STA Official Statement

[pezstar]

The STA has become aware of a rumor making its rounds that has us approving the pre-emptive attacks on our allies in C&G before hand. These rumors are patently false, The STA did not grant permission for these attacks, as is shown by our response when asked for our approval.

[13:30] <@mhawk> ok basically we're feeling out the consequences of a TOP/IRON hit on CnG

01[13:33] <pezstar> Not good, at all.

01[13:33] <pezstar> STA is already in a ridiculously uncomfortable position.

[13:34] <Moldavi> Moridin said basically the same thing

01[13:34] <pezstar> And now you're talking about attacking STA and Polar allies while neither of us have the ability to defend them.

[13:34] <Moldavi> So long as the treaty exists unprovoked attacks against an ally is a no-no

01[13:55] <pezstar> If IRON wants to hit Athens or something, I don't think you'll hear any complaints here.

[13:55] <@mhawk> lol *&!$ that we'll hit athens with them

[13:55] <Uhtred> if IRON wanted to hit Athens they'd get nothing but cheers from STA

01[13:55] <pezstar> But don't hit MK or Vanguard aggressively, please.

We thank you for your time, and wish you all luck in the current war.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pezstar

[kriekfreak]

But you were fine in getting your allies drawn in by letting their MADP partners get attacked. Same thing.

[The AUT]

Congrats on STA for throwing those that intended to defend them under the bus.

'Za Cowardire!

Edited January 30, 2010 by The AUT

[SpacingOutMan]

Good to see STA aren't dirtied by this filthy reason for war.

[pezstar]

But you were fine in getting your allies drawn in by letting their MADP partners get attacked. Same thing.

Yes, we were. We knew going into this war that we would be on the opposite side of it as our allies in MK and Vanguard. We had extensive conversations with them beforehand. We knew they would be drawn in somehow. We were not ok with it being by a direct attack. No, it is not the same thing.

[popsumpot]

Yes, we were. We knew going into this war that we would be on the opposite side of it as our allies in MK and Vanguard. We had extensive conversations with them beforehand. We knew they would be drawn in somehow. We were not ok with it being by a direct attack. No, it is not the same thing.

That does seem awfully like semantics.

[pezstar]

Congrats on STA for throwing those that intended to defend them under the bus.

'Za Cowardire!

No one intended to defend us. Three days into the way, NSO had to declare in our defense because no one else would. It was rumored at one point that Legion was going to defend us, but it was never confirmed to us. You, as per usual, fail.

[pezstar]

That does seem awfully like semantics.

If being drawn into a war via a direct attack and being drawn into a war via a treaty are "just semantics" to you, so be it.

[Nutty Carrot Cakes]

There is no 'right' thing to do when you have allies on different sides of a war. You have to make the best out of a poor situation, and most alliances have found themselves in one at some point. Can't really criticize STA for this.

[The AUT]

No one intended to defend us. Three days into the way, NSO had to declare in our defense because no one else would. It was rumored at one point that Legion was going to defend us, but it was never confirmed to us. You, as per usual, fail.

The objective was to win a war, therefore you discussed plans to engage alliances expected to be on the other side. That has nothing to do with STA being attacked, since your logs refer to the logs in general. And you publicly divulged logs that show TPF's plans to attack Athens with IRON, and you didn't even care to edit it out.

Cowardice, that's what that is.

[Lord Brendan]

Wait, you mean we missed out on a chance to fight The Legion?

[empirica]

Thanks for the update pezstar. I agree whole heartedly with your stance.

[Lord Boris]

There is no 'right' thing to do when you have allies on different sides of a war. You have to make the best out of a poor situation, and most alliances have found themselves in one at some point. Can't really criticize STA for this.

Pretty much this. I've felt a similar feeling with this, as I also am seeing friends in direct conflict (IRON, MK, FEAR, etc)

[Scorbolt]

Thank you for clarifying pezstar.

[scutterbug]

The STA has become aware of a rumor making its rounds that has us approving the pre-emptive attacks on our allies in C&G before hand. These rumors are patently false, The STA did not grant permission for these attacks, as is shown by our response when asked for our approval.

We thank you for your time, and wish you all luck in the current war.

So you approved of the hitting of Athens knowing full well it would tie in with MK. Regardless of you specifying not MK or Vanguard it ultimatly brings them in if another partner of C&G got hit. Not too smart admitting that here.

[Trinite]

Well you did approve on an unprovoked attack on an alliance not involved the war. Approving an unprovoked attack on an ally IS certainly worse than an unprovoked attack in the general sense, but cheering for unprovoked attacks is still in my book. Kudos on full disclosure though.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Trinite

[Haflinger]

This is interesting; however, it doesn't speak to the key point, which is whether or not Grub approved the attack.

[Lord Fingolfin]

Moridin had knowledge of, approved of, and helped plan the attack on C&G.

[Sephiroth]

I appreciate the assistance STA has given us in this conflict, even if I wish we could of fought side by side longer. Good luck to STA, I wish you guys well.

[Nutty Carrot Cakes]

This is interesting; however, it doesn't speak to the key point, which is whether or not Grub approved the attack.

which is not for STA to clarify, I'm afraid.

[pezstar]

This is interesting; however, it doesn't speak to the key point, which is whether or not Grub approved the attack.

Grub has already stated publicly that he did. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454&view=findpost&p=2142503

[Ying Yang Mafia]

I find this in conjunction with your sig to be highly ironic.

[hizzy]

I'm not sure where anyone thinks they have the right to criticize STA's position there. Everybody on a side was hitting everyone else's ally's ally.

A treaty is between 2 alliances exclusively, and STA voting down an attack on MK is the absolute best they could have done given their position. I know I sure as hell don't sign treaties with the intent of looking out for a treaty partner's allies as well; sometimes we're on good terms and it's an added bonus, but there's quite a few close allies of Nueva Vida who have allies who I quite frankly wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, and NV has allies who our other allies don't like either. They know this, my allies know this, and that's why we have non-chaining treaties.

Stop acting like you're better than someone else just because you "found out" that they do something which is done all the time anyways. You watch out for your friends first, everyone else second.

Edited January 30, 2010 by hizzy

[kriekfreak]

Yes, we were. We knew going into this war that we would be on the opposite side of it as our allies in MK and Vanguard. We had extensive conversations with them beforehand. We knew they would be drawn in somehow. We were not ok with it being by a direct attack. No, it is not the same thing.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it is as close as it gets. The number one reason is that Athens wasn't even involved in the war, so defacto you are saying that you don't care if CnG gets on the other side of the war. Because that would've happened. Secondly, you could have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd rather have you not attacking Athens since they are a MADP partner of our close allies in MK and Vanguard". Instead you said that you would cheer if Athens would've get attacked.

If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person.

[Roadie]

The objective was to win a war, therefore you discussed plans to engage alliances expected to be on the other side. That has nothing to do with STA being attacked, since your logs refer to the logs in general. And you publicly divulged logs that show TPF's plans to attack Athens with IRON, and you didn't even care to edit it out.

Cowardice, that's what that is.

This is not true. Mhawk was having a laugh at the hypothetical of attacking Athens. At no point were we ever interested in going into the war on Polars side on an OA clause. Going ot war against raiding gone too far is not something that excited TPF all that much (We are raiders ourselves). Defensive clauses were the only way we were going to go into that war.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Roadie