, and then in line with SF.) A paradigm shift with an attack on Mj would have seen multiple players who had worked very hard at isolating the bloc fully engaged with someone just as determined to see them rolled and whom we had sent numerous feelers out that were left hanging. Whether we engaged with either entity, given the treatment of PB alliances/DH entities in addition to at that point non-decisions (Polar, other alliance advances,) that would be more attractive in other alternatives are too numerous to discuss in a simple thread such as this.

It's really just a pretty hilarious hypothetical because for as much as people want to dumb it down there were far more than one or two "Grudges," or interests in play and to think any one took stead over another is .... just stupid.

The more simple story line and convenient excuses were bought and sold to package a war that made sense for Mj and MK (And PF, or more specifically TOP.) This was voraciously underpinned by Ardus' efforts in reigniting and fanning the flames -- Granted it took him nearly a year (With the most enviable of circumstances in nearly having been handed a blueprint on what buttons to push to make it happen.) While Bob seems to still crave recognition for the time period I found quite often his viewpoint made more sense in an argument from DH's standpoint than Mj's despite his seat, and only a coincidence that Mj benefitted from the end-result by chance/happenings out of scope of the original plan rather than by Ardus' or anyone's design.

We could elaborate more but it would be pointless.

Fact is MK got what it wanted. Time will tell if it was actually worth it -- but those discussions won't be had or found here.

Edited December 27, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1356591067' post='3068379']
I disagree.

There were a lot of dynamics going around internally in those blocs at the time. SF and XX were not as close as many of you made them out to be -- something that was confirmed in XX's struggles in recent wars to maintain a coherent unified directive (With itself, and then in line with SF.) A paradigm shift with an attack on Mj would have seen multiple players who had worked very hard at isolating the bloc fully engaged with someone just as determined to see them rolled and whom we had sent numerous feelers out that were left hanging. Whether we engaged with either entity, given the treatment of PB alliances/DH entities in addition to at that point non-decisions (Polar, other alliance advances,) that would be more attractive in other alternatives are too numerous to discuss in a simple thread such as this.

It's really just a pretty hilarious hypothetical because for as much as people want to dumb it down there were far more than one or two "Grudges," or interests in play and to think any one took stead over another is .... just stupid.

The more simple story line and convenient excuses were bought and sold to package a war that made sense for Mj and MK (And PF, or more specifically TOP.) This was voraciously underpinned by Ardus' efforts in reigniting and fanning the flames -- Granted it took him nearly a year (With the most enviable of circumstances in nearly having been handed a blueprint on what buttons to push to make it happen.) While Bob seems to still crave recognition for the time period I found quite often his viewpoint made more sense in an argument from DH's standpoint than Mj's despite his seat, and only a coincidence that Mj benefitted from the end-result by chance/happenings out of scope of the original plan rather than by Ardus' or anyone's design.

We could elaborate more but it would be pointless.

Fact is MK got what it wanted. Time will tell if it was actually worth it -- but those discussions won't be had or found here.
[/quote]
The other war possibilities didn't make sense for TOP and PF as a whole, much less for our allies in DR. I answered that ten pages ago. MJ didn't benefit from this by chance, it was by design. We didn't want MJ rolled at all. MJ getting rolled posed a severe threat to our existence. We weren't exactly friends with PB back then, save for NG (and a very ambiguous, realpolitik driven treaty with VE). To see the elimination of MJ/DR would have entirely destroyed the two blocs we considered friendly. We would have been forced to make really tough political choices. And our post-war position would have been disastrous. I'm sure others had their own reasons but to say MJ benefitted by mere coincidence is purely frivolous (unless I got you wrong).

As for MK's downfall, that you guys seem to parrot in every conversation these days, you will have to find the courage to make a move for it to happen. The Kingdom won't simply cease to exist.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1356586028' post='3068320']
Sure I can. Alliances in both DH and PB wanted someone in either SF or MJ, or both. You guys prioritized is all.
[/quote]
Take any consideration of SF out completely, and you'd still have had quite a bit of opposition to rolling MJ because of the ties that existed between MJ and PB/MK, both direct and indirect, especially PF. MK would not have supported a move that would have placed us on the opposite side of TOP. It's even not outside the realm of possibility that we might have joined in with TOP, depending largely on what C&G did.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Azaghul

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1356593228' post='3068404']

As for MK's downfall, that you guys seem to parrot in every conversation these days, you will have to find the courage to make a move for it to happen. The Kingdom won't simply cease to exist.
[/quote]

Normally I'd assume you weren't talking to me, because I said no such thing.

