Peace in Our Time

[KingEd]

This is by far the most let-down week in all of Cybernations history. We had, potentially, 2 wars that could have went global and caused major destruction for all alliances involved but peace and reason prevailed because of ....(still to be found, but we can all speculate). Right after we have another war between the 57th and Browncats....this war too had the potential to go Global...but...once again peace prevailed....

I feel as if...the spirit of the New Years has...let cooler heads prevail in all of this....

Well back to building the Infra/Tech/Wonders

[Baals]

While white peace is admirable and desirable, I believe that we would prefer that people stopped trying to twist this into some magnificent victory for BC and CoJ and that they would follow the conditions of the peace agreement and offer peace immediately. I believe it to be a violation of peace agreements if peace is not offered immediately and to continue attacking.

Who is still attacking then?

[jerry wagner]

Who is still attacking then?

Perhaps you should ensure that your members and those of your allies are not mounting attacks for the day and then offering peace.

[Baals]

Perhaps you should ensure that your members and those of your allies are not mounting attacks for the day and then offering peace.

If you have evidence, I would like to see it. As most of our allies/members didnt declare until today and cannot attack more than they have, before peace was reached.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Baals

[Asriel Belacqua]

White peace was agreed because it was what both parties wanted. The war was !@#$@#$ stupid to begin with and this bickering in here just makes it worse, so give the no u arguments and saber rattling a rest.

I am in much agreement with this, thus why I have only responded a few times, instead of the 50 posts I've wanted to make telling everyone to shut the hell up.

While white peace is admirable and desirable, I believe that we would prefer that people stopped trying to twist this into some magnificent victory for BC and CoJ and that they would follow the conditions of the peace agreement and offer peace immediately. I believe it to be a violation of peace agreements if peace is not offered immediately and to continue attacking.

Some Browncoats who are at war have things going on that require their attention and have not been around for a while anyway. If these are the nations of which you speak, then my apologies, however, I can't do anything about it.

OOC: One of them we haven't seen since the 24th or 25th, and the others are doing things with family/school/what-have-you. Again, apologies, however I have sent them all messages telling them to declare peace and have warned them all that if they do attack they will have to pay damages.

[Ragnor]

Ok, you don't read for comprehension so well.... But do you speak (officially) for your unpublished AA?

Actually there is nothing wrong with his comprehension, it reads exactly like someone who is taking a cheap shot at folk who haven't had the chance to do what they were always going to do if peace talks failed. In fact it could be interpreted as you calling Nexus/Aztec/others !@#$%*^, which I very much doubt is the position of your trium. I strongly suggest you obtain clearance before make any inflammatory remarks.

My experience of Nemesis government had only been positive until I came across you.

As for Col, he hasn't had an AA published for as long as I can remember. But he's Silence, and only the Triumvirate speak for Silence when we have the democratic mandate to do so.

[Coloradia]

57th aren't the only ones with allies. And the main reason this was settled is because both sides didn't want the world involved.

Aye, everyone has allies. Nemesis for one would be getting a whooping I can tell you.

@Kataklizm

I don't read for comprehension? Heh, I'm sorry, Logic and comprehension are something you and your allies have been shown to be in great need of the past twenty four hours. Don't try to turn this into a "No u" when it's already been shown to be greatly lacking on your side.

[Baals]

Aye, everyone has allies. Nemesis for one would be getting a whooping I can tell you.

So our allies wouldnt defend us then?

Edited January 4, 2010 by Baals

[Thistledown]

This is the most moronic thing I have ever read. I'm not even going to entertain this side-argument.

I'm honored.

But no, seriously here. I'm saying you wouldn't defend your allies, I'm saying that if you don't want to go to war for "micro-alliance business", why make it compulsory?

EDIT: I didn't mean to criticize AZTEC itself actually, my bad. It was the ties to the smaller alliances which you didn't feel should "wag the dog."

Edited January 4, 2010 by Thistledown

[Theoroshia]

Now, I could be entirely wrong, however, Mechanus has approached me saying their hatred runs deep, and I have had a personal experience with it.

