Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It should be pretty clear by now that all IRON are saying is: give peace a chance.Who are we to deny them? Absolutely, the settlement of the IRON problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all CN may find peace. This morning we have had the pleasure to read the discourse made by the Jedi Order leader, Doitzel. Most of you, perhaps, have already seen his paper. We regard Doitzel speech as symbolic of the desire of our people never to go to war with one another again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 When your ally is being attacked, whether right or wrong, you're bound by your word. Allying is suppose to represent friendship, friendship exists even when your ally is wrong. We as humans are meant to make mistakes, no one is perfect. You mine as well stamp on your forehead "we're your friend when you are right, but not when you are wrong." The problem is, too many alliances complain about the political entanglement, yet are apart of it. They complain how MDPs no longer represent, politically or symbolically, what they once were mounted as, yet they are apart of it. This is the problem in which YOU all are apart of and contribute to. Because of the political entanglement and mass-treatying, we, as a collective group, no longer stress the friendship alliances once had. Because people have so many treaties they are incapable of holding their word because alliances have so many treaties and ultimately need to remain uninvolved. Yeah, in the old days this happened once in a blue moon, but now it is expected in every war. It is more likely two friends are on opposite sides these days than one remaining uninvolved. Before, an MDP was "Home plate" of the relationship. In today's society, get drunk once and play finger tag and...BOOM! We have a treaty. See the difference? Use balloons and stop the mass-production. In the end, what is this? This makes you unreliable. An unreliable friend. Worthless to helping those who would help you in your biggest time in need. Some might try the psychoanalysis's defense mechanism of rationalization, or maybe even denial, but we need to stop pretending this is alright. The treaty system should be similar to a serious relationship; don't cheat on your spouse, be true to your word, and only have one. Or two if she/he digs that sort of thing. Let me tell you: This is The Ninjas' perspective. We are allied to VE as of now, since they are our protectors. Anyone who declares on them..even if they spied...even if they OOC attacked you...even if they DDoS'd the hell out of you...we will be there to defend our brothers. We will 'rethink our friendship', if need be, AFTER the conflict...not before or during it. That is the path of The Ninja. That is the path of friendship. That was the path we all once ventured on, but too many people got intoxicated with lust and fell off the path. Ejay, think of the infra they might lose! i mean come on thats alot of precious infra and tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shotgun91 Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Actually Dozit brang a point up IRON is the most stable alliance around and the best for rebuilding, imagine this if IRON were to go fully nuclear they could and could have more nukes than any other alliance. IRON is pretty much a juggernaut waiting for everyone else to slip up and to show there true power, there a lot like china is now for lack of a better country a sitting juggernaut that's waiting for it's moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) So planning to spy against an alliance that you have a valid CB against (and are arguably in a state of war against) is a valid CB after the war concluded? I don't recall a declaration of war from Athens on TPF or vice-versa. How is it "arguably in a state of war?" Add to that the fact that the plan was strategized during the beginnings of peace talks from the alliances at war with TPF. Edited December 29, 2009 by Mundokiir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Ejay, think of the infra they might lose! i mean come on thats alot of precious infra and tech Someone actually read a long preaching? Damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It should be pretty clear by now that all IRON are saying is: give peace a chance.Who are we to deny them? TOP is going to tell IRON to stay at peace? Doitzel must be so proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It should be pretty clear by now that all IRON are saying is: give peace a chance.Who are we to deny them? I love you like a brother, you better know that, but peace was void once the 'enemy' attacked. As you guys are 'trying for peace', your allies are being pummeled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Until the war is over and IRON still hasn't come in, I don't think you can really troll them. Hell, TPF may have even asked their allies not to come in (post mhawks thread). Shocking, I know. Why would he publically post for aid, then retract it when he thinks he's right? Methinks you don't know mhawk. When he thinks he's right, he knows he's right. Just before Karma he was telling me how he had everything figured out, how his CB was perfect, and how he expected everybody to be on Hegemony's side. He thinks he's totally correct and that the CB is crap. He'll keep calling for back up until he gets it. Besides, I didn't see this same statement back in the HUGE CoC thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) I don't recall a declaration of war from Athens on TPF or vice-versa. How is it "arguably in a state of war?" It can be argued that no public declaration is needed for an alliance to recognize a state of war. TPF's binding treaties obligated them to be in a state of war with Athens, if the government of TPF acknowledged that state of war privately I do not see what difference a public declaration would make (other then being strategically disadvantageous for TPF). Add to that the fact that the plan was strategized during the beginnings of peace talks from the alliances at war with TPF. Peace talks do not equate to peace, TPF had no desire for peace while NPO was at war and back in late June to early July it was not at all clear how long it would be until NPO would get peace, even for those alliances engaging Pacifica a clear timeline was not present. Edited December 29, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It can be argued that no public declaration is needed for an alliance to recognize a state of war. TPF's binding treaties obligated them to be in a state of war with Athens, if the government of TPF acknowledged that state of war privately I do not see what difference a public declaration would make (other then being strategically disadvantageous for TPF). Remember ODN and Vox I see. Peace talks do not equate to peace, TPF had no desire for peace while NPO was at war and back in late June to early July it was not at all clear how long it would be until NPO would get peace, even for those alliances engaging Pacifica a clear timeline was not present. This was pretty much true too. TPF wouldn't even peace out Vox until NPO did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) It can be argued that no public declaration is needed for an alliance to recognize a state of war. TPF's binding treaties obligated them to be in a state of war with Athens, if the government of TPF acknowledged that state of war privately I do not see what difference a public declaration would make. Peace talks do not equate to peace, TPF had no desire for peace while NPO was at war and back in late June to early July it was not at all clear how long it would be until NPO would get peace, even for those alliances engaging Pacifica a clear timeline was not present. On the first point, are you absolutely sure you want to recognize a precedent like that? As for the second, the argument is that mhawk saw the war as being an indefinite period of time. If he was being offered peace, why would he continue to think that? He made the war for TPF as long as it was, not NPO or Karma. Edited December 29, 2009 by Mundokiir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Actually Dozit brang a point up IRON is the most stable alliance around and the best for rebuilding, imagine this if IRON were to go fully nuclear they could and could have more nukes than any other alliance. IRON is pretty much a juggernaut waiting for everyone else to slip up and to show there true power, there a lot like china is now for lack of a better country a sitting juggernaut that's waiting for it's moment. Speaking as someone who fought them last war, i HIGHLY doubt it. they tried like hell to run away from one war then got shamed into honoring *gasp* their treaties. when they were defeated they acted as if they had never beaten up a neutral alliance or crushed other alliances for merely honoring their treaty...and yet here we sit..once again calling them cowards who are afraid of honoring their treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 On the first point, are you absolutely sure you want to recognize a precedent like that? yes. As for the second, the argument is that mhawk saw the war as being an indefinite period of time. If he was being offered peace, why would he continue to think that? He made the war for TPF as long as it was, not NPO or Karma. At the point in time that this op was started NPO was still at war and mhawk was not interested in peace for that very reason. Regardless of any terms offered to TPF at this point and whether peace was an option for TPF at this point are irrelevant since mhawk would only consider peace once NPO had achieved it. It is clear from the logs posted by ZH that TPF was notified of the termination of the OP via the topic of their private channel once NPO had received peace therefore the op only lasted for as long as the possibility of prolonged war did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It can be argued that no public declaration is needed for an alliance to recognize a state of war. TPF's binding treaties obligated them to be in a state of war with Athens, if the government of TPF acknowledged that state of war privately I do not see what difference a public declaration would make (other then being strategically disadvantageous for TPF). Athens is not forced to recognize their "state of war" with TPF because TPF never formally declared on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Athens is not forced to recognize their "state of war" with TPF because TPF never formally declared on them. They aren't forced to recognize it if they do formally declare on them either. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 They aren't forced to recognize it if they do formally declare on them either. What's your point? They actually would be, and thus would've been able to work on a peace resolution to that conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) They aren't forced to recognize it if they do formally declare on them either. What's your point? Run that one by me again, Srgt? Pretty sure declaring war is in and of itself a recognition as it only takes one party doing so... Edited December 29, 2009 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 They actually would be, and thus would've been able to work on a peace resolution to that conflict. Why would they be? Exactly what part of TPF posting a declaration and then declaring no military wars would force Athens to recognize a state of war? Please enlighten me because I just do not see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfEmpty Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) We weren't at war with ODN either. but still... Hey! Pile on dawgs! For dawgs sake do it and quit your cowardly butt covering. dot was an edit Edited December 29, 2009 by HalfEmpty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Didn't Q have a clause that said something like, "an attack on one is an attack on all of us?" If so, the wording could easily be thought to allow one to recognize hostilities with any alliance without having to formally declare the war. EDIT: Hurr Edited December 29, 2009 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Why would they be? Exactly what part of TPF posting a declaration and then declaring no military wars would force Athens to recognize a state of war? Please enlighten me because I just do not see it. The Declaration of War part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Run that one by me again, Srgt? Pretty sure declaring war is in and of itself a recognition. So TPF recognizing something automatically forces athens to recognize it? Man I should tell mhawk that he just needs to post a declaration of peace to end this war. I never knew these forums were so magically powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 So TPF recognizing something automatically forces athens to recognize it? Man I should tell mhawk that he just needs to post a declaration of peace to end this war. I never knew these forums were so magically powerful. I've always been under the impression that it takes both parties to peace, but only one to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I've always been under the impression that it takes both parties to peace, but only one to war. That is actually kind of my underlying point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 That is actually kind of my underlying point. When did Athens and TPF discuss peace for the war acts that TPF did against Athens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.