Declaration From The Independent Republic of Orange Nations

[Holy Empire of Halin]

What truth? You pre-empted an alliance and used our ally to hit our blocmate to do so. MA has nothing to do with it, because you both optionally chose to pre-empt an alliance not at war. That would be a sore spot on any alliances reputation. The fact that you or anyone else in CnG thought that was a remotely good idea goes to show how delirious CnG was under MK rule. The fact that CnG is trying to play the situation with IRON off as somehow different is cute, but a tired game. You wonder why sparta was so pissed. All you had to say was, "yeah we made an extremely poor choice", but nope. Here we are years later, in denial that any wrongdoing was done because of the irrelevant significance of a "MA" clause, despite complaining about IRON when they took a move out of your playbook!
 
Don't mind me if I get in the way slurping up tears. I just can't help myself.
 

Aside from the image. Pearl, you made a really solid case.

[Enamel32]

Aside from the image.

Hey, someone in Goons gave me that straw. It's been my most prized gift. Without it, I'd have to refill my XP and mana by licking tears up off the floor.

[NoMercy]

Oh, I know they do. 

 

You don't. As I said before, just because you repeat yourself again and again, you don't have a point. 

 

IRON had good reasons for staying out, and they have proven in the past that they usually honor treaties. Their only mistake was to cancel this one. Personally, I have talked to many people that don't give a damn. Now stop pretending you know what the world thinks. 

[pezstar]

they have proven in the past that they usually honor treaties. 

 

Do you know how absurd that sounds?

[iamthey]

Emerging from their network of treaties IRON, VE, and Valhalla exists as a de facto bloc- their interlocking treaties, close cooperation, and shared political vision tightly couple them. NonGrata is not only outside of that clique, they are juxtaposed to it, and the idea that IRON actually had any practical alternative here is a contrivance born out of desperation, it is propaganda and nothing more.

This wasn't an effort to conserve their nations from damage, it was substantively the only course available as screwing either valhalla or VE, the paramount political entities IRON has intimate strategic cooperation with, was not in the cards. Was the execution botched: perhaps, should a drop have occurred: maybe; regardless these attributes are the metaphorical deck chairs of the narrative and in truth have no greater meaning than the symbolism we attribute to them. They are cynically employed by the 'offended' for dramatic affect, as they are cynically ignored by us; as props they objectively alter and verify nothing.

At the end of the day IRON is now absorbing the fallout, effectively sacrificing in ways war damage can't even compare, for not taking the easy way out in siding with NG but for retaining loyalty to their closer partners who they had already pledged themselves to. Sometimes we find ourselves between impossible alternatives- the best we can do is mitigate the damage.

[ditchboy00]

Poor NG being outside the block of Iron, Valhalla, and VE since they are allied to 2 of them.... and were allied to them before VE. 

[iamthey]

Poor NG being outside the block of Iron, Valhalla, and VE since they are allied to 2 of them.... and were allied to them before VE.

Holding a piece of paper and retaining shared objectives are clearly distinct states given the existence of this and at least two other threads. NG performed the set up, it secured the treaty, but it failed to maintain it. In fact it obviously alienated all three of its former allies to the point where they would declare down on the opposite side of a war. Edited November 19, 2013 by iamthey

[pezstar]

In fact it obviously alienated all three of its former allies to the point where they would declare down on the opposite side of a war.

 

Yet not so alienated that they would cancel the treaty. Funny that. 

[ditchboy00]

Holding a piece of paper and retaining shared objectives are clearly distinct states given the existence of this and at least two other threads. NG performed the set up, it secured the treaty, but it failed to maintain it. In fact it obviously alienated all three of its former allies to the point where they would declare down on the opposite side of a war.

Yet they remain "allies" on paper. I find it funny that you would probably be replacing VE with NG if NG was on the winning side of the war.  

Edited November 19, 2013 by ditchboy00

[Auctor]

Well, if they *had* replaced VE with NG when NG were on the winning side, it'd've likely precluded it from becoming the losing side.

Always a pretty mindnumbing position to be in when hitting your ally's ally.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Auctor

[Sval]

Emerging from their network of treaties IRON, VE, and Valhall exists as a de facto bloc- their interlocking treaties, close cooperation, and shared political vision tightly couple them. NonGrata is not only outside of that clique, they are juxtaposed to it, and the idea that IRON actually had any practical alternative here is a contrivance born out of desperation, it is propaganda and nothing more.

This wasn't an effort to conserve their nations from damage, it was substantively the only course available as screwing either valhall or VE, the paramount political entities IRON has intimate strategic cooperation with, was not in the cards. Was the execution botched: perhaps, should a drop have occurred: maybe; regardless these attributes are the metaphorical deck chairs of the narrative and in truth have no greater meaning than the symbolism we attribute to them. They are cynically employed by the 'offended' for dramatic affect, as they are cynically ignored by us; as props they objectively alter and verify nothing.