Listening to information from a disgruntled former member of the 57th obviously means he represents the entire alliance's feelings. Plus, he would never distort the truth and provide a thorough analysis of our feelings toward your alliance.

Being sarcastic, of course. Just in case no one picked up on it.

Of course you've faced personal experience with it, by the way. Ye pretty much poached a member of the 57th, although I use that wording carefully, as ye two are real life friends. Understandably, those in the 57th who didn't know this would be upset.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Theoroshia

[Coloradia]

So our allies wouldnt defend us then?

Allies don't mean you wouldn't get smacked. Look at TPF.

[Ragnor]

So our allies wouldnt defend us then?

Aye they would have, then everyone on the 57th side would have been blitzed, then there would have been a counter and folk on the other side would have been blitzed.... and so on.

edit: missed a word out >_<

Edited January 4, 2010 by Scorcher 1

[Bower3aj]

I'm honored.

But no, seriously here. I'm saying you wouldn't defend your allies, I'm saying that if you don't want to go to war for "micro-alliance business", why make it compulsory?

you didn't listen to me did you...

are you insane? NV was more than ready to back us in any means that we needed. we needed diplomatic aid, they provided, and the war is over.

OOC: honestly this is what I get for reading the OWF

they provided what they were asked to provide... so hard to get I know

[hizzy]

I'm honored.

But no, seriously here. I'm saying you wouldn't defend your allies, I'm saying that if you don't want to go to war for "micro-alliance business", why make it compulsory?

And I'm saying that the idea that "dont let the tail control the lion" (or whatever) means we won't defend our small allies is retarded.

Just as letting a case of bad timing lead to a large-scale war is equally retarded.

[Ellis]

Perhaps you should ensure that your members and those of your allies are not mounting attacks for the day and then offering peace.

Stop throwing around serious accusations like that without proof, please.

Aye, everyone has allies. Nemesis for one would be getting a whooping I can tell you.

I know that you would have fought if peace hadn't broken out, but that's big talk for people who didn't, in reality, fire a shot.

[Kataklizm the Great]

This thread is for LoSS, Nemesis, CoJ, BC, and the 57th, the rest of you can hail and junk, but don't come with some "Well, it's a good thing I wasn't in it yet...".

This is the sentence I was referring to about "reading comprehension". And that is what both of you continued to do. I, also never made personal attacks, is that Silence policy?

[Charles the Great]

So our allies wouldnt defend us then?

no I believe he is saying, just like all big wars, the early entrants, especially small alliances, win or lose will be pulverized fast.

Its math really every wave of treaties that kick in bring in bigger dogs and the earlier waves get overrun with more wars than they can handle.

When one side runs out of a progressivly larger wave the other side will win.

I'm honored.

But no, seriously here. I'm saying you wouldn't defend your allies, I'm saying that if you don't want to go to war for "micro-alliance business", why make it compulsory?

no. just no. I am not .gov so was not privy to the talks but I can assume larger forces were at work to make sure this didnt go any further. We didnt really want it and neither did you.

really stop the baiting or I might have to get my sword back out and rattle it again.

[Bower3aj]

And I'm saying that the idea that "dont let the tail control the lion" (or whatever) means we won't defend our small allies is retarded.

Just as letting a case of bad timing lead to a large-scale war is equally retarded.

no hizzy, clearly NV and AZTEC would never support small alliances. It's not like a member of AZTEC is smaller than the 57th... oh wait

[Asriel Belacqua]

Listening to information from a disgruntled former member of the 57th obviously means he represents the entire alliance's feelings. Plus, he would never distort the truth and provide a thorough analysis of our feelings toward your alliance.

Being sarcastic, of course. Just in case no one picked up on it.

Of course you've faced personal experience with it, by the way. Ye pretty much poached a member of the 57th, although I use that wording carefully, as ye two are real life friends. Understandably, those in the 57th who didn't know this would be upset.

