FOK announcement

[Dr. Dan]

No one is attacking FOK, period.

[Desperado]

I am not attacking TGE. In fact, the rumors can't be true as there is an NAP as part of SNOW.

[der Rote Baron]

For one, the alliance is more active than you may think or have been told by people with a DATED perspective of TGE's internal affairs. Two, I like how you're so quick to claim TGE doesn't communicate with others when TPF never notified TGE that you thought your relations with TGE were growing cold before you dropped the MDoAP. Same with NADC and their ODP. From what I hear on the streets, nobody notified TGE about anything before announcements were made on the OWF. Third (and this is about the part in bold), you claim that all TGE's government does is plot against itself when the only people who did that recently were booted and your alliance decided to protect those traitors in their scorpion offshoot alliance. They were the only major incident involving "plotting" against one another that had any relevance to TGE. Other instances were due to infiltrations that were discovered and promptly removed.

If you had really been a good Ally to TGE, you wouldn't have even considered taking them (TSI) on as a protectorate after being told about their past.

Edit: Clarification

+1

[Tom Litler]

In a losing war, FOK was able to pull the first surrender of said war.

Unjust War history. Learn it.

Says more about their attackers and despite that, my point stands.

[Earogema]

No one is attacking FOK, period.

Please TOP! Don't betray FOK!

[Earogema]

I am not attacking TGE. In fact, the rumors can't be true as there is an NAP as part of SNOW.

lol NAPs

[SpiderJerusalem]

No one is attacking FOK, period.

How about TGE?

[Dr. Dan]

Please TOP! Don't betray FOK!

:lol:

I did laugh at that one. New Mombasa, thank you for the meme.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Please TOP! Don't betray FOK!

Let's try to work out a deal. I need some tech..

[The Big Bad]

And therein lies the rub. FOK is by no means "on their own". Beyond that, all you've done is assume whatever group attacking TGE and FOK would win. That is not an assumption to make. I'm not saying FOK would end up on the winning side of that conflict either. My point is that with Q as unstable as it seems to be and with the web as ridiculous as it currently is, nobody, not even the biggest of big wigs in the back rooms, can guarantee a victory for any possible group or coalition. If they could, war would have already occurred.

Who would be attacking TGE? They are pretty much a lifeless alliance. They don't do anything but plot on each other and no one outside of TGE is dumb enough to get dragged into supporting one faction over the others. They spend all their energy fighting with each other so they don't have time to start fights with anyone on the outside. Do most people want to be allied to that? No. But, it does come with the benefit of TGE not getting itself attacked because they don't have any real contact nor interest on what goes on outside TGE. And ya know I have been a TGE supporter for a very very long time. Despite the complete mess they have become if someone were to attack them I might just get involved treaty or not for old times sake. And yeah I guess that is a threat.

[Great Lakes Union]

For one, the alliance is more active than you may think or have been told by people with a DATED perspective of TGE's internal affairs. Two, I like how you're so quick to claim TGE doesn't communicate with others when TPF never notified TGE that you thought your relations with TGE were growing cold before you dropped the MDoAP. Same with NADC and their ODP. From what I hear on the streets, nobody notified TGE about anything before announcements were made on the OWF.

TBB was the one that gave them said notice before the announcement. Nice try though. :lol:

[youwish959]

No one is attacking FOK, period.

This guy disagrees.

[Tom Litler]

Well anyway, I expect all these tough, mostly non-government members of alliances offering their alliances in defense of FOK and TGE to send me 3 million each if in the case that this war truly does break out, I find them either on the side lines or on fighting for the baddies. B)

[BamaBuc]

lol NAPs

SNOW contains an NAP clause. It is not an NAP treaty, it's a trade treaty.

-Bama

[Ardus]

That FOK and TGE will lose is a perfectly realistic assumption to make and that the Continuum is unstable does not matter because it is not the treaty itself that is the driving force behind the hegemony. It is self-sustaining. Treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on, for the most part.

A combination of apathy from the masses, propaganda campaigns from the aggressors, and back room intimidation and bribery all play their role. Also, not having support nor a casus belli, TGE and FOK will not have the attackers' advantage in the physical act of war.

I disagree. The ability of chief powers to collect possible challengers under their own umbrella is what perpetuates hegemony. This ability is not simply because they are the most powerful, it is because they are talented and dedicated to the cause of diplomacy. When they lose the ability to collect other promising allies and viable challengers, their position is endangered. At times being number one is self-sustaining. At other times it is self-destructive. The First Great War is the most glaring example of this.

You also mistake silence for apathy. Every group on the face of Bob has a tremendous interest in current affairs and most alliances have strong opinions on who is the more righteous of the groups, opinions that may not necessarily be accurately reflected by existing treaties (you said yourself they're worthless). We find ourselves in a situation where the excessive number of treaties invites the same sort of opinion-driven side taking chaos that very few to no treaties would invite.

