TSO Announcement

[ajaxpenny]

Oh don't worry, I'm not at all pleased with TOP either, I just wasn't ourtraged enough by that declaration to publically object on an individual basis. As you can tell from my post-count I rarely comment here outside of official alliance business. However, it hasn't escaped my notice that TOP jumping in FIVE DAYS after our declaration on Orion is more than a little odd when an already existent MDP is cited as the reason. If you expect to force NPO to the table by pressuring her allies it won't work; if anything it steels our resolve to see this through till the last drop of Karma blood has been shed, in this case that of TOP especially.

All you've accomplished here is making more enemies for the future. A shame too; I consider AjaxPenny a good friend, and because of him I liked TOP, though I knew very little about you. I'm sure he would not have supported such an attack, but who knows? As they say; bad company corrupts good character.

My friend, the world as we know it is gone. In such strenuous times, we make decisions based on what we know and what we can gather, and we make choices that we reason will both help us, our friends, and potential future friends of tomorrow. War brings out the worst and the best in all of us. I ask that you rethink why we declared this war and why TSO came along with us. I ask you to understand the TOP-TSO dynamic friendship and TOP's unique position on the treaty web. Let the anger flare today, and let reason settle tomorrow.

You may reason that we have decided to curbstomp Invicta, but that is not so. If a commander on the battlefield has the option to utilize all his troops to crush an opponent, would he choose instead to send a small token force to do 'honorable combat' with his opponent? No. A commander makes a choice based on the well being of his own force, not his opponents. To send a small token force would be to betray the small token force. When you have the cards, you deal them.

When this war is over I ask that we pick up the pieces together. Amongst the destruction and pain understanding will always survive.

If you wish, we can e-lawyer our way through these treaties together. Until you understand the dynamic treaties we all hold (You do acknowledge, you are not a FA man), you are making open criticism while being much ignorant of the world around you. This is not the Sir Glen I know. You know where to find me.

*Salutes TSO*

*Salutes Purple*

[Timberland]

It's a shame all of my defensive slots are full, I would have liked to taste one of you.

I do have one offensive slot open, but thats for a very special person.If he ever comes out and plays.

Dude your in anarchy you cant declare on anyone.

[VIdiot the Great]

I wish my friends in TSO the best of luck in their military engagement. TOP's reasons for asking TSO to join them are solid, as are TSO's reasons for assisting their friends in TOP.

From what I've heard, Invicta, Echelon, BAPS and UPN have fought with honor.

o/TOP

o/TSO

If you gentlemen need assistance, we stand ready and waiting.

Warmest Regards,

VI, Triumvir of FACE

[Sir Glen]

Ajax, you know I could never insult you personally, nor attack you in any way; I owe you too much for that. You've been a good friend, but I cannot agree with you on this issue. Perhaps sometime soon we'll talk about this, in the meantime I'll fade once more into anonymity. I don't play this game for the crap that happens in these forums; I try to play it honorably, for the betterment of all. What has been done here hurts me more than you know. I DO want peace, but not with Karma's boot against my neck; peace will never come that way. When you see THAT, you know where to find me.

[Timitz]

When this war is over I ask that we pick up the pieces together. Amongst the destruction and pain understanding will always survive.

If you wish, we can e-lawyer our way through these treaties together.

*Salutes TSO*

*Salutes Purple*

Quote edited for shortness and relevance.

Agreed, we will all be rebuilding together, some more than others, and we need to look to the future.

E-lawyering might have got us into the treaty web mess that we all complained about prewar.

Saluting both sides = honor, because I know you mean it.

EDIT* VIdiot I like your avatar.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Timitz

[ajaxpenny]

Ajax, you know I could never insult you personally, nor attack you in any way; I owe you too much for that. You've been a good friend, but I cannot agree with you on this issue. Perhaps sometime soon we'll talk about this, in the meantime I'll fade once more into anonymity. I don't play this game for the crap that happens in these forums; I try to play it honorably, for the betterment of all. What has been done here hurts me more than you know. I DO want peace, but not with Karma's boot against my neck; peace will never come that way. When you see THAT, you know where to find me.

Our boot will never be held against your neck.

Regardless, I look forward to talking with my old friend soon. Without discussion, there is never understanding.

Invicta shines much brighter than many others in this conflict. Regardless of how you feel about our actions at TOP and TSO, know that you've done honorably, and everyone here agrees.

[Baden-Württemberg]

Our boot will never be held against your neck.

Regardless, I look forward to talking with my old friend soon. Without discussion, there is never understanding.

Invicta shines much brighter than many others in this conflict. Regardless of how you feel about our actions at TOP and TSO, know that you've done honorably, and everyone here agrees.

Ditto.

[lcdt94]

When I said it wasn't about defending the NPO it wasn't. Invicta isn't fighting because we are trying to uphold some kind of fun killing oppressive regime. We said that we would defend them if we got attacked and our word means something to us. That's why we are fighting. I highly doubt that you would say that you are fighting to advance the glorious cause of some of the more questionable folks fighting against NPO.

