Imperial Decree - DoW

[Brehon]

I got news for you, Pacifica is not in command of that military front nor the diplomatic front, in the end we don't need to be. We are there yes. Commanding it no.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I don't think I've ever seen so much talk about peace in a DoW before.

Pacifica is bringing peace and prosperity to Paradoxia.

[Roadie]

Pacifica is bringing peace and prosperity to Paradoxia.

 

 Whether they like it not!

[bcortell]

Pacifica is bringing peace and prosperity to Paradoxia.

Are you becoming one of its client states, too?  

[Lord Hershey]

So then why have your alliances tried to get peace multiple times?

What? You have to stop filling your mind full of lies. Alchemy nor Mushroom Kingdom have attempted to initiate peace offerings to the EQ coalition. If you're referring to peace offerings between two nations. I can give you an example: one of the GLoFers sent me a peace offering because the GLoFer that I was fighting against, he couldn't stand losing his pixels; so I as being merciful as usual, I accepted it because it allowed me to go into PM to restock nukes and that is very embarrassing for GLoF and EQ since they're enjoying their numerical "supremacy" and still couldn't stagger me.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Lord Hershey

[Ernesto Che Guevara]

Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there... OMG how dare I.

Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle.

 

Honestly, as meaningless as it was to hit TOP while they're already outnumbered, I can't fault Brehon/NPO too much. Regardless of the circumstances, an ally asked them to enter. They did. No use crying about it now. The fact that NPO's allies had to call them in makes those allies look laughable at best, but it doesn't make NPO look worse. 

[Letum]

We're absolutely providing reason and logic as to why timing is important in this case. Haven't you bothered to read any of the posts in this thread?
 
Peace talks between us and our opponents occurred last night. In them, offers were made on both sides, and all these offers were rejected. Of particular note was a laughable demand from some alliances opposing TOP, requiring our unconditional surrender as a prerequisite for peace. Considering that we aren't losing this conflict, the offer was declined.
 
Now, all of a sudden, we have one of the major alliances of your coalition entering the front, under a series of paper-thin guises about AI's involvement of the peace process and the lower-tier battle. Both of those guises have since been refuted by your own Emperor, via his talks with our Grandmaster.
 
It's clearly an attempt from our current war targets to put military and diplomatic pressure on TOP by allowing Pacifica to take command of the diplomatic and military operations of this front. Don't try and sugar-coat it, or display it as something else, because you'll just continue to look foolish.

Laying out a series of events does not constitute providing logic for the argument that "Overwhelming force on day XX is a sign of losing, overwhelming force on day 1 is a Surplus". That is evident in the fact that your post here contains two in-congruent lines of thought;

On the one hand you are giving the event of failed peace negotiations as a sign of why the timing of our DoW matters - implying that without those negotiations, it would not have been necessary for us to enter. Yet on the other hand you are claiming that you are "not losing", which implies that it would have been necessary for us to enter regardless of any negotiations.

That statement further falls apart when you consider that, since you presumably claim you were just as much "not losing" on Day 1 as Today, then consequently if we were to enter for that reason it makes no difference which time between those two points we pick.

Let's be honest here, in this kind of situation you, just like us, just like everyone else in this war and past wars, would have cried something like "Omg you need 40 to 1 odds to bring us down!" regardless of when or how those odds came about.

Which really lets us simplify the argument quite a bit: Yes, you are facing overwhelming force. Yes, it quite obviously is intended to put military and diplomatic pressure on you. But trying to nitpick little conditions about when and how that "overwhelming force" came to be deployed does not somehow constitute "proof" that your enemy is incompetent or vassalized any more than me saying that the water is blue is "proof".

Picking an entry point different from day one does not suddenly turn the NPO into a control-freak dictator that seeks to impose its will on the rest of the coalition. That is an illogical statement, no matter how much you try and fill it with strawmen. We don't seek a "command and control" relationship anywhere in this front.

[the rebel]

I'm sure none of this would of happened, if "Competence" had bothered to try and tie up NPO's resources effectively...

[IYIyTh]

let the world tremble

[Aeternos Astramora]

Sending peace offers to try to get opponents to end wars, in a beneficial manner to you, is a legit and viable war tactic. It actually even works sometimes. Not sure why this post is news.