However, I have not seen any others say such thing and well, as you are replying to my post.... I'll address it.

I think MK is already neutered in their ability to "do," anything. Proof is in Azaghuls', Ardus' previous posts. "If you all want something to be done, it's going to have to come from someone else." A great deal of those whom were attacked or affected negatively by MK driven antics do not have short memories. While it makes political sense to do what quite a few have done here -- spin a nonsensical discussion about MK's foreign policy decisions into "who really is actually culpable here and what would have happened if things that would have never happened, happened?" The truth is a considerable amount of people simply wanted to see MK's ability to do harm unto them neutralized. I believe there are many who are satisfied by that alone.

However, I think the Kingdom knows far too well there are many who are not satisfied by simply that. While the comments buzzing around the forum (from my perspective,) seem to be out of fear rather rational politicking, those in private know very well that these entities are not settled into one bloc, one alliance, one entity. No, the Kingdom made many enemies and will be that convenient enemy for a few that it made a great deal more for at least the short term. That's more or less how it works. It was a pretty good bet that I would say paid dividends rather than not -- and I'm sure many members of the Kingdom have had their fill of fun during it and consider no matter what comes forth for it all to have been worth it.

They will not be down forever, no. But I think it's safe to assume they will not be spearheading any campaigns for quite some time.

Other than that -- For a lot that presumably doesn't care what others think about them it seems quite the contrary of late.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Yes, but we all know that's not exactly what your larger side is saying and has been saying both publicly and privately for a year or so. Fungicide, anyone?

You don't keep saying you will see them rolled only to be satisfied by the exhaustion of their political capital. Especially since political capital replenishes itself as time goes by.

[IYIyTh]

Oh, no, I don't disagree with you there. The Kingdom's actions affected quite a few.

However I also don't disagree with their reasons for implicating the Kingdom, granted their substantial role in events.

I think we can both agree that the Kingdom is not free from repercussions of its actions of late. I don't think those affected will be forgetting anytime soon, nor do I think that it has not occurred as of yet mean that it will not occur at all. It did take Ardus and co. a good year to start a war that already had the stars aligned -- and it almost blew up in their faces at least twice in that time.

That's just how things work, I guess.

Edited December 27, 2012 by IYIyTh

[magicninja]

I think what it is Myth is sure they wont forget anytime soon...hell it was a major chunk of Bob's history but will they actually do anything about it any time soon. I'm sure MK is content to sit back and laugh while all anyone does is talk about how nice it would be. It is true that, for the time being, pretty much no one has to worry about MK aggression....that window might not be open forever.

[D34th]

If I wasn't so lazy...

[Timmmehhh]

Wow, some people are just full of hate

[queenhailee]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1356585689' post='3068317']
Valhalla merged with BAPS and Oly to form Ai. Asgaard disbanded, RoK imploded, DT is active and stronger. NoR is stronger though only allied to DT via an ODP. No longer allied to RoK or Ai.

Though none of that was due to the bloc's course as it was mostly internal issues or for NoR, their tie to MK.
[/quote]

Though certainly a consideration, their treaty to MK is not the reason we didn't re-sign the NoR treaty after the merge. We communicated our reason to NoR at the time (one reason). It didn't have anything to do with MK.

[Stewie]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1356617767' post='3068466']
Wow, some people are just full of hate
[/quote]

Let the hate flow through you...

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1356583571' post='3068311']

Actually, the offer did happen, though it wasn't some sort of looming negotiation like people are making it out to be.

On the night that DH attacked CSN, SF gov invited MJ gov into a channel, where they essentially pleaded for us to band with them and attack DH. Given that SF was on the verge of being rolled, it came across as quite humorous to the MJ gov, who really to be honest had no reason to go through with such a plan. Many laughs were had and we respectfully declined and moved on.

