Declaration of War from the Viridian Entente

[WarriorSoul]

Unreasonable? It's unreasonable to expect to lose a war with your upper tier still intact.

Ask Umbrella about that.

[Neo Uruk]

Unreasonable? It's unreasonable to expect to lose a war with your upper tier still intact.

Define "intact"

[Bob Ilyani]

uh, RoK kinda committed to one side then flipped with nothing changing about the war. GOD's ally was directly targetted unnecessarily after GOD threw their weight in for your coalition.

Jesus Christ you're so dense these days.

And what has changed here? If you're going to criticize RoK for supporting Polar, feel free to do the same for GOD. I really don't see what the difference is here.

 

But hey, you only really support the people on "your side", so your response isn't exactly surprising.

 

 

You mean that time we DoW'd a RoK ally against a prior agreement, then posted the DOW with a message taunting RoK about their inability to defend allies?

 

Oh, wait...

 

 

 

You missed the point and picked up only the ad homium there, numbnuts. Try to read through the insults and learn something for once in your sordid existance. See this line? Ignore it. It's for my benefit. And the practice in ignoring irrelevant bits will probably be good for your reading comprehension. Certainly can't hurt it.

 

The point:

 

The personal attack:

 

 

See the substance in the first quote? The acknowledgement that sometimes we have to fight coalitions containing friendly alliances? Followed closely by the actual reason that I might be annoyed? Yeah, try addressing that. The insults are purely for my entertainment.

If you're annoyed by the realities of coalition warfare, then you're an idiot... But then again, you're in GOD, so wasn't that clear already?

 

Feel free to make your own decisions... now that you've made your bed, feel free to lie in it. Enjoy your surrender, I know I will.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Define "intact"

 

NPO has 6 more 100k ns nations than even TOP does. I'd say that's a pretty sizable upper tier.

[Neo Uruk]

And what has changed here? If you're going to criticize RoK for supporting Polar, feel free to do the same for GOD. I really don't see what the difference is here.
 
But hey, you only really support the people on "your side", so your response isn't exactly surprising.

Which is why I never supported the Dave War aside from the fact that I got to hit CSN. Right.
 

NPO has 6 more 100k ns nations than even TOP does. I'd say that's a pretty sizable upper tier.

TOP has a smaller amount of nations. Some of those 100k NS nations will be told to fight before this is done I'm sure.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

 
TOP has a smaller amount of nations. Some of those 100k NS nations will be told to fight before this is done I'm sure.

 

It doesn't matter that we have a smaller amount of nations, we still have the largest upper tier in this war outside of Umbrella and IRON. Why would those nations be told to fight if they haven't fought yet and NPO is looking for a peace deal?

[Neo Uruk]

You know as well as I do that you have the upper hand and if you make a reasonable offer it's very possible to coax them out.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

You know as well as I do that you have the upper hand and if you make a reasonable offer it's very possible to coax them out.

 

A reasonable offer was made but NPO is refusing everything except white peace.

[Neo Uruk]

A reasonable offer was made but NPO is refusing everything except white peace.

The offer I saw was anything but reasonable.

[Commander shepard]

 

A reasonable offer was made but NPO is refusing everything except white peace.

 

But they only got 1 offer, perhaps they should get other offers.

[Schattenmann]

 

This is the same bad scaled-up logic as saying that everybody except NPO peacing out will allow the war to end the quickest. Yes, it will end quickly, but without opposition you are free to impose terms arbitrarily.

Right, because the same alliances whose passions are inflamed enough to fight indefinitely also think they could not re-engage if Polaris et al actually imposed terms so wild that the same passions would be inflamed.

The fear held by the AAs you've stood yourselves beside is not that we've got an evil plan for NPO, it's that we might do to them what they did to us--that's a you problem not an us problem.

 

Start surrendering, start the peace process.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Caliph]

Here's how negotiations go:

Offer
Counter-offer
Acceptance or counter-offer from the original offering party.

I recall hearing something about NPO making a counter-offer, so maybe it's your turn?

 

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

 

The crux of all this mess is the unreasonable demands being made of NPO, not some stupid concept of blind loyalty to a coalition.

 

There have been no unreasonable demands made of NPO.

 

 

Ask Umbrella about that.

 

The difference is that we fought that war with our upper tier and fully engaged the enemy the best we could.  We fought that war and were one of the heaviest engaged alliances since we were a core target.  Our upper tier fought, nobody can say differently.

 

NPO in this war has hidden their upper tier in peace mode.  That is the difference.  NPO hides their upper tier in peace, whereas we fully engaged the enemy upper tier during war.
 

[Neo Uruk]

There have been no unreasonable demands made of NPO.

Would you accept those terms?

[Alex987]

Right, because the same alliances whose passions are inflamed enough to fight indefinitely also think they could not re-engage if Polaris et al actually imposed terms so wild that the same passions would be inflamed.

The fear held by the AAs you've stood yourselves beside is not that we've got an evil plan for NPO, it's that we might do to them what they did to us--that's a you problem not an us problem.

 

Start surrendering, start the peace process.

 

So rather than the standard "peace, no re-entry", you're going to be proposing "peace, re-enter if you feel like it" terms? You and I both know that there's a large grey area that grants permissibility to unfair terms when you need to break a peace treaty in order to ensure that they don't happen. Unjust peace terms will still be unjust without being outrageous enough for the entire coalition to break their peace deals, which is why peacing separately isn't an option that makes both sides better off as people keep claiming.

[KenMorningstar]

The crux of all this mess is the unreasonable demands being made of NPO, not some stupid concept of blind loyalty to a coalition.

 

This again?

 

Tell me what is unreasonable about keeping 30 nations who never fought in the war in PM as a punishment for hiding. If our opening offer was too far reaching a counter offer would be appreciated. But by no means are these terms the most brutal of all time ever like you are claiming.

 

 

Speaking entirely for myself and not for alliance leadership:

 

I am aware of what a coalition is and does. I am aware that the treaty web is such that all our friends are rarely - if ever - on the same side of a coalition war. That is an unpleasant fact of war here, and one which has to be accepted when entering with a coalition.

 

I do not expect my 'partners' in a coalition to deliberately target my allies when it is not necessary. If targeting an ally of mine is necessary - and it sometimes is - I do not expect my coalition partners to call my alliance out by name to taunt a friendly alliance. GOONS left us in a place where we could either 1) do nothing, prove their taunt right, and damage a longstanding alliance tie with people we actually like, or 2) stand by a longtime friend when their attackers called out our absense.

 

To my view, we did not fire the first shot in this. GOONS made a deliberate statement which - if we stayed with the coalition - was designed to damage GOD's diplomatic ties and future standing with R&R - an alliance we value. We have responded in the only manner available to us.

 

 

In short, if you are a &$%* to your coalition partners, don't be surprised when they call you on it and join the opposition. If you'd like to drop by our forums I can spell that out for you far more colourfully, but I think that covers the basics well enough.

 

We called out GOD because your glorious leader called us out when our allies requested assistance, of course you probably weren't able to access the areas he was posting in. But Xiph called us out by name, told us that he would attack us if we honored our treaty to TOP and left it at that.

 

Everyone here is so up in arms that we were asked to hit R&R who came to the party late and we had the closest treaty tie. We didn't multi chain in or optional anything. We came in on an MD. So you can whine about your pure intentions and honoring your treaty but don't try to make it out like we weren't doing the same thing. We asked that our direct treaty partners were treated fairly on the other side and were not obliterated, the coalition obliged us on our concerns. GOD demanded we do nothing to their treaty partner and threatened us if we did.

 

Who is the great coalition partner now?

[Neo Uruk]

This again?
 
Tell me what is unreasonable about keeping 30 nations who never fought in the war in PM as a punishment for hiding. If our opening offer was too far reaching a counter offer would be appreciated. But by no means are these terms the most brutal of all time ever like you are claiming.

Uh, last I heard there was a counter-offer but I could be wrong.

[smurthwaite]

Would you accept those terms?

 

Nope.  I would, however, negotiate instead of trying to take my ball and go home.

 

 

 

 

Back to the op:  this leaves a vile taste in my mouth...pretty much like the rest of this damned war.

[KenMorningstar]

Uh, last I heard there was a counter-offer but I could be wrong.

 

You are wrong

[Neo Uruk]

You are wrong

Apologies then. Faulty source (but it wasn't Pacifica before they're accused of it)

[KenMorningstar]

Apologies then. Faulty source (but it wasn't Pacifica before they're accused of it)

 

I suppose the fact that Farrin said "Unacceptable, we will give white peace to you." could be taken as a counter offer. But its not one we are even willing to admit is a counter offer since it is so off the mark.

 

So if you count that as a counter offer then yes we got one which we rejected before it was ever put out.

 

They are free to make a serious counter offer at any time for us to discuss.

[Neo Uruk]

I suppose the fact that Farrin said "Unacceptable, we will give white peace to you." could be taken as a counter offer. But its not one we are even willing to admit is a counter offer since it is so off the mark.
 
So if you count that as a counter offer then yes we got one which we rejected before it was ever put out.
 
They are free to make a serious counter offer at any time for us to discuss.

I guess that's fair but if they fought harder I'd seriously consider it as an end in your shoes.

Again, I'll propose it to you (and I know the answer I believe): What terms would you accept in Pacifica's shoes? Edited January 13, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[KenMorningstar]

I guess that's fair but if they fought harder I'd seriously consider it as an end in your shoes.

Again, I'll propose it to you (and I know the answer I believe): Would you accept those terms?

 

Me? It depends on how hard my alliance is getting trashed and how my allies are doing. Leaving Umar in PM (he is our only big guy) for 6 months would be pretty funny since he would go completely insane. But he isn't ever in PM, so the reps wouldn't apply to him.

 

I would counter offer with something like 30 days of PM for the guys who hid. IF they evened out at 60-75 days I would probably accept them. But again I would negotiate. Not just refuse to talk.

[Rayvon]

I suppose the fact that Farrin said "Unacceptable, we will give white peace to you." could be taken as a counter offer. But its not one we are even willing to admit is a counter offer since it is so off the mark.
 
So if you count that as a counter offer then yes we got one which we rejected before it was ever put out.
 
They are free to make a serious counter offer at any time for us to discuss.

Well, to expand it out a little more and give some context -- the offer that was brought to Farrin from Dajobo came after quite lengthy period of waiting for it to given to us 'officially' because no one wanted to take point over there apparently. And so we had already had that time from when we were backroom-informed of the terms to discuss them among ourselves; and Dajobo ended that discussion with Farrin without giving him much more room to speak, just a simple 'go talk to your allies' and no real interest in further discussion ..

[Vladimir Stukov II]

I guess that's fair but if they fought harder I'd seriously consider it as an end in your shoes.

Again, I'll propose it to you (and I know the answer I believe): What terms would you accept in Pacifica's shoes?

 

I would accept the terms they were offered. If we kept our upper tier in peace mode the whole war it's not a big hit to have them stay in peace mode for a few months more. They still come out without taking any damage.

[Neo Uruk]

I would accept the terms they were offered. If we kept our upper tier in peace mode the whole war it's not a big hit to have them stay in peace mode for a few months more. They still come out without taking any damage.

I feel you're in the minority there tbqh