 

Well, ridiculing viable war tactics, like bringing in an extra alliance to relieve pressure on staggers, seems to be exactly what TOP is doing.

 

 

And pardon us for having a larger coalition to work with and to bring to bear on our enemies.  We forgot how it's advantageous in war to have the smaller side. 

[Bob Ilyani]

Laying out a series of events does not constitute providing logic for the argument that "Overwhelming force on day XX is a sign of losing, overwhelming force on day 1 is a Surplus". That is evident in the fact that your post here contains two in-congruent lines of thought;

On the one hand you are giving the event of failed peace negotiations as a sign of why the timing of our DoW matters - implying that without those negotiations, it would not have been necessary for us to enter. Yet on the other hand you are claiming that you are "not losing", which implies that it would have been necessary for us to enter regardless of any negotiations.

That statement further falls apart when you consider that, since you presumably claim you were just as much "not losing" on Day 1 as Today, then consequently if we were to enter for that reason it makes no difference which time between those two points we pick.

Let's be honest here, in this kind of situation you, just like us, just like everyone else in this war and past wars, would have cried something like "Omg you need 40 to 1 odds to bring us down!" regardless of when or how those odds came about.

Which really lets us simplify the argument quite a bit: Yes, you are facing overwhelming force. Yes, it quite obviously is intended to put military and diplomatic pressure on you. But trying to nitpick little conditions about when and how that "overwhelming force" came to be deployed does not somehow constitute "proof" that your enemy is incompetent or vassalized any more than me saying that the water is blue is "proof".

Picking an entry point different from day one does not suddenly turn the NPO into a control-freak dictator that seeks to impose its will on the rest of the coalition. That is an illogical statement, no matter how much you try and fill it with strawmen. We don't seek a "command and control" relationship anywhere in this front.

When your leader privately states that a DoW is in order to get a seat a the negotiation table, and publicly states that it was in response to Coalition leaders not getting seats at the table, how difficult is it to find correlation between NPO's entry into the war and last night's peace talks? I don't need to imply anything- your leader has already stated it.

 

 Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering
you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition
leadership was there... OMG how dare I.

Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle.

 

Also, I never said my opponents were "incompetent" or "vassalized". There are plenty of alliances facing us that I have friends in, or respect on a purely diplomatic level. The status of my opponents and the circumstances of your entry are unrelated, at least from my perspective. From yours, the answer might be very different, but I'm sure you know that already.

[Khyber]

bcortell why the sarcasm?  Brehon points out several times that he is worried that TOP will trick you guys, and that he needs to make sure that that doesn't happen.  In effect he wants to control your decisions when it comes to peace talks.  So while not complete control, clearly some measure of control over your alliance's decisions.

 

The claim by some fighting against TOP that they are fine and dandy, is also false as it is clear you don't need more nations to cover TOP but rather are hurting and want to let NPO take some of that damage for you.  I was curious why AI was not called in to take on more TOP nations since they were already at war with TOP, are their hands full?  (This is a serious question, not me making a propaganda point.)

 

That said I don't think this will change much of the outcome.  NPO has nothing up top to change the outcome of this part of the war, and I am pretty sure that when the 80k is taken over the push to 75k and below will begin, taking it to 60k or 70k where the stalemate will  end.

[brucemania]

I find your distrust of us flattering and your implicit condescension of others refreshing.  A fine return to form for the Imperial Office!

 

 

Funny thing about this statement is that both sides have agreed that we don,t trust each other. Seems to me that because we are honest and say we don't trust you ...you try and turn it around on us. If the return to form comment is all on the past it seems to me that NPO has been nothing but honest and true about our comments. Oh and to add Ardus sir you of all people should realise this from our past when you were with MK and dealing with Brehon since the DH war that we have always maintained our word and followed through to our word.

Edited March 4, 2013 by brucemania

[Letum]

When your leader privately states that a DoW is in order to get a seat a the negotiation table, and publicly states that it was in response to Coalition leaders not getting seats at the table, how difficult is it to find correlation between NPO's entry into the war and last night's peace talks? I don't need to imply anything- your leader has already stated it.
 