At the end of the day IRON is now absorbing the fallout, effectively sacrificing in ways war damage can't even compare, for not taking the easy way out in siding with NG but for retaining loyalty to their closer partners who they had already pledged themselves to. Sometimes we find ourselves between impossible alternatives- the best we can do is mitigate the damage.

 

But the point would be that, knowing this, they still didn't cancel the MDP that called for them to aid NG. Personally, that's what I would've done.

"Sorry, guys. But the Mutual Defence part of this treaty places us in conflict with our closest allies. We need to downgrade or cancel."

 

Simples.

[NoMercy]

Do you know how absurd that sounds?

 

No, I don't. IRON has shown in the past that they honored their treaties. They (according to you) were known for being a solid partner. For me, they'd still be one. I can't deny they didn't honor their treaty with NG, but they had a good reason for it (See iamthey). They chose friendship over paper, I can't blame them for that. In fact their decision was independent. They didn't follow the upcoming public pressure, but chose their friends instead.  

 

The only thing we can blame them for, is not canceling the treaty earlier. Then again, considering the communication between both parties, it could have been expected. That lightens the "guilt". 

 

I am sure people can understand this. 

 

 

But the point would be that, knowing this, they still didn't cancel the MDP [...]

 

That would have made the situation legally "acceptable". However it's not that when people cancel treaties prior a war, they don't know what the future coalitions will look like. So in both scenarios they'd have caused bad blood.  

[Icewolf]

But the point would be that, knowing this, they still didn't cancel the MDP that called for them to aid NG. Personally, that's what I would've done.

"Sorry, guys. But the Mutual Defence part of this treaty places us in conflict with our closest allies. We need to downgrade or cancel."

 

Simples.

Sorry guys, but as you know this is a non-chaining treaty and we will not be taking up the option to support you in the next war, you cool with that?-conversation had quite a while ago. 

[TurnipCruncher]

Sorry guys, but as you know this is a non-chaining treaty and we will not be taking up the option to support you in the next war, you cool with that?-conversation had quite a while ago. 

So cancel or ignore your MD with someone else then? And how did they know the next war would involve a chaining clause unless they were privy to the planning of it?

[Mogar]

So cancel or ignore your MD with someone else then? And how did they know the next war would involve a chaining clause unless they were privy to the planning of it?

You've never been privy to a coalition channel have you? the amount of effort some people put into ensuring everyone is hitting the proper targets, no one is left out to dry too badly, proper ratios of nations, it's ridiculous the amount of effort that goes into planning a war.

[Sval]

Sorry guys, but as you know this is a non-chaining treaty and we will not be taking up the option to support you in the next war, you cool with that?-conversation had quite a while ago.

 
That's all fine and dandy, except IRON then "chained" in on an oA clause.

From the outside looking in, they appear to have cast off an MDP partner just to get in on the stronger side. Doesn't bother me much, but regardless of IRON's intent and what actually goes on behind closed doors, that's how it looks.

That would have made the situation legally "acceptable". However it's not that when people cancel treaties prior a war, they don't know what the future coalitions will look like. So in both scenarios they'd have caused bad blood.

 

The situation is a little different when it looks like an alliance has cast aside an MDP partner in favour of an optional aggression cause. I imagine it feels very much like being stabbed in the back, regardless of foresight or warning.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Sval

[MagicalTrevor]

No, I don't. IRON has shown in the past that they honored their treaties. They (according to you) were known for being a solid partner. For me, they'd still be one. I can't deny they didn't honor their treaty with NG, but they had a good reason for it (See iamthey). They chose friendship over paper, I can't blame them for that. In fact their decision was independent. They didn't follow the upcoming public pressure, but chose their friends instead.  

While that's all partly true. The thing people are rightly annoyed at is they're fighting on the front that is directly linked to countering attacks on NG. They were also FULLY aware of this situation and purposely put themselves in it months ago. If I'm a treaty partner of IRON at this point (outside of Val/VE) then i'd be seriously considering if I want to be a second fiddle treaty partner.

 

For clarification, I have no issue with IRON choosing a side in this war long ago. My issue is they've CHOSEN to attack on the NG front. It's just poor form.

[Rush Sykes]

Sorry guys, but as you know this is a non-chaining treaty and we will not be taking up the option to support you in the next war, you cool with that?-conversation had quite a while ago. 

 

And how convenient for you that you fine friends in VE invisibly made that non-chain apply by signing that extremely convenient treaty with LoSS 5 mins before LoSS bandwagoned your ally. T's crossed and I's dotted everywhere. Convenient indeed.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Rush, I dont understand how you can talk about loyalty when you have said that you have no intention of coming out of peace mode this war because you took so much damage last war.  So not only are you letting your allies down, more importantly, you are letting your own alliance members down because you obviously think your pixels are more valuable then theirs. 

