Jump to content

Imperial Decree from the Sith


Recommended Posts

He did not say that it was dishonorable. In fact, he stated that he agreed with Stonewall Jaxon's statement that you guys were NOT dishonorable. He merely expressed and clarified his opinion that your defense was in support of IRON's aggressive actions.

You mean IRON's preemptive actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You mean IRON's preemptive actions.

Personally, that's what I would have said had I been the one making the argument. However my alliance-mate's opinion was that it was aggressive and this was what he was arguing and I was simply clarifying his position using his words.

Edited by Stilgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, that's what I would have said had I been the one making the argument. However my alliance-mate's opinion was that it was aggressive and this was what he was arguing and I was simply clarifying his position using his words.

Which is exactly why this war will continue. Not because it is a new war, but because whoever wants to roll IRON/TOP found an excuse decent enough to spin without losing so much face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that matters anyway, lads. The Sith aren't elawyers, and I don't think you need to look any further than the Moldavi Doctrine to learn that. The only important point here is that we don't abandon our allies. Period.

Discussion of the legitimacy of IRON's war can be for some other place.

Edited by heggo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from every aspect I look at this, it looks like assisting in war of aggression

That may or may not have been right, but I think that honor is not directly tied to right or wrong. Upholding the spirit of your treaty and riding with your friends into the valley of death is quite honorable indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over yourself. Nobody cares about you that much, Fark hit IRON to defend their allies.

Hrm...

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442

IRON and DAWN hereby declare war against CnG

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Complaints_and_Grievances

Member Alliances:

League Of Shadows Treaty

Mushroom Kingdom

Athens

Vanguard

Greenland Republic

Federation of Buccaneers

Orange Defense Network

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79458

Through our MDoAP with our friends in the Mostly Harmless Alliance, Farkistan declares that a state of war exists with the Independent Republic of Orange Nations.

I must conclude that, since MHA was not actually attacked, Farkistan activated the optional aggresion portion of its treaty. How this involves defending their allies, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly why this war will continue. Not because it is a new war, but because whoever wants to roll IRON/TOP found an excuse decent enough to spin without losing so much face.

It's like we wrote the no-CB dow TOP threw at an uninvolved party and then forced them to sign it.

Seriously, blaming someone's stupidity on your opponents is just hilarious. Keep it coming though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes IRON's war was aggressive and against alliances not fighting and they had no treaties to give them the reason to do so.

Who cares? I don't see you condemning GOD for doing the same thing? As people have pointed out, MK and Co. would have been hitting IRON after the entered the war. So this can hardly be construed as an aggressive action on this part. If someone is to blame it is Polar. IRON and TOP supported Polar and then Grub pulls this on them in order to get himself out of a tight spot. If you look at the big picture, it would just be a weasel move for any alliance to leave their friends in a spot like this. NSO won't be doing that. So lawyer elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? I don't see you condemning GOD for doing the same thing? As people have pointed out, MK and Co. would have been hitting IRON after the entered the war. So this can hardly be construed as an aggressive action on this part. If someone is to blame it is Polar. IRON and TOP supported Polar and then Grub pulls this on them in order to get himself out of a tight spot. If you look at the big picture, it would just be a weasel move for any alliance to leave their friends in a spot like this. NSO won't be doing that. So lawyer elsewhere.

I'd like you to lend me your time machine with which you can so clearly see into the future and predict MK's actions.

Till then i'll hold someone's closeness to facts (or e-lawyering as you call it) closer than other's desire for speculation, completely un-biased in this case of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? I don't see you condemning GOD for doing the same thing? As people have pointed out, MK and Co. would have been hitting IRON after the entered the war. So this can hardly be construed as an aggressive action on this part. If someone is to blame it is Polar. IRON and TOP supported Polar and then Grub pulls this on them in order to get himself out of a tight spot. If you look at the big picture, it would just be a weasel move for any alliance to leave their friends in a spot like this. NSO won't be doing that. So lawyer elsewhere.

Actually we entered by way of our MDoAP with RnR, against an alliance who was already engaged in the war - we just acknowledged that the real reason for war had less to do with the treaty and more to do with greater coalition strategy. The situations are pretty distinctly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually we entered by way of our MDoAP with RnR, against an alliance who was already engaged in the war - we just acknowledged that the real reason for war had less to do with the treaty and more to do with greater coalition strategy. The situations are pretty distinctly different.

lol Keep up the bandwagon. :)

When you grow a pair, gimme a ring, aye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually we entered by way of our MDoAP with RnR, against an alliance who was already engaged in the war - we just acknowledged that the real reason for war had less to do with the treaty and more to do with greater coalition strategy. The situations are pretty distinctly different.

Irrelevant.

IRON and TOP supported Polar and then Grub pulls this on them in order to get himself out of a tight spot. If you look at the big picture, it would just be a weasel move for any alliance to leave their friends in a spot like this. NSO won't be doing that. So lawyer elsewhere.

RV's point here still stands. I know how fickle the community here can be but I'm taken aback by how many act like this is seriously a separate war that TOP/IRON just attacked for no reason. It's completely ridiculously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant.

RV's point here still stands. I know how fickle the community here can be but I'm taken aback by how many act like this is seriously a separate war that TOP/IRON just attacked for no reason. It's completely ridiculously

Considering that your side is fighting for "community standards" it seems kind of strange to suddenly run straight over a number of standards that have been universally accepted.

Preemptive attacks have never been accepted, and in this case the situation is even worse because the attackers didn't even have a treaty to chain them into the war.

Trying to compare that to our declaration is laughable at best and empty rethoric.

@PrideAssassin: when you grow a brain give us a ring, aye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...