Signing MDPs with alliances you find oppressive? This must be some kind of new brilliant strategy, I'm glad to see that it's working out so well for you.

[Shardoon]

Our boot will never be held against your neck.

Regardless, I look forward to talking with my old friend soon. Without discussion, there is never understanding.

Invicta shines much brighter than many others in this conflict. Regardless of how you feel about our actions at TOP and TSO, know that you've done honorably, and everyone here agrees.

Well said Ajax.

Also: o/ TSO

[kencojenko]

I'm too lazy to go get quotes but, when has TOP ever complained about being gangbanged? You say our stats are a sign we are war hungry, but surely having stats that show better Nation Building skills (read; high infra, tech and NS) we are bound to be superior in war. If your nations wish to live a peaceful existance growing their nations, why the hell did you declare war on someone? You can argue that you were honoring treaties with a friend, but if you are following said friend into utter destruction, is that not a symbol of a puppet state? You have done the same thing TSO did (Activating a clause in a treaty) yet TSO are the dishonorable ones just because they are on the winning side?

This all boils down to whether you are a believer of Realpolitik or Idealism. By honoring a treaty that puts you on the losing side, you are an idealist. TOP went through days of discussion (sidenote: we did not decide to attack you 5 days in advance and were unsure of whether we would be in a war at all, hence the unprepared military situation) and finally decided that by being on the opposite side to allies, and fighting alongside other allies, we can help one set of allies win a war, and help our allies on the other side achieve lighter peace terms.

Nuetrality leaves our allies on the losing side in a worse position and our allies on the winning side believing we are untrustworthy.

That makes TOP (in this situation) a believer of realpolitik.

The path we choose to follow (between idealism and realpolitik) may change depending on circumstance.

(Note: I am not speaking on behalf of my alliance, I am simply offering my opinion on the situation. Also, sorry if my writing is hard to follow... Lack of sleep and all...)

Edited April 28, 2009 by kencojenko

[Magister Agricolarum]

Welcome to the bandwagon battle, TSO.

[Solidus117]

Watchman, I hope you have the luck of finding me in the field. I would surely love to combat a friend.

[Timberland]

Waltar is correct; Invicta as a whole, and most of her membership doesn't feel the same way I do, so if you're writing names down in a little black book for future retribution, put mine down, not Invicta. That said, if you feel it necessary to count me personally an enemy then more power to you! I'd have thought I'd be below your notice, particularly as after this war I'll likely be rebuilding from scratch, but if you want to keep me down feel free; I'll still legitimately feel I have the moral high-ground here. Worst case scenario you keep me down long enough for me to say "screw it" and quit the game; you are here for war, but I'm not, I enjoy interactions with friends on IRC and in our Alliance forums, I enjoy building my nation and helping others build theirs. Honestly, foreign affairs has never been my thing, and I don't care a whole lot about the underlying politics of it all, what I DO have a problem with is people like TSO and TOP taking out our nations, many of whom just want to build their nations in peace, for absolutely no reason. So yes, call me enemy; I welcome it. You've proven to be one yourself.

You were not thinking of building your nation peacefully when you declared. Now did you ?

[arentak]

Welcome to the jungle, baby!

Napalm in aisle 3, cruise missiles in aisle 5, extra-enriched uranium in the back.

o/ TSO

[Rextu]

Nothing unexpected.

[Karl I]

Good luck TSO

o/ Karma

[Some-Guy]

I'm pleased to have you at our side TSO.

It's very sparse at our side at the moment.

Thank you most kindly.

[Enimecnegnev]

o/ TSO

o/ TOP

Let the military maneuvers begin.

[FlogYou]

First off, welcome to the fight TSO.

Unfortunately there has been all too much whining and complaining about who has been entering this war and for what reason. Personally I would be much happier reading a 2-3 page thread with logical content and comentary, then wading through page after page of nonsense.

Unfortunately my dance card is full, with some fine TOP members. However, these wars will end in 5-6 days and I'm sure you'll beable to find a place at my dinner table. Please don't mind the pile of dirty dishes and the stained table cloth. Unfortunately do to rash of unforseen circumstances the plumbings out and the kitchen staff have all perished.

[Haflinger]

If Invicta was asked by a very close ally to activate a clause in a treaty allowing them to enter a mirror of this war, in which Karma was currently losing, on Hegemony's side, would you all be complaining so much? Would you deny them?

Not if was an MADP. You should probably check our alliance war history.

[watchman]

Watchman, I hope you have the luck of finding me in the field. I would surely love to combat a friend.

I am destroying nations with a heavy heart.

Politics makes for strange conflicts.

[Timitz]

Signing MDPs with alliances you find oppressive? This must be some kind of new brilliant strategy, I'm glad to see that it's working out so well for you.

I was being facetious, you are being a mythological creature of somesort. There is no point to continuing discussion with you.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Timitz

[Floatsam]

This has never been about defending the NPO, it has always been about keeping our word as an alliance. I believe his objection is that this is turning into the same kind of curb stomp that NPO and crew were always criticized for. Curb stomps that Invicta never supported.