 

I guess that makes you quite the hypocrite.

[Commander shepard]

Rush isn't coming out? He was the only reason I attacked Kestral.

[Rush Sykes]

Rush, I dont understand how you can talk about loyalty when you have said that you have no intention of coming out of peace mode this war because you took so much damage last war.  So not only are you letting your allies down, more importantly, you are letting your own alliance members down because you obviously think your pixels are more valuable then theirs. 

 

I guess that makes you quite the hypocrite.

 

You are really just being dumb now. Try to paint me as the loud-mouth guy who doesnt fight. I can be accused of (and some even rightfully so), but to suggest that I am sitting out to preserve anything is dumb. 

 

1) I am following orders.

2) If you think my nation fighting for 2 weeks (thats about all I can afford since I blew my $3 billion last war) would make an iota of difference to my alliance, then you are just a fool. My nation is in the shape it is in because I ALWAYS fight, without regard for it. The only difference here is this war came 3-4 months quicker than it traditionally would have.

 

3) Ask my allies how many of them feel let down by me with regards to war performance. 

[LittleRena]

No, I don't. IRON has shown in the past that they honored their treaties. They (according to you) were known for being a solid partner. For me, they'd still be one. I can't deny they didn't honor their treaty with NG, but they had a good reason for it (See iamthey). They chose friendship over paper, I can't blame them for that. In fact their decision was independent. They didn't follow the upcoming public pressure, but chose their friends instead. 

 

Were NPO not friends either? They did after all declare on their ally, I call that two allies they didn't honour commitments to.

 

Choosing oA over MD is obviously not going to be a popular decision, so if they really wanted to stick with their "friends", they would have, as others have mentioned, downgraded or canceled their treaty. If you have no intention of providing meaningful assistance, don't bother keeping a treaty, especilly if your intention is to hit your allies ally.

[Enamel32]

Rush, I dont understand how you can talk about loyalty when you have said that you have no intention of coming out of peace mode this war because you took so much damage last war.  So not only are you letting your allies down, more importantly, you are letting your own alliance members down because you obviously think your pixels are more valuable then theirs. 

 

I guess that makes you quite the hypocrite.

Rush said he isn't coming out because he took a lot of damage last war?

 

Obviously a cover for no warchest. He should come out and take it like a man though. Don't talk the talk if you fear the smackdown. Heck I came out! I'm getting rollololed and I have to deal with it!

 

He'll probably come out the last  week of the war and down declare on the weakest nub he can find just so he can say he single handedly crushed whatever alliance it was he was facing. Heck, he'll probably hit me :/

[ChairmanHal]

There never was a "gladiator sport" aspect to it. The terms were pretty much, "most of the Umbrella/MK allies get white peace now, everyone else gets to dogpile Umbrella/MK for a while." So pretty much you were fine with hitting down on a bunch of mid-tier nations, so you would not have to strain your pixels. When the peace talks went in the direction of the original war goals (i.e. knock down Doomhouse), you flipped out.

And please do tell me, exactly which ally am I throwing under the bus? Things have changed since your merry little band decided to go back on their word. I have not thrown any allies under the bus.

 

Bitter much?   <_<

 

Your posts in the A.I. forums were instrumental in prying apart the factions that existed in A.I. and ripped open wounds further.

 

It was acknowledged that AI was going to be the star of the show and that perhaps IRON would contribute (NPO was buried so far into PM it would have taken a search party to find them)--that was the extent of the rumors.  But there was never a list of alliances and the number of nations that would be participating revealed and none was presented--probably because it never existed.   By that point in the war Umbrella was a wounded tiger more than capable of continuing to do serious damage.  To what end?  For what purpose would we be fighting?  So people on the OWF could stand around and point and laugh?  That's gladiator sport at best, an execution at worst.  I had no desire to participate in such b.s. and you shouldn't have either.

 

Oh and A.I. was at last report was a member of Duckroll.  Duckroll includes IRON among it's members.  While there is no specific clause in the Duckroll treaty that prohibits a member of a Duckroll associated alliance from trashing the hell out of another Duckroll associated alliance, it was understood that no such clause was even necessary.  That's because Duckroll members always had each other's backs, even if they didn't always fight together as a team.  It would appear your version of "having each other's back" includes putting a dagger in it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by ChairmanHal

[LittleRena]

Obviously a cover for no warchest. He should come out and take it like a man though. Don't talk the talk if you fear the smackdown. Heck I came out! I'm getting rollololed and I have to deal with it!

 

I don't think it's a cover since he flat out said he doesn't have the money and more importantly, last I checked, the odds are stacked in your favour, so, yeah...