Also, your biggest mistake by far is belief in any sort of "attacker's advantage". In the history of global wars, only once has the attacking group prevailed (WotC). In all other instances the group perceived to be the attacker lost: in GWI the NPO was rebuffed after attacking LUE; in GWII the Initiative managed to portray LUE as the attackers and so prevailed in large part due to that fact; in GWIII the Initiative again benefited from being able to paint Vincent Xander's plotting as an offensive action; Genmay hit BotS and the Unjust Path was broken. There is no better casus belli than defense against foreign aggression, be it pronounced or covert.

[Tom Litler]

SNOW contains an NAP clause. It is not an NAP treaty, it's a trade treaty.

-Bama

Thanks for the clarification. Do you plan on canceling your trades en masse if TGE violates the treaty by attacking them?

[thaone]

all lulz aside, I'm quite sad this announcement was needed.

I was hoping it was clear that we would put our infra at risk for a MDP partner.

@ Tom Litter: please stop, you're making a fool out of your self.

[Earogema]

SNOW contains an NAP clause. It is not an NAP treaty, it's a trade treaty.

-Bama

That only makes it easier.

[hobbies0310]

I disagree. The ability of chief powers to collect possible challengers under their own umbrella is what perpetuates hegemony. This ability is not simply because they are the most powerful, it is because they are talented and dedicated to the cause of diplomacy. When they lose the ability to collect other promising allies and viable challengers, their position is endangered. At times being number one is self-sustaining. At other times it is self-destructive. The First Great War is the most glaring example of this.

You also mistake silence for apathy. Every group on the face of Bob has a tremendous interest in current affairs and most alliances have strong opinions on who is the more righteous of the groups, opinions that may not necessarily be accurately reflected by existing treaties (you said yourself they're worthless). We find ourselves in a situation where the excessive number of treaties invites the same sort of opinion-driven side taking chaos that very few to no treaties would invite.

Also, your biggest mistake by far is belief in any sort of "attacker's advantage". In the history of global wars, only once has the attacking group prevailed (WotC). In all other instances the group perceived to be the attacker lost: in GWI the NPO was rebuffed after attacking LUE; in GWII the Initiative managed to portray LUE as the attackers and so prevailed in large part due to that fact; in GWIII the Initiative again benefited from being able to paint Vincent Xander's plotting as an offensive action; Genmay hit BotS and the Unjust Path was broken. There is no better casus belli than defense against foreign aggression, be it pronounced or covert.

I wish I knew as much about CN as this guy

lol

[magicninja]

In a losing war, FOK was able to pull the first surrender of said war.

Unjust War history. Learn it.

Then they caved to GATO though they don't like to admit that little bit.

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

You agreed with a Communist.

My God...

I'm as amazed as you are.

In response to Lilter's comment towards me, I would say that we the public have conflicting reports about whether or not notice was given, about whether or not an attempt was made to improve relations, and about whether or not an attempt was even necessary. It is up to each individual to weigh those accounts and determine their veracity from what he knows of the parties and the situation. Personally, having access to very little documentation, I'm going to keep the expression of my opinions very mild on the OWF.

[Delta1212]

Who would be attacking TGE? They are pretty much a lifeless alliance. They don't do anything but plot on each other and no one outside of TGE is dumb enough to get dragged into supporting one faction over the others. They spend all their energy fighting with each other so they don't have time to start fights with anyone on the outside. Do most people want to be allied to that? No. But, it does come with the benefit of TGE not getting itself attacked because they don't have any real contact nor interest on what goes on outside TGE. And ya know I have been a TGE supporter for a very very long time. Despite the complete mess they have become if someone were to attack them I might just get involved treaty or not for old times sake. And yeah I guess that is a threat.

Normally, I enjoy your saber-rattling. You're among the best at it. That said, it loses some impact when the group you are saying you'd defend unilaterally out of friendship is the one your alliance just cancelled an actual treaty with for supposedly not maintaining that friendship.

[Earogema]

Then they caved to GATO though they don't like to admit that little bit.

Meh. After the No Vision war, I can respect that.

[In Spades]

The comments around the whole topic is what gives this thread a effect.

I approve!

[BamaBuc]

That only makes it easier.

For? I think I know what you're saying, but you're wrong. SNOW is a neutral treaty. STA was a member while fighting on the opposite side of most of SNOW, for example.

Thanks for the clarification. Do you plan on canceling your trades en masse if TGE violates the treaty by attacking them?

If TGE or any SNOW member were to attack another SNOW member (which they wouldn't), they would be expelled from the treaty. What happened to the individual trades would be up to those holding them.

-Bama