So this is just about treaty obligations then? You don't actually support the NPO's actions?

Invicta has entered this war for their own reasons. Whatever they are, I'm sure they're legitimate; it takes a good reason to put your alliance at risk of so much damage like this, but I'm sure it's not about damage to their alliance that keeps them in this conflict.

Regardless, this is a major war. Let me clarify something for everyone (there has been a lot of clarification recently, hasn't there?) Karma is a group of alliances with a common goal: the elimination of the status quo that existed prior to the conflict. Call us self-righteous, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, whatever, it doesn't change the fact that we're here to do what we set out to do, and calling us names is not in your best interests. Karma alliances are all contributing to the same ends; treaty or not, and the goal here is to achieve that victory as soon as possible. If that goal can be expedited with additional forces, then great. Do not think for a second that a treaty is necessary for us to bring in additional forces in order to shorten the war. A treaty is only a statement of obligation; it does not prevent an autonomous alliance from declaring war against an opponent (unless there are stipulations; there are none in this case.) Why should you think that we need a treaty to fight this war? This is a coalition of alliances; it has a goal. A treaty does not stop an alliance from choosing to help achieve those ends.

It's been demonstrated these past few days that many hegemony members think that a treaty is absolutely necessary to join a war. It's not; to believe so naive and narrow minded, and it does not make for smart war strategies. Has there ever been a major war where this isn't the case? No, there hasn't. There has always been a group of alliances with one goal against a group of alliances with another. There is no reason why one side should all be tied to each other in order to fight a war.

It is just a bit strange when people complain about a lack of treaty for entering this war. This isn't about you; this is about the war in general and achieving the goals stated at the outset.

Piling alliances on top of Invicta might seem like bandwagoning to the attacked, but don't let that preclude you from seeing what it really is: a way to help shorten the war. Invicta is involved in this war by proxy; it benefits every Karma alliance should Invicta choose to surrender. It doesn't matter if TSO is only in this for the spoils; all Karma objectives will be satisfied sooner if Invicta decided to leave the war.

Many Invicta members here are claiming that they will never surrender. Can you blame Karma then, for upping the ante? The war will not end until you do surrender, and if that takes more pressure, then it must be done.

You can sit here and proselytize all you wish about honor and dignity and loyalty to allies. That is your prerogative. But why is it less 'honorable' for TSO to help TOP with this war than it is for Invicta to help the NPO? It's not, rather it is all just one big subjective mess of opinion. You may argue that TOP doesn't need the help, but then, does Invicta think that by defending the NPO, that it is actually helping them at all? If anything, you are making things worse by prolonging the war. Your treaty may mandate it, but the same can be said for TSO. I think it has been said here over and over by Invicta members that they are in this war because of their treaty with the NPO, not because they support her actions in the past or her actions during this war. Is that really an honorable reason to fight a war? Just because you have a treaty with them? Don't forget all that you are defending when you answer that question.

Karma is not here to destroy Invicta. Karma has a goal to achieve, and if Invicta wishes to hinder that goal, she will need to deal with the forces against her, regardless of how many in number they are.

[Haflinger]

I do not believe the coalition of alliances known as Karma truly have a common goal. Floatsam describes the goal of a number of alliances in the coalition; however, as usual, the reality of the situation is more complex, and people are at war for different reasons.

Invicta is here in defense of her treatied allies. We will not stop honouring those treaties. If you want the war to end sooner, you need to focus less on trying to persuade us to dishonour those treaties and more on diplomatic contact with our allies.

[Locke]

If Invicta was asked by a very close ally to activate a clause in a treaty allowing them to enter a mirror of this war, in which Karma was currently losing, on Hegemony's side, would you all be complaining so much? Would you deny them?

In other words, what would I do if I was in your shoes? I would never participate in the gangbanging, bandwagoning curbstop that is 7 alliances, 3 sanctioned on one alliance. Just as I don't support the utter gangbaning of NPO now, just as I don't support NPO's policies to that effect in previous wars. It's just wrong. Now if it was a treaty obligation, that would be one thing, even against my own wishes, I would fight rather than break the treaty. But an optional clause when it's activation was clearly not needed? Just Orion, TCB, TAB, and FOK by themselves would have been more than we could handle, likely.

You haven't tapped out though have you otherwise we'd see a surrender announcement. We're not going to avoid trying to put an end to this as quickly as possible just to make you feel better. Sorry that's just not how it works, we'd be negligent to not use resources at our disposal in order to get back to peace in a timely manner.

If you realize why we're fighting, which I believe you have, then I can't quite understand your position, not in the least. We fight to defend NPO to the last man because of our treaty ties. No matter how many people you pile on us, even if the war went on forever, we would not surrender. We will not accept peace until NPO does. That's how honoring a treaty works. Oh, and while we're at it, if Orion surrenders, all of these DoW's against us become moot as well. Your resources are being poorly allocated if your reason is to end the war.

Glory to the Undefeated!