I will, however, disagree with the assertion from Gibs and Joe that MJ was making a mistake by declining banding together with SF. There was absolutely no benefit for us to do so, especially since we considered our bloc lasting somewhat longer than it did. The idea that we sacrificed "our future well being" in the affair is downright silly. The offer was a last, desperate plea for help from a bloc that had readily screwed itself over, and are only reflecting back on the affair in the way that they are because MJ isn't around as a bloc anymore, a move that they quite inaccurately take credit for.

I do wish I still had logs from that night, though. It was hilarious to see Xiph and company beg for mercy.
[/quote].

At least someone is honest, instead of just spewing dumb !@#$%^&*.

[Ogaden]

We talked to Asgaard about what to do about the fact that DoomHouse had pre-emptively struck our common allies in CRAP and TTK (who had up until that point sat out the war due to treaty conflicts). It's no surprize Bob Ilyani thinks that's no big deal seeing as how he wasn't too concerned about Asgaard either when he decided to do his own pre-emptive strike on CSN.

Also Bob's focus on Xiph is a bit bizarre seeing as how it was my idea.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Ogaden

[Crymson]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1356643839' post='3068572']
At least someone is honest, instead of just spewing dumb !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]

Beyond that misleading description that Gibsonator gave of that meeting, I don't see where anyone was dishonest.

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1356583571' post='3068311']
There was absolutely no benefit for us to do so, especially since we considered our bloc lasting somewhat longer than it did. The idea that we sacrificed "our future well being" in the affair is downright silly. The offer was a last, desperate plea for help from a bloc that had readily screwed itself over, and are only reflecting back on the affair in the way that they are because MJ isn't around as a bloc anymore, a move that they quite inaccurately take credit for.
[/quote]
No, I disagree entirely. If you think that, you missed the entire point of the offer. I see it very clearly as a short sighted decision vs a long term decision. MJ chose the short term, which is fine. There's considerable risk playing for longterm, but I recon MJ remnants and allies will pay dearly for that decision as SF/XX expected over a year ago. Regardless of the past, what's done is done.

[Garion]

[quote name='Avakael' timestamp='1356578380' post='3068269']
IIRC R&R attacked Asgard and LoSS, with the FOK anti-counter policy backing them up. They didn't take much damage.
[/quote]

Lost around 45% of our NS. I don't know why, but most people seem to think we left that war unscathed. Asgaard had plenty of fun with our (meager) upper tier, and LoSS kept our mid and lower tiers busy, particularly with GATO's help towards the end of the war.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1356648291' post='3068597']
No, I disagree entirely. If you think that, you missed the entire point of the offer. I see it very clearly as a short sighted decision vs a long term decision. MJ chose the short term, which is fine. There's considerable risk playing for longterm, but I recon MJ remnants and allies will pay dearly for that decision as SF/XX expected over a year ago. Regardless of the past, what's done is done.
[/quote]

Unless SF/XX wish to attempt to go after Ai, DT, or NoR; I am not seeing how any of them will "pay dearly" for choosing to hit SF/XX instead of siding with SF/XX. From what I can tell, the long term has paid out pretty well for them, not so well for SF/XX. While y'all think that Mj chose the short term, it is fairly apparent they chose the long term option. You just don't like it because y'all got beatdown more because of it and Mj/remnants did not.

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1356669196' post='3068729']
Unless SF/XX wish to attempt to go after Ai, DT, or NoR; I am not seeing how any of them will "pay dearly" for choosing to hit SF/XX instead of siding with SF/XX. From what I can tell, the long term has paid out pretty well for them, not so well for SF/XX. While y'all think that Mj chose the short term, it is fairly apparent they chose the long term option. You just don't like it because y'all got beatdown more because of it and Mj/remnants did not.
[/quote]
That is not at all the point I was making. Clearly you lack vision of the political landscape today and a year ago, but thanks for trying to villainize me.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Enamel32

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1356669386' post='3068732']
That is not at all the point I was making. Clearly you lack vision of the political landscape today and a year ago, but thanks for trying to villainize me.
[/quote]

I was not trying to villainize anything actually. I was simply making an observation about your statement that "MJ remnants and allies will pay dearly for that decision as SF/XX expected over a year ago." I think you are wrong in your assumption and unless SF/XX makes the move, Ai, DT, and NoR won't pay dearly for anything that happened a year or so ago.