 
Also, I never said my opponents were "incompetent" or "vassalized". There are plenty of alliances facing us that I have friends in, or respect on a purely diplomatic level. The status of my opponents and the circumstances of your entry are unrelated, at least from my perspective. From yours, the answer might be very different, but I'm sure you know that already.

Well, quite obviously there is a correlation - you reject the peace offer our side wants, so we bring in extra pressure to change your mind. There is no dispute of that.

But what your side is doing is trying to imply that this "extra pressure" means someone NPO is trying to "control" the coalition. Which is a completely illogical statement. If we were trying to control people, then that assumes that there is some difference over which we are trying to force their hand on the matter.

Let's examine this theoretically. What could that difference be where we have to "force" people to our will?

Scenario 1: That our coalition wants to "cut-and-run" at the first chance for an easy peace. Invalidated since they just had their chance at the easiest peace conceivable, and rejected it out of hand.

Scenario 2: That our coalition has limited incentive to damage TOP, but NPO is a hardliner pushing for harsh punishment. Anybody who has spent even the slightest time reading what Brehon says should be well aware that we aren't really any fans of "harsh" treatment such as reps and the like. I don't think that there's any claim here that NPO is somehow pushing for TOP to be left a smoking crater.

Scenario 3: That *NPO* is the one that wants lighter treatment, but our coalition is pushing for something harsher. I don't believe anyone is seriously trying to portray NPO as the white knight here, but if they were...we aren't. Whilst there might be conceivable scenarios where we would intervene in someone's conflict on behalf of an ally or someone we like, TOP doesn't really fall into that category.

Now Bob, whilst I can't say if you specifically hold on to this illogical argument that we are keeping this front "under the tutelage of Pacifica", you have to acknowledge that this is the line that is being repeated by your side in this thread, and that is what I am really responding to. If you do in fact agree with all my points here, then the more the merrier. Edited March 4, 2013 by Letum

[Dcrews]

Good luck Pacifica.

To those of you who are trying to paint this DoW as some type of Pacifian power grab or insertion are stupid. That or you are pitting your best propagandist uniform. This DoW was made because a Pacifian ally request for it, nothing more nothing less.

We have heard from the horses mouth that the Eq alliances's on this front competence was not the reason nor was it due to a false wish of Pacifica wanting to butt in.

Now, can we stop with this crap, you're bringing our collective IQ's down.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Dcrews

[Khyber]

Good luck Pacifica.

To those of you who are trying to paint this DoW as some type of Pacifian power grab or insertion are stupid. That or you are pitting your best propagandist uniform. This DoW was made because a Pacifian ally request for it, nothing more nothing less.

We have heard from the horses mouth that the Eq alliances's on this front competence was not the reason nor was it due to a false wish of Pacifica wanting to butt in.

Now, can we stop with this crap, you're bringing our collective IQ's down.

 

Actually Brehon states it several times that he was worried you would get fooled, and that someone from leadership should have been involved in the talks as well.  Linking the two is not hard at all.

 

If you needed coverage down low, TOP is declared on AI, so AI could have covered TOP's lower and mid tier without any trouble.

[The Big Bad]

Good luck Pacifica.

To those of you who are trying to paint this DoW as some type of Pacifian power grab or insertion are stupid. That or you are pitting your best propagandist uniform. This DoW was made because a Pacifian ally request for it, nothing more nothing less.

We have heard from the horses mouth that the Eq alliances's on this front competence was not the reason nor was it due to a false wish of Pacifica wanting to butt in.

Now, can we stop with this crap, you're bringing our collective IQ's down.

 

Sit back and enjoy it.  What you are hearing is the sound of defeat.  If you ever want to know if your winning war all you have to do is wait until your enemy starts reponding like TOP and company.  Then you know your golden.    

[Schattenmann]

To be fair, if anyone knows anything about Daddy NPO, it would be TOP.  Ain't that right, TOP? :ehm:  Do you miss daddy's lap?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Schattenmann

[Dcrews]

 
Actually Brehon states it several times that he was worried you would get fooled, and that someone from leadership should have been involved in the talks as well.  Linking the two is not hard at all.
 
If you needed coverage down low, TOP is declared on AI, so AI could have covered TOP's lower and mid tier without any trouble.

This is the type of crap I was refering to. Brehon said he doesn't trust TOP, somewhere between that print and the spin that goes on in your political perspective comes out he was afraid we'd get fooled.

