Recognition of Hostilities

[Anarquista]

tricky shaytan

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*Noms on the Finance Minister of Invicta that the Lord of Darkness fed him.*

[SirDog]

Not wishing to be at odds with some of my friends but as a former long term Avalanchian there was always that recognition of the risk of being a peripheral target whilst allied to NpO via an MDoAP during any war. DBDC had already hit richc3 (Avalanche's #1 - now in PM) way on earlier in the piece so Avalanche would have been well and truly aware of the strong likelihood of pre-emptive attacks or war. As to whether these wars are right or wrong, I really have no issue with them myself. Good luck Avalanche!

[Krashnaia]

In other words, we've come full circle now to pre-Karma, where merely having warm relations with an unfavored alliance is an "act of war" against the ruling class.

Round of drinks and a pat on the back to all involved!

 

The only difference is that our new Overlords no longer need to write long essays to justify their actions.

 

Back in the day, we lived in a world in which economic growth was the main objective of every nation, and war was seen as a transgression that needed to be justified. Now we live in a world in which war is the sole purpose of every nation, and thus it no longer needs to be justified.

[Amossio]

tbh if a side is good at warring, it can generally create bonds with the alliance it's fighting, mutual respect etc. Have seen peeps tie the knot and remain allies on quite a few occasions. I personally like avalanche, guess it's from nemesis days, if you come in a war, be prepared to get hit, nothing more complicated than that. The only CB that matters, is the original CB that started the war and even then is viewed as right and wrong by the separate parties. This is a good thing though because at least creates some fun in a stagnant period of time. 

[SpacingOutMan]

In other words, we've come full circle now to pre-Karma, where merely having warm relations with an unfavored alliance is an "act of war" against the ruling class.

Round of drinks and a pat on the back to all involved!

 

For what it's worth, we've come full circle to pre-Karma a long time ago: Grudge War (specifically the DH-Chestnut front, as short-lived as it was). 

 

 

That may be, none of that adds up to anyone deciding that Polar has no right to exist or that they are fighting for their survival though.

 

It does't add up, yet it doesn't really matter. The narrative has become that Polar is fighting for survival and is faultless for its current predicament. I won't presume to know the inner-politics and backroom deals (I'm sure a lot of this war is founded on old resentments to the Polarsphere). I look at this way: because of the current cluster$%&@ and genital measuring, I can only foresee increasingly bitter conflicts going forward. Whether that tickles your fancy or not is up to you I suppose. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by SpacingOutMan

[Starcraftmazter]

There is ever a cost in fighting for sovereignty and freedom. At least the tyrants hide not their nature here.

Well you've had a very long time to do something about those perceived problems of yours, not sure why you've waited until now.

So next time you forge a coalition, then have the guts to pick a war that also challenges your top tier. That would be good for you, would be good for us and would be good for CN.

I would love that, and it is not an issue of having guts, but an issue of having a competent opposition. If you look at our history (let's say DT), we have fought countless times against very bad odds, including DBDC themselves, and we have enjoyed ourselves thoroughly.

Yes we are pretty bored, but the blame lies squarely with a lack of a good opposition - we are hardly gutless.

The same can be said for pretty much every other alliance in the coalition. Why after so so so many years and so many wars which directly disprove your points, you actually make claims with such stupidity, I have no idea.

Polaris' crimes aside (for I would argue they've done no more than most, and that they've done has been paid but that is not a topic for here), do you believe in alliance sovereignty, foreign policy aside?

That is to say if an alliance chooses to abstain (because they do not agree with their allies mistakes or otherwise), do they not have the right to in your mind?

Note that avalanche played no role in what you consider to be polarspheres crimes.

Yes but, if your allies do stupid things and hide in peace mode refusing to actually face the enemies which they themselves created, I think it's not unfair that their allies should be peripherally punished. If they refuse to fight us, if their allies refuse to fight us hiding in peace mode as well, they must be brought pain in some other way - even if it is as admitidly cruide as attacking their allies which are otherwise neutral in the specific conflict - there is simply no other alternative.

So when you hitting Valhalla?

Whenever it's justified?

What actions?

The one I am most unhappy about is a blanket DoW on any nation supplying DBDC with tech.

What crimes has Polar committed against DT? We are in a defensive war drawn in by a no-CB attack on our allies. Honestly if you want to paint us as the bad guys you're going to need to do better than this.

http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_wars.asp?ID=10156

None of those nations attacked your allies.

In other words, we've come full circle now to pre-Karma, where merely having warm relations with an unfavored alliance is an "act of war" against the ruling class.

It is not, and nor are we a "ruling class". I have described the situation above - if your allies choose to target us and hide in peace mode, they must pay someone - and in this case, unfortunately through their allies.

[Neo Uruk]

tbh if a side is good at warring, it can generally create bonds with the alliance it's fighting, mutual respect etc. Have seen peeps tie the knot and remain allies on quite a few occasions. I personally like avalanche, guess it's from nemesis days, if you come in a war, be prepared to get hit, nothing more complicated than that. The only CB that matters, is the original CB that started the war and even then is viewed as right and wrong by the separate parties. This is a good thing though because at least creates some fun in a stagnant period of time.

.....They weren't in the war.

[Sir Exodus]

Not wishing to be at odds with some of my friends but as a former long term Avalanchian there was always that recognition of the risk of being a peripheral target whilst allied to NpO via an MDoAP during any war. DBDC had already hit richc3 (Avalanche's #1 - now in PM) way on earlier in the piece so Avalanche would have been well and truly aware of the strong likelihood of pre-emptive attacks or war. As to whether these wars are right or wrong, I really have no issue with them myself. Good luck Avalanche!

 

Whoa! good to see you! You should probably join Avalanche again after this war. 

 

It is true that we do recognize that there is a risk of being a peripheral target because of our MDoAP with NpO, but that can be said of any alliance (especially smaller ones) allied to a large one. 

 

As for this war, DBDC at least made the declaration that they were at war with all of NpO's current and future allies. So the attack on richc3 had a CB and a declaration. Umbrella/Aurora Borealis/The Dark Templar just pre-empted/attacked us without a similar declaration or even any statement etc. So unless DBDC somehow became a bloc a few days ago, or they speak for everyone on their side, then this attack seemed CB less or just to target our upper-tier.    

 

Lastly, we are not ones to back down when we are attacked or complain when we are, but at least give us a proper DoW and CB. This is just to recognize we were attacked when not involved in the war at all. So Avalanche will bring the destruction!  

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Starcraftmazter, on 07 Jan 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:The one I am most unhappy about is a blanket DoW on any nation supplying DBDC with tech.

I've stood up for freedom of trade in wartime before myself. I've stood up to major alliances with little or no help over that issue in fact, and I've made it a point throughout my career here to respect trade rights. And I have a strong suspicion your sudden support on this issue is incidental to your current situation, and is not at all genuine or real.

But I could be wrong on that. Tell me, when was the last time you took a stand on the issue in a situation where it did not so clearly suit your purposes? When have you gone to war against impossible odds to defend this principle, or even just suffered minor negative diplomatic fallout by refusing to endorse an allies move to interdict aid to an enemy?

[Amossio]

.....They weren't in the war.

meh, same thing, allied to allies involved in a war, I've been in the receiving end few times etc, the principle still stands, fight hard, fight well, make friends and use the one useful and fun tool that's left, nukes and war, best thing to do is crack on with it. If you don't want wars to happen like this, change bob, change your alliances direction or go neutral. Aside from that avalanche are pretty good group in my opinion. 

[HeroofTime55]

It is not, and nor are we a "ruling class". I have described the situation above - if your allies choose to target us and hide in peace mode, they must pay someone - and in this case, unfortunately through their allies.

I don't think you understand the concept of "targeting."  You hit Polaris first.  You don't get to then claim they targeted you when they didn't just roll over.

[Bob Janova]

meh, same thing, allied to allies involved in a war

No, it's really not the 'same thing'. Hitting alliances that are part of the enemy coalition during an ongoing coalition war is fair enough, though usually treaty chains are manipulated even in that case to give a semblance of alternative justification for it. Hitting alliances which are not part of the war until you declare on them is entirely different, and pretty much the definition of noCB warfare.

If being allied to NpO is enough, then why not hit Valhalla?

[The Zigur]

Well you've had a very long time to do something about those perceived problems of yours, not sure why you've waited until now.

I first fought against the machinations of DBDC when I was HB govt and went off to fight the crusades against Mushqaeda. When I came back, I tried very hard to save DT from DBDC'S influence, but to no avail.

[Tehmina]

this is disgusting. the lulzists have also attacked other uninvolved alliances such as GO, the Congo people...

[Sarkin]

If being allied to NpO is enough, then why not hit Valhalla?

 

Yes, Umbrella definitely should have hit Valhalla, their own ally. This is a logical argument to make.

[Sir Keshav IV]

I first fought against the machinations of DBDC when I was HB govt and went off to fight the crusades against Mushqaeda. When I came back, I tried very hard to save DT from DBDC'S influence, but to no avail.

 

xD keep telling yourself that.

[Bob Janova]

This is a logical argument to make.

Just goes to show what a nonsense it is to claim that Avalanche is hit because of their treaty with NpO, then, doesn't it, if holding an MDP with NpO is so okay that they hold an MDP with an alliance that does it.

[hartfw]

this is disgusting. the lulzists have also attacked other uninvolved alliances such as GO, the Congo people...

 

GO sent war aid to mi6.  Pretty sure the aid history of TCSS was filled with ongoing tech to ppl fighting Dbdc as well.

[jalap]

Yes we are pretty bored, but the blame lies squarely with a lack of a good opposition - we are hardly gutless.

 

There is 1 nation in the CN top 20 that's not in DBDC (or fanboys) or a neutral. You cannot blame the opposition for hiding in peace mode with that amount of power that can hugely down declare on you. Is that lack of competence?

 

You did it all to yourselves, creating the alliance DBDC is, and the allies you chose. It's a recepe for boredom. If you want action, you probably would be better off in a neutral alliance, for they'll get targetted sooner than your gang.

 

If it stability and power you're looking for, you have done an excellent job. But once you achieved that, you really shouldn't complain about being bored. Nor should you blame the rest for being incompetent.

[jalap]

 

GO sent war aid to mi6.  Pretty sure the aid history of TCSS was filled with ongoing tech to ppl fighting Dbdc as well.

 

Then why not post a DoW?

[hartfw]

 

Then why not post a DoW?

 

Agreed.  I really don't understand why those alliances would actively help alliances at war and not post a dow joining in.  Perhaps you can talk to the one you are allied with in private, and help them out instead of airing their dirty laundry here?

[Sarkin]

Just goes to show what a nonsense it is to claim that Avalanche is hit because of their treaty with NpO, then, doesn't it, if holding an MDP with NpO is so okay that they hold an MDP with an alliance that does it.

 

Alright, if it wasn't Avalanche's connection with Polar that was the issue, what do you think it was? Do you sincerely believe that AB, DT and Umbrella came together and said, "My god, Avalanche's half-dozen nations with barely more than 10k tech represent an existential threat. We must rally together to crush them, for the good of lulzists everywhere!"

 

Nope. Polar had exactly three of their 14 allies not in the war at the time of our attack. Given Dajobo's repeated crowing that Polar plans to bring their allies into the war at their leisure, it was logical to assume that Avalanche would enter the war at a time and place of Polar's choosing. We've prevented them from doing so.

 

As for the other two Polar allies, Valhalla has treaties on both sides and made their position clear, and we forgot that USN existed.

[Sir Exodus]

 

GO sent war aid to mi6.  Pretty sure the aid history of TCSS was filled with ongoing tech to ppl fighting Dbdc as well.

 

These are at least valid CBs, or really any CB, for attacking them then. They helped your enemies, so they get attacked.

 

Not aiding your enemies, and just being an ally of one of your enemies not fighting anyone seems like a very bad/non-existent CB. 

[Dajobo]

Mate it's not a CB, it's an excuse. Don't stress too bad though because next war they'll be fighting the less valued members of their own coalition and we can sit back and laugh.