Imperium Recognition of War

[kingzog]

The takeaway: The reason SNX is being attacked is that Tywin wouldn't subscribe to the false narrative of 'we're all friends now'.

 

Okie dokie.

 

 

[Mogar]

I am down to help you all achieve peace whenever you feel like it :v

[Haflinger]

5 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Are you conspiring that Caustic and the SCOTLAND ultimatum are pre-fabricated and somehow directly linked?

In general, gutless idiots like you are not willing to issue ultimatums unless they already have significant military backing.

[Petro]

2 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Now that's false, comparing you/hartfw to Moo after opening up my query and started blasting SNX with threats of attack for publicly criticizing Sengoku's backing of Minc is not an "OOC attack."

 

Want me to post the logs?

 

In SNX's defense the personal attacks could have been worse. No one called hartfw Tywin.

[Auctor]

2 hours ago, Mogar said:

I am down to help you all achieve peace whenever you feel like it :v

In before tywin sets out to provoke a war with RIA.

[Lord Hitchcock]

2 hours ago, Mogar said:

I am down to help you all achieve peace whenever you feel like it :v

 

Achieving peace is one thing, it's how Junka reacts thereafter that becomes the concern.

 

as a potential viceroy candidate, how would you handle that issue?

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[The Zigur]

40 minutes ago, Auctor said:

In before tywin sets out to provoke a war with RIA.

 

Saying that Sengoku backed Minc is only a "provocation" to those who wanted a war in the first place. 

[Eljierro]

Guys, don't hog the popcorn, please. 

 

[kingzog]

3 hours ago, Mogar said:

I am down to help you all achieve peace whenever you feel like it :v

 

I will co-moderate those talks.

 

Seriously. What could possibly go wrong?

[Galerion]

If there are any talks we need someone more neutral than Mogar.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Galerion

[James Spanier]

The obvious answer is to hold six-party talks.

[Lord Hitchcock]

11 minutes ago, Galerion said:

If their are any talks we need someone more neutral than Mogar.

 

I'm leaning towards Grub

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[kingzog]

8 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

The obvious answer is to hold six-party talks.

 

Are these individual parties or one venue with six rooms?

 

 

[Jack Layton]

Quote

 

1. MInc wants to disband Scotland for:

-poor choice of tech trade partners

-trying to form a micro-bloc with people who have been enemies of MInc in the past

 

 

For posterity here, Junka noted to me in private on IRC that he advised SCOTLAND to NOT join any potential bloc with VG, POSSE, or any other considered alliance on the basis that he perceived us to be prone to war (fair enough). Ironically, this bloc was discussed as means of defending against potential MInc aggression which proved to be a reasonable concern, given the demand that SCOTLAND disband for even entertaining this notion. While it might have been reasonable for MInc to be concerned about the potential of a bloc forming against them given our history of hostilities (particularly before the improvement in our relations), demanding that SCOTLAND disband was unreasonable. Particularly since they aren't exactly a military threat. I'm glad the matter was resolved diplomatically, though I find it funny that Junka/SNX are the ones taking the flak for this when they're the ones who told SCOTLAND not to join with us which is precisely what MInc wanted.
 

Quote

 

2. Hartfw somehow ends up hosting a peace talk, the end of which results in Scotland not being disbanded in exchange for:

-No joining a bloc for 6 months

-Reevaluating their tech partners

-Apologizing to MInc fpr their transgressions

 

 

In the interests of fairness, and I read the full logs of the IRC discussion (though I was not present), nobody actually brought up what exactly these "transgressions" were. SCOTLAND didn't actually do anything wrong and yet were made to apologize. This was certainly preferable to a war that they weren't prepared to fight. And sometimes in this game, unfortunately, might makes right. SNX has a legitimate grievance here, though we advised our allies in SNX that VG does not desire an escalation in conflict and it might be a better course of action to overlook a minor slight in the interests of preserving our strength for a more worthy fight another time. That does not mean we won't fight, but we will make every attempt at diplomacy first. I will also note here that Junka has not yet formally requested VG's military assistance via our ODPoAP even though he is fully entitled to do so, considering the NAP has been invalidated.

 

Quote

3.  MInc denies that the disbanding attempt was "for reals"

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. I won't pretend to know what Hitchcock's intentions were. However, regardless of intent, the threat was taken seriously and MInc made no attempt to communicate that this wasn't a serious threat at any point. Negotiations were conducted under the assumption that war was imminent by the timeline he set in his original thread. Nowhere does anyone from MInc say that this deadline isn't actually in effect, suspended, negotiable, extended, or "not for reals". The effect is the same as if he had intended it.

 

Quote

4.  Junka is unhappy with brokered deal. accuses Cowboys of taking MInc's side

 

See my response to Point 2.

 

Quote

5.  Sengoku feels insulted, MInc attacks SNX in violation of NAP with VG

 

It's a clearcut violation of the NAP. The NAP stipulates that direct military attacks on VG's treaty partners are forbidden (and we have an ODPoAP with SNX). There is no provision for "being insulted", even if it's against the spirit of the NAP. But in SNX's defence, so is threatening SCOTLAND which is both friendly to VG and an ally of SNX. Neither action constitutes a direct violation of the NAP, but it certainly goes against what the NAP was intended to prevent. However, a direct attack on SNX does violate that without question.

 

Quote

6.  SNX declares on MInc and Sengoku

 

By the time SNX posted this, several dozen wars had already been declared on them. They're just acknowledging that the sky is blue at this point.

[visayan]

On 7/12/2016 at 10:24 AM, XxHouseArrestXx said:

What SnX needs, is someone who can shut up when he needs to.  Good luck I guess. 

or someone who understand what he's saying...hahaha

[kingzog]

22 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

 

For posterity here, Junka noted to me in private on IRC that he advised SCOTLAND to NOT join any potential bloc with VG, POSSE, or any other considered alliance on the basis that he perceived us to be prone to war (fair enough).