*sigh

Tackling your second point, Ai has a number of alliances on them, if you're in The Clique, I'm sure you can appreciate their circumstance.

[Kalasin]

So much crying in this thread! So what if AI and co wanted their ally to help attack TOP? It's a war. That's what allies do in wars. And like TOP or MK or anyone else on Competence's side wouldn't have done the exact same thing in NPO's place... :rolleyes: Cybernations is old enough by now that pretty much everyone has dirty hands and most people on both sides of this war have curbstomped other alliances at one time or other.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Well, ridiculing viable war tactics, like bringing in an extra alliance to relieve pressure on staggers, seems to be exactly what TOP is doing.

 

 

And pardon us for having a larger coalition to work with and to bring to bear on our enemies.  We forgot how it's advantageous in war to have the smaller side. 

Who's the "we"? Argent? You've been on the winning side of coalitions your entire existence, save for BiPolar. Don't throw us the line that you've been a victim all your life, please. When the going was good, at the height of Doomhouse's presumed crimes, you were a firm ally of Umbrella, TOP and IRON. Your recent moralist linings have more to do with opportunism and many changes in your government line-up rather than a time honored resistance against the oppressive powers that be. Save that spiel for those on your side.

 

 

Letum, amusing set of arguments. We're not "nitpicking", though. If you invade a country and you bring a coalition with you, it's dedicated manpower you think you'll be needing. If later on you need to bring more people, it's because you visibly need reinforcements. If you didn't, you wouldn't call anybody. It's as simple as that. And if you need reinforcements, it's because we are indeed putting the hurt. Arguing against reality strikes me as rather weird. You're not calling in more soldiers just to have them parade around. 

 

The political part of your involvement has already been cleared by your own Emperor in the previous pages. We are sneaky people, we cannot be trusted not to outsmart your current coalition and, as such, there needs to be Pacifican oversight at the peace table. We're cool with that.

[IYIyTh]

Yev you can sneak into my bed anytime you want ;)

[Schattenmann]

Pacifica got in this war to have a seat in negotiations
 

 

Hold one, hold on, hold on.  We have to declare war on certain alliances to get in the negotiations on our end? 

 

 

 

Well I guess I better stop writing the terms.  :v:

[Gingervites]

If you want to start up those peace talks again you must talk with coalition leader UE. 

[Hereno]

Well, quite obviously there is a correlation - you reject the peace offer our side wants, so we bring in extra pressure to change your mind. There is no dispute of that.

But what your side is doing is trying to imply that this "extra pressure" means someone NPO is trying to "control" the coalition. Which is a completely illogical statement. If we were trying to control people, then that assumes that there is some difference over which we are trying to force their hand on the matter.

Let's examine this theoretically. What could that difference be where we have to "force" people to our will?

Scenario 1: That our coalition wants to "cut-and-run" at the first chance for an easy peace. Invalidated since they just had their chance at the easiest peace conceivable, and rejected it out of hand.

Scenario 2: That our coalition has limited incentive to damage TOP, but NPO is a hardliner pushing for harsh punishment. Anybody who has spent even the slightest time reading what Brehon says should be well aware that we aren't really any fans of "harsh" treatment such as reps and the like. I don't think that there's any claim here that NPO is somehow pushing for TOP to be left a smoking crater.

Scenario 3: That *NPO* is the one that wants lighter treatment, but our coalition is pushing for something harsher. I don't believe anyone is seriously trying to portray NPO as the white knight here, but if they were...we aren't. Whilst there might be conceivable scenarios where we would intervene in someone's conflict on behalf of an ally or someone we like, TOP doesn't really fall into that category.

Now Bob, whilst I can't say if you specifically hold on to this illogical argument that we are keeping this front "under the tutelage of Pacifica", you have to acknowledge that this is the line that is being repeated by your side in this thread, and that is what I am really responding to. If you do in fact agree with all my points here, then the more the merrier.

 

Um excuse me but I'm pretty sure you are bringing back forced disbandments, viceroys, and slavery. You are the NPO. Harsh treatment and "reps" are only the beginning of what will happen when you guys win. Were you not here in 1997? Just look at all this irrefutable evidence I have: