Declaration of War from the Viridian Entente

[Rayvon]

Rhetoric aside it's worth noting that GOD isn't actually helping their ally by entering- to the contrary they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process. GOD entered to seize limelight for both itself and its leader, that's the singular material impact of this move. It isn't honorable or heroic - it's silly.

hahahah - yeah that's just fucking rich .. Wow .. Xiphy wants limelight with .. our coalition? Or with yours? ... Or - perhaps it's just about their ally? They don't give two shits about the majority of either coaltiion or anyone else.

Are you also asserting that peace for NPO will now be held off longer since GOD is defending one of their allies whom y'all attacked?

[Neo Uruk]

Rhetoric aside it's worth noting that GOD isn't actually helping their ally by entering- to the contrary they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process. GOD entered to seize limelight for both itself and its leader, that's the singular material impact of this move. It isn't honorable or heroic - it's silly.

The fact that they're going against the winning coalition after having been a part of it kinda destroys the "limelight" argument.

[Sephiroth]

Interesting way to treat your so called long time brothers in GOD. You'll be enabling GOONS to the end of the war until they are able to extract whatever reps or crazy terms they want with this declaration I presume.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Methrage

[Centurius]

hahahah - yeah that's just !@#$@#$ rich .. Wow .. Xiphy wants limelight with .. our coalition? Or with yours? ... Or - perhaps it's just about their ally? They don't give two !@#$% about the majority of either coaltiion or anyone else.

Are you also asserting that peace for NPO will now be held off longer since GOD is defending one of their allies whom y'all attacked?

The New Pacific Order remains free to agree to the terms issued to it and see an end to the war at that point.

[Rayvon]

The New Pacific Order remains free to agree to the terms issued to it and see an end to the war at that point.

Good, as it should be - I was clarifying the assertion of "they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process".

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The New Pacific Order remains free to agree to the terms issued to it and see an end to the war at that point.

Heck, they could also take the peace negotiations seriously and counter with something reasonable, if they really want peace for their allies.

[Centurius]

Good, as it should be - I was clarifying the assertion of "they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process".

I believe my fellow Council member was referring to the fact it is most likely going to cause a delay from the other side in peace talks.

[WarriorSoul]

 

Rhetoric aside it's worth noting that GOD isn't actually helping their ally by entering- to the contrary they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process. GOD entered to seize limelight for both itself and its leader, that's the singular material impact of this move. It isn't honorable or heroic - it's silly.

 

I am utterly shocked it took this long for someone to come out with the "You're extending the conflict!" spiel. Well done. :|

[Hereno]

Heck, they could also take the peace negotiations seriously and counter with something reasonable, if they really want peace for their allies.

 

haha,ohwow.png

 

There's no way you kept a straight face typing that out.

 

e: for some reason i spelled out with a g

Edited January 13, 2014 by Hereno

[Caliph]

GOD did everything the coalition called upon them for, afaik. STA was out with TPF. You couldn't have possibly expected them to go back on their word both to you and one of their longest-held allies, could you?

 

I would expect them to have the testicular fortitude to stand  by a coalition they chose to back instead of betraying it and jumping to the other side.

 

But I guess I shouldn't have expected that.

[berbers]

I would expect them to have the testicular fortitude to stand  by a coalition they chose to back instead of betraying it and jumping to the other side.
 
But I guess I shouldn't have expected that.

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?

[Schattenmann]

There you have it, everyone other than Polar is just a pawn to Dajobo's schemes :/
Edit:  I am sure Fark, IRON, Valhalla, MCXA, CRAP, TTK, CCC and whoever else has allies on the other side appreciate comments like the above :|

I am sure Fark, IRON, Valhalla, MCXA, CRAP, TTK, CCC and whoever else don't soncier themselves play-makers, and I know they all knew what their Polar treaty meant for the near future. Edited January 13, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Neo Uruk]

I would expect them to have the testicular fortitude to stand  by a coalition they chose to back instead of betraying it and jumping to the other side.
 
But I guess I shouldn't have expected that.

The crux of all this mess is the unreasonable demands being made of NPO, not some stupid concept of blind loyalty to a coalition. Edited January 13, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Prodigal Moon]

I mean, I caught the sarcasm, but for this war the statement actually fits for quite a few alliances.

But you'll find that out very soon.

There was definitely a kernel of truth, I agree. But no one can force an AA to sign MDP's, let alone force them to chain into a war they don't support. Lead, follow, or get out of the web.

[berbers]

There was definitely a kernel of truth, I agree. But no one can force an AA to sign MDP's, let alone force them to chain into a war they don't support. Lead, follow, or get out of the web.

Well I hope some of the people you are labelling followers show you up real soon ;D

[Neo Uruk]

There was definitely a kernel of truth, I agree. But no one can force an AA to sign MDP's, let alone force them to chain into a war they don't support. Lead, follow, or get out of the web.

I can agree but also you can't really tell 100% where your allies will end up. Up until TOP started a very unnecessary war - which many will disagree with but whatever my opinion - R&R was actually on your side

[Ernesto Che Guevara]

Glad to have your support, VE. 

[Marsupial Bob]

 

 If you want to defend each and every ally who gets attacked regardless of coalition warfare, than you are a piss poor coalition partner, placing your interests above the coalitions.

 

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.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Marsupial Bob

[Bob Ilyani]

 

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.

You'd think GOD would understand coalition warfare after, what, 6 years of participating in it?

 

The treaty web is so fucked up nowadays that there's always going to be an alliance (or many) with treaties on both sides of the conflict. Just nut up and deal with it. Or isn't that what you told RoK during VE-NpO?

 

Fucking hypocrites.

[Sephiroth]

 

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.

I think its clear the real piss poor coalition partner here were GOONS. Yet VE has that kind of blind stupid loyalty where they will attack their brother if someone can show they signed something giving them the obligation to fulfill such requests in the fine print. That nobody in their coalition places any blame on GOONS for forcing GOD's hand is surprising.

[Neo Uruk]

You'd think GOD would understand coalition warfare after, what, 6 years of participating in it?
 
The treaty web is so $%&@ed up nowadays that there's always going to be an alliance (or many) with treaties on both sides of the conflict. Just nut up and deal with it. Or isn't that what you told RoK during VE-NpO?
 
!@#$@#$ hypocrites.

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.

[Marsupial Bob]

You'd think GOD would understand coalition warfare after, what, 6 years of participating in it?

 

The treaty web is so $%&@ed up nowadays that there's always going to be an alliance (or many) with treaties on both sides of the conflict. Just nut up and deal with it. Or isn't that what you told RoK during VE-NpO?

 

!@#$@#$ hypocrites.

 

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:

 

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.

The personal attack:

In short, if you are a &$%* to your coalition partners, don't be surprised when they call you on it and join the opposition.

 

 

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.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Marsupial Bob

[Alex987]

 

Rhetoric aside it's worth noting that GOD isn't actually helping their ally by entering- to the contrary they are extending the duration of the conflict and scuttling an existing peace process. GOD entered to seize limelight for both itself and its leader, that's the singular material impact of this move. It isn't honorable or heroic - it's silly.

 

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. "Shortest war" =/= "Least damage", because if that were true then there would be no reason to fight in a losing war at any point. And GOD followed through on GOONS' callout. In a sense this whole situation is a lose-lose for both parties, but that's what happens when you declare a war with the tact of a walrus.

[Centurius]

 

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.

Yes, because GOD totally didn't fire the first shot by threatening to change coalitions, make a call regarding terms for an alliance it couldn't and threaten a key element of the coalition with decisive force.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

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

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