 

^ This part actually made me LOL.

 

The best part is that I can totally imagine him putting it that way, too.

[Galerion]

26 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

 

For posterity here, Junka noted to me in private on IRC that he advised SCOTLAND to NOT join any potential bloc with VG, POSSE, or any other considered alliance on the basis that he perceived us to be prone to war (fair enough). Ironically, this bloc was discussed as means of defending against potential MInc aggression which proved to be a reasonable concern, given the demand that SCOTLAND disband for even entertaining this notion. While it might have been reasonable for MInc to be concerned about the potential of a bloc forming against them given our history of hostilities (particularly before the improvement in our relations), demanding that SCOTLAND disband was unreasonable. Particularly since they aren't exactly a military threat. I'm glad the matter was resolved diplomatically, though I find it funny that Junka/SNX are the ones taking the flak for this when they're the ones who told SCOTLAND not to join with us which is precisely what MInc wanted.

 

Here we go

[Walshington]

See, I hear you say this:

24 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

In the interests of fairness, and I read the full logs of the IRC discussion (though I was not present), nobody actually brought up what exactly these "transgressions" were. SCOTLAND didn't actually do anything wrong and yet were made to apologize.

 

But then I hear Lord Hitchcock say this:

Their antagonism was supported with clear facts (Junka refused to acknowledge) and of which was aformentionally agreed to by all parties who were stakeholders in the peace summit, including M Inc, including Junka, Including VG and most importantly, including SCOTLAND. 

 

 

 

The two don't jibe.  I'd like to hear an accounting of the clear facts of Scotland's antagonism that was, apparently, agreed to by all parties.  I guess any of the stakeholders can deliver, since they all agreed, but I'd like to hear from Hitchcock since he acted on them.

 

 

[The Zigur]

Lord Hitchcock was talking out of his ass yet again, surprise surprise.

[Walshington]

Just now, Immortan Junka said:

Lord Hitchcock was talking out of his ass yet again, surprise surprise.

 

Well, obviously I expect you to think so, but you have to judge a man by his own clear facts, not the opinion of the guy he's at war with.

 

 

[Morphine]

As a neutral party to the peace talks. There was no clear mention of what SCOTLAND did to antagonize Minc. But at the same time, who cares? They both apologized to each other. The 3 terms of the peace are moot points. They were never going to join our bloc regardless, so that was a give. The tech deals well, all it says is that they review their current tech deals. No action is required to be taken. And the apology went both ways. All in all they were in my opinion fair terms given the situation. We weren't there to discuss the reason for Minc to be threatening their disbandment. We were there to prevent a war. 

[Lord Hitchcock]

16 minutes ago, Walshington said:

See, I hear you say this:

 

But then I hear Lord Hitchcock say this:

 

 

The two don't jibe.  I'd like to hear an accounting of the clear facts of Scotland's antagonism that was, apparently, agreed to by all parties.  I guess any of the stakeholders can deliver, since they all agreed, but I'd like to hear from Hitchcock since he acted on them.

 

 

 

The screenshot Galerion shared confirms what we've already knew, Scotland was considered to be in a bloc with alliances who have had past differences with M Inc.

 

While Junka may have told them it was a 'bad idea'- they weren't turned down.

 

They were not 'denied' until the eve of, and after the publication of our calling for their disbandment.

 

Timing was crucial in the matter, as our own desire to form a bloc for our protection (openly) was ridiculed only to learn that the former was not being postponed.

 

So M Inc had 2 choices,

 

1) we could have waited, and if Scotland would have been included and the bloc took off- it would have jepardized our security (let's not forget prospects of this bloc are Layton and Xanth) And we would have been caught with our pants down.

 

or

 

2) We take out Scotland while they're only linked to SNX, either through disbandment or at the very least enforce proper terms on them (of which forming a bloc with our past enemies is indeed antagonism- whether they are aware or not) -while halting their entry and bringing attention to what we views as direct threats. 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Walshington]

1 minute ago, Morphine said:

As a neutral party to the peace talks. There was no clear mention of what SCOTLAND did to antagonize Minc. But at the same time, who cares? They both apologized to each other. The 3 terms of the peace are moot points. They were never going to join our bloc regardless, so that was a give. The tech deals well, all it says is that they review their current tech deals. No action is required to be taken. And the apology went both ways. All in all they were in my opinion fair terms given the situation. We weren't there to discuss the reason for Minc to be threatening their disbandment. We were there to prevent a war. 

 

I would disagree -- to me, it is the crux of the whole matter.  If you antagonize people and have to deal with the consequences, that's one thing.  If you've done nothing and are required to apologize and submit to terms -- no matter how benign -- those terms are not, by any definition, fair, and your allies have every reason to be angry about the situation.

[Morphine]

Just now, Walshington said:

 

I would disagree -- to me, it is the crux of the whole matter.  If you antagonize people and have to deal with the consequences, that's one thing.  If you've done nothing and are required to apologize and submit to terms -- no matter how benign -- those terms are not, by any definition, fair, and your allies have every reason to be angry about the situation.

Ofcourse, we have a right to be angry and so does Junka but at the same time. Are 3 seemingly pointless peace terms, a reason to have a war? Which mind you, SCOTLAND posted that they would accept any terms besides their disbandement. So it could've been alot worse. 

[kingzog]

6 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

They were not 'denied' until the eve of, and after the publication of our calling for their disbandment.

 

 

This is a logical impossibility, unless they were denied both before and after the threat, in which case the threat served no purpose whatsoever.