Also, I don't really lack any sort of vision about today's political landscape. If you are talking about the upcoming war against DH/et al and the need for SF/XX in order to help accomplish a win; do you think SF/XX will not come in and leave the entire coalition out to hang simply because of the 2 Mj remnants that would most likely be against DH/et al? If so, then I think you are the one that lacks some political insight.

[vandelsand]

If its war you want, war you will have!!!

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1356645976' post='3068583']
We talked to Asgaard about what to do about the fact that DoomHouse had pre-emptively struck our common allies in CRAP and TTK (who had up until that point sat out the war due to treaty conflicts). It's no surprize Bob Ilyani thinks that's no big deal seeing as how he wasn't too concerned about Asgaard either when he decided to do his own pre-emptive strike on CSN.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? Asgaard was being attacked by RnR, who had an explicit promise from FOK that they would receive support if they were countered. We weren't about to sit back and let PB stomp on us through an easy avenue like that. For better or for worse, we were left with little option but to let Asgaard take the full force of the blow, and assist them economically to help fight/rebuild. The notion that we really had any sort of option to help Asgaard on that front is laughable, misleading, and completely unrepresentative of the circumstances at the given time. Don't attempt to spin this as some sort of attack against me or any other MJ gov. There was little else we could do.

[quote]
Also Bob's focus on Xiph is a bit bizarre seeing as how it was my idea.
[/quote]
I only mentioned Xiph once in the post, and only as a broader term for the SF gov, given that he is the pictorial figurehead of your bloc. It's quite similar to you focusing most of your public attacks on MK, while many alliances have been with them for all this time. You mention those who are most recognized.

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1356648291' post='3068597']
No, I disagree entirely. If you think that, you missed the entire point of the offer. I see it very clearly as a short sighted decision vs a long term decision. MJ chose the short term, which is fine. There's considerable risk playing for long-term, but I recon MJ remnants and allies will pay dearly for that decision as SF/XX expected over a year ago. Regardless of the past, what's done is done.
[/quote]
I wish I still had the logs, but at the time, none of MJ gov saw it as a positive short [i]or[/i] long-term decision to side with SF against DH. I mean, why would we? Take your biases out of it and put yourself in our shoes. We'd spent months fighting a war of words and diplomacy (including several ugly OWF threads and IRC arguments), stealing allies and causing trouble all around. MJ's members had been all insulted, stepped on, or treated poorly by SF members in the past, and had been subject to an attempted smear campaign by SF gov towards our allies and other alliances. All of a sudden, this group that has hated you for months (and still does, judging by the tone of many SF members in this thread) comes up and asks you to, with them as allies, attack your current friends and allies. It'd be like, say, DH approaching you guys and asking you to attack DR. Why the $%&@ would you do that? It's a rhetorical question: You wouldn't. It made absolutely no sense at the time for MJ, and there's no effective way to spin that.

EDIT: Spelling is hard when you're tired

Edited December 28, 2012 by Bob Ilyani

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1356669196' post='3068729']
Unless SF/XX wish to attempt to go after Ai, DT, or NoR; I am not seeing how any of them will "pay dearly" for choosing to hit SF/XX instead of siding with SF/XX. From what I can tell, the long term has paid out pretty well for them, not so well for SF/XX. While y'all think that Mj chose the short term, it is fairly apparent they chose the long term option. You just don't like it because y'all got beatdown more because of it and Mj/remnants did not.
[/quote]

Speaking as someone who was there for a great majority of the time, much of the enmity held with the opposition from Mj left when Ilyani was deposed.

I don't speak for SF, but I did spend considerable time in both XX and SF in government and not.

I think it's fairly obvious if there were to be a prioritization of enmity whom tops that list -- the recent spur of treaties acting only as supplementary evidence.

I don't think Enamel was implying what you would suggest -- at least for now... I guess I should say.

Edited December 28, 2012 by IYIyTh