Härmlin Announcement

[neneko]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='02 February 2010 - 03:27 AM' timestamp='1265077659' post='2151772']
Interesting. I don't ever remember saying we'd hit FARK.
[/quote]
Interesting indeed. You know what makes the post even more interesting? Reading the posts I replied to.

[Bob]

[quote name='Stetson' date='01 February 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1265077952' post='2151784']
I accept the criticism, I'm not very good at mocking.

That doesn't mean that a policy of making foreign policy decisions based on how they feel on a given day doesn't deserve criticism. And yes, I realize they have a great relationship with MK right now and they made that clear I just hope no one expects that they revamped their foreign policy so they would be MORE likely to help out a friend. It's telling that they did not defend their "friends" Fark, FOK, or Umbrella (all of whom were mentioned in the "paperless" announcement has having an unchanged relationship with Gre) in the initial fronts of this war it wasn't until TOP/IRON made a stupid tactical mistake and ended up being severely outnumbered did the new foreign policy really shine!
[/quote]
I think you can recognize that MHA and Gremlins don't want to be pulled into wars that they don't believe in, and that is a part of this decision. They will defend Fark, FOK, and Umbrella if they are in the right for sure.

While I don't necessarily agree with this logic, they have attempted to put themselves into a position where they are able to make such decisions based off their own morality. We will see how this strategy works, but I would not discount its success at this time.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='neneko' date='01 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1265079270' post='2151831']
Interesting indeed. You know what makes the post even more interesting? Reading the posts I replied to.
[/quote]
"I don't think its irrelevant, some have tried claiming TOP only entered to hit CnG, but that they were initially asking about another front on the war I think confirms they entered for their stated CB. Also it shows which side you had already chosen considering Fark was already at war and that TOP wanted to help on other fronts as well."

Looking at helping on other fronts doesn't mean we were going to hit FARK. Our Council never discussed the scenario of us hitting FARK with MHA.

[pigsticker]

So everyone that comes into this thread criticising our actions agree that TOP/IRON has the right to make a pre-emptive strike on C&G, which at that point was not involved in the war at all.

While Gre coming in to defend their ex-allies, thru a cancelled treaty and which they have stated clearly in their cancellation thread that though the treaty has been cancelled, the spirit of the treaty remains.

NpO attacked \m/ due to their tech-raid against an established alliance with whom they have no relations to.

Apparently all 3 actions are not in the form of CN norms, but the view I'm getting here is that it's alright to make a pre-emptive attack or attack another alliance without a valid CB, but it's not right to have a paperless FA.

Can't believe I just wasted half an hour of my time reading a load of crap and responding to people who can't accept other views on CN behaviours that does not conform to their personal views on the norms of CN behaviour.

To TOP, quite a few of your members have admitted that you have made a strategic blunder and many of them have admitted they are having fun right now. You made your decision, live with it. Stop bugging people just because you made a miscalculation. Maybe you should look at cleaning your own house, i.e. Citadel, before coming to query our actions.

[Kowalski]

First rule of alliance politics: everyone's a critic.

Second rule of alliance politics: everyone's a hypocrite.

lol hypocritic

[Noob Cake]

Don't need a reason for war; thats how this war started after all

Edited February 2, 2010 by Noob Cake

[Lusitan]

I'll be extremely blunt because I am very tired, and you can all have your back and fort arguments of why MHA and Gre should, could or would do anything.

The first thing that came my mind was: "Oh well, there goes MHA joining again what seems to be the winning side."

There I said it. Not that I have anything against MHA or their way of playing, but in terms of credibility, I'd think twice before signing a treaty with you, because until recently 90% of the times your concern seemed to be if you could reach #1 alliance spot and the other 10% seemed to be dedicated to deciding which treaties you should honour, confirming you were entangled in the treaty web and doing absolutely nothing about it.

[Floatsam]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='02 February 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1265171269' post='2154551']
I'll be extremely blunt because I am very tired, and you can all have your back and fort arguments of why MHA and Gre should, could or would do anything.

The first thing that came my mind was: "Oh well, there goes MHA joining again what seems to be the winning side."

There I said it. Not that I have anything against MHA or their way of playing, but in terms of credibility, I'd think twice before signing a treaty with you, because until recently 90% of the times your concern seemed to be if you could reach #1 alliance spot and the other 10% seemed to be dedicated to deciding which treaties you should honour, confirming you were entangled in the treaty web and doing absolutely nothing about it.
[/quote]


It always seems to bystanders that the number 1 alliance is dead set on grabbing that spot regardless of what it takes to get there. I can assure you, that it is never the case. It isn't now, and it wasn't back in January 06'.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='flak attack' date='01 February 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1265048788' post='2150779']
You don't need a treaty to be allies.
[/quote]

LOL

So then TOP/IRON and everyone were correct in assisting NpO then, since they don't need a treaty to be allies?

Or is it...oh, wait...it's a matter of convenience. Plus, you have this great opportunity now...and only the losers will realize the hypocrisy...so keep rolling on.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Floatsam' date='03 February 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1265174259' post='2154913']
It always seems to bystanders that the number 1 alliance is dead set on grabbing that spot regardless of what it takes to get there. I can assure you, that it is never the case. It isn't now, and it wasn't back in January 06'.
[/quote]

I did get a certain PM in your forums a month or so ago

[nutkase]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='03 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1265193480' post='2156209']
LOL

So then TOP/IRON and everyone were correct in assisting NpO then, since they don't need a treaty to be allies?

Or is it...oh, wait...it's a matter of convenience. Plus, you have this great opportunity now...and only the losers will realize the hypocrisy...so keep rolling on.
[/quote]

what?

The difference is one of OUR allies was aggressively hit without being in the war.

The discussion is not about how they entered, its about who they hit. You are getting the concepts mixed up.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='03 February 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1265193480' post='2156209']
LOL

So then TOP/IRON and everyone were correct in assisting NpO then, since they don't need a treaty to be allies?

Or is it...oh, wait...it's a matter of convenience. Plus, you have this great opportunity now...and only the losers will realize the hypocrisy...so keep rolling on.
[/quote]
Because attacking uninvolved alliances is clearly the same as supporting a friend.