I'm not saying his information is 100% reliable, no. I'm just saying that what he said, on top of my queries (and ninten's for that matter, yes, he got a bunch as well, and he did not "poach" anyone), gave a good enough picture to many to provide a reason behind what the guy who got quoted by the other guy who I was responding to, said. Am I saying it's hard-core evidence that you all do? No. Nor have I. I just said it does give me a gorrammed fine reason to believe it.

Also, everyone from the 57th who approached me about it knew he was my personal friend (OOC: Real life friend). That is no excuse. I think one person did not initially, and, even when I made that abundantly clear to him he still gave me hatemail for it.

Everyone else who didn't know, yeah, they have a right to be upset, but those aren't the guys who approached me about it.

[Thistledown]

you didn't listen to me did you...

I did, actually.

Which is why I addressed that in my post.

Did you listen to me?

And I'm saying that the idea that "dont let the tail control the lion" (or whatever) means we won't defend our small allies is retarded.

Just as letting a case of bad timing lead to a large-scale war is equally retarded.

Again, I'm not saying you won't.

I'm not really trying to bait you, honest. It wasn't really meant to be antogonistic, maybe it's spending too much time on the OWF. I am not saying, and never said, that you wouldn't do it. I'm saying, if you don't want to go to war when they have their small alliance issues, why sign a treaty that says you must?

[Baals]

Allies don't mean you wouldn't get smacked. Look at TPF.

Our allies aren't like TPF's allies. They don't need to wait 6 days trying to scramble together a coordinated force.

Aye they would have, then everyone on the 57th side would have been blitzed, then there would have been a counter and folk on the other side would have been blitzed.... and so on.

edit: missed a word out >_<

And that means Nemesis would be getting a "whooping"? For someone who has never fought Nemesis, or its allies you sure do know that we suck at fighting.

[Coloradia]

This is the sentence I was referring to about "reading comprehension". And that is what both of you continued to do. I, also never made personal attacks, is that Silence policy?

And the sentence before it was begging for the responses we gave. Don't pull out half of what you said and complain about out our responses to the other half that you don't repeat.

Way to act on what you truly support.

We were absolutely ready to act, it's simply that that little thing called peace got in the way

@Baals post one up

We know Poyples, if hes in charge Nemesis has gotta be a pushover =p

Edited January 4, 2010 by the_great_one

[Ragnor]

This is the sentence I was referring to about "reading comprehension". And that is what both of you continued to do. I, also never made personal attacks, is that Silence policy?

Ah, my apologies for attributing the sentence incorrectly. As for the sentence itself, I guess by the same logic half the people in the peace talks had no business making serious points and arguments for and against.

I'm not a fan of personal attacks, and if I've somehow made one I apologise. Also if anyone from Silence has made one I again apologise, but trying to make out like it's an alliance policy is just another cheap shot.

[Charles the Great]

Again, I'm not saying you won't.

I'm not really trying to bait you, honest. It wasn't really meant to be antogonistic, maybe it's spending too much time on the OWF. I am not saying, and never said, that you wouldn't do it. I'm saying, if you don't want to go to war when they have their small alliance issues, why sign a treaty that says you must?

I think I understand wherein your mistake lies.

We were coming to war.

Dilpomacy won out.

Peace was reached before update blitz commenced.

Thank You for your time,

CtG

edit:for clarity

Edited January 4, 2010 by Charles the Great

[Bower3aj]

I did, actually.

Which is why I addressed that in my post.

Did you listen to me?

Again, I'm not saying you won't.

I'm not really trying to bait you, honest. It wasn't really meant to be antogonistic, maybe it's spending too much time on the OWF. I am not saying, and never said, that you wouldn't do it. I'm saying, if you don't want to go to war when they have their small alliance issues, why sign a treaty that says you must?

see the end of your post shows that you didn't actually listen to me but I think I actually see where you're getting lost. So let me lay out a scenario for you. You have friends that are in a stupid war. You think the war is stupid. You have a treaty with them because they're your friends. Do you help them even if you think the war is stupid?

I hope your answer is yes

if it is then do you then cancel that treaty after the war because you shouldn't have to fight when your friends do something stupid? no, because that's the point of the treaty. To save your friends when they're getting pounded whether for a stupid reason or not. They're your friends.