Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Angrator' date='02 February 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1265129216' post='2153325']
Oh well. You "believe" there was a solid chance for peace. Why could we have possibly stayed in this fight? Sorry, but unfortunately we can't take your lollypops and candycanes to the bank. We're in this fight until our allies are out. Period.
[/quote]


There was a solid chance for peace. Even Xiphosis stated so in this very thread as he was working towards it. Having polar attack the alliance that was trying to get you peace and not the one whom he stated was the one holding said peace up is a stupid move.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1265129293' post='2153329']
Should they need to? Does an MDP not obligate Polaris to defend? Could you point me to the wording in the treaty between NpO and MK or NpO and GR where it states that the defense clause is only activated if the defending party explicitly requests assistance?
[/quote]

To be fair, the polaris and MK treaty does state it needs to be asked. Not sure about the other ones,, but seeing STA play e-lawyer over defending an ally is really a disturbing thing to see.

[WcaesarD]

It occurs to me that the past few weeks/months of NSO membership calling out, or trying to call out multiple SF alliances might be coming to bite them in the backside. That being said, I hope that a reasonable end to this conflict can be worked out, despite the fun it's been watching allies at each others throats. Remember, you're all forgetting the real enemy: fluoridation.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='James I' date='03 February 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1265128493' post='2153303']
Yeah, both Polar and the Mushroom Kingdom are suffering from seeing their friends split to different "sides" like this. It sucks.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this one, This situation confuses and angers me. Either way polaris would be in a very difficult political situation, I think the current solution is the best possible solution under the current very convoluted set of circumstances.

[HeinousOne]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1265129293' post='2153329']
Should they need to? Does an MDP not obligate Polaris to defend? Could you point me to the wording in the treaty between NpO and MK or NpO and GR where it states that the defense clause is only activated if the defending party explicitly requests assistance?
[/quote]

You are correct in such but where you fail to make a complete statement is that this world is not one in which leaders do not talk over situations and realize at certain times there are circumstances which do not allow for certain things to happen as to how the treaties are worded.

In those situations there might be talks between leaders that you and I are not privy to. So while you and I might read the treaty and some folks like yourself might expect it to be followed to the word, it is not a treaty in which you are party to so thus the final decision is neither yours nor mine.

Polaris was still involved in a war that did cause a bit of damage and MK seems to have PLENTY of friends to come to their aid so why would they have to call upon friends that are still having to deal with their own issues?

You can go ahead and lawyer up in order to condemn Polar once again but due to the way MK has so publically lambasted Polar you certainly cannot expect Polar to want to Pony up all on their own to rush to the aid of an alliance that showed no friendship through the past days.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='02 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1265128393' post='2153297']
To be fair, IRON declared an offensive war against alliances that were not directly involved in the conflict against the wishes and advice of their allies in NSO.

They did so with the knowledge that NSO would not realistically, considering the odds set against it at the time, be able to render any material or military aid in their endeavor. We wish them well but I do not hold any misconceptions on what occured.

The NSO never joined to be in a crusade or to see any other alliance or bloc destroyed.
[/quote]

So, if FARK were to give NSO peace on the condition that they didn't re-enter the war to help IRON, you would take it?

[Angrator]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='02 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1265129796' post='2153339']
I agree with you on this one, This situation confuses and angers me. Either way polaris would be in a very difficult political situation, I think the current solution is the best possible solution under the current very convoluted set of circumstances.
[/quote]
I agree. I wish people would simply accept that fact and move on rather than try to score cheap political points.

[Lancer]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' date='02 February 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1265113429' post='2153001']
So we ignore our ally who defended us from the beginning and let them get destroyed?

o/ NpO
o/ NSO
[/quote]


RoK was the first alliance to sign a treaty with you when you exited terms. What about us? You threw us under the bus twice now.

[Tick1]

NPO's plot to turn everyone against each other is working! My hats of to you guys indeed. Karma was all apart of your plan wasn't it. Seeing as the arguments within this thread can neither come to an end or be won I'll end my statement with best of luck to the New Pacific Order. Your very smart indeed!

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='Lancer' date='02 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1265130170' post='2153349']
RoK was the first alliance to sign a treaty with you when you exited terms. What about us? You threw us under the bus twice now.
[/quote]

NSO had that happen a couple of times....not with NpO though.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='02 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1265128393' post='2153297']
To be fair, IRON declared an offensive war against alliances that were not directly involved in the conflict against the wishes and advice of their allies in NSO.

They did so with the knowledge that NSO would not realistically, considering the odds set against it at the time, be able to render any material or military aid in their endeavor. We wish them well but I do not hold any misconceptions on what occured.

The NSO never joined to be in a crusade or to see any other alliance or bloc destroyed.
[/quote]
correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that pretty much the only thing FARK was demanding? That you would agree not to re-enter this current conflict to defend IRON?

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1265128588' post='2153309']
But they will leave the allies that were attacked unprovoked behind. Gotcha.
[/quote]

If NpO views this as the continuation of the war, then why would they not hop back in on NSO's side, after NSO came in to defend them? Yeah, common sense.. please use it in the future.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1265130603' post='2153364']
If NpO views this as the continuation of the war, then why would they not hop back in on NSO's side, after NSO came in to defend them? Yeah, common sense.. please use it in the future.
[/quote]
Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked unprovoked, so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance.

[Roadie]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1265130710' post='2153367']
Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked unprovoked, so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance.
[/quote]

I still think that considering Polar and MK allies (at least in what I suspect is yours - and mine as well - definition of allies) is a misread on the relationship.

[HeinousOne]

[quote name='Tick1' date='02 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265130234' post='2153351']
NPO's plot to turn everyone against each other is working! My hats of to you guys indeed. Karma was all apart of your plan wasn't it. Seeing as the arguments within this thread can neither come to an end or be won I'll end my statement with best of luck to the New Pacific Order. Your very smart indeed!
[/quote]

Was only a matter of time till this would come up. It is true that NPO has been very closemouthed about all this but I really can't blame them. After being the center of the universe for so long and always being the bad guy, certainly they are finding some enjoyment in sitting back and watching the festivities.

The thing is though NPO has not had to orchestrate anything. There are plenty of others who wish their time in the light to be the conductors of this worldly symphony.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Lancer' date='02 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1265130170' post='2153349']
RoK was the first alliance to sign a treaty with you when you exited terms. What about us? You threw us under the bus twice now.
[/quote]

Quoted for truth.

[Comrade Korey]

I find it sad that it had to come to this. I do not like the way things transpired, and I am not glad to be on the battlefield against anyone. That being said, it is good to be fighting for our ally NSO. They took a real beating for us, and for that we owe this to them. I don't know what went on in back channels to try and get NSO peace or whatnot, but what I do know is that this certainly wasn't an easy decision for Grub. I feel for our allies such as RoK and MK, and wish things were different, however Grub did what he felt necessary to help our ally who was and is in the worst spot. May this whole mess come to a resolution soon. Until then, it's game time. o/ Polaris. o/ the New Sith Order.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Comrade Korey

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Roadie' date='02 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1265130871' post='2153371']
I still think that considering Polar and MK allies (at least in what I suspect is yours - and mine as well - definition of allies) is a misread on the relationship.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but I would think out of the three allies they are slapping in the face here (MK, GR and RoK) at least one would be a real ally. But perhaps I give NpO too much credit.

[HeinousOne]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1265130710' post='2153367']
Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked unprovoked, so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance.
[/quote]

Common sense would tell me that if an alliance has a plethora of its members come out openly and publically to denounce you then that in itself would go against the wording of the treaty that you seem to hold as an end all contract.

So once a term of the contract has been broken, it becomes a much less rigid document and to try and use it in any lawyering defense at this time is a hypocritical and faulted approach.

Then again, I do notice that you are an honorary member of GOD and you back winning by any means necessary so perhaps I should not pay quite so much attention to your words in this matter.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='HeinousOne' date='02 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1265131378' post='2153385']
Common sense would tell me that if an alliance has a plethora of its members come out openly and publically to denounce you then that in itself would go against the wording of the treaty that you seem to hold as an end all contract.

So once a term of the contract has been broken, it becomes a much less rigid document and to try and use it in any lawyering defense at this time is a hypocritical and faulted approach.

Then again, I do notice that you are an honorary member of GOD and you back winning by any means necessary so perhaps I should not pay quite so much attention to your words in this matter.
[/quote]
Ah an ad hom argument, how I have missed those. if you look back a week I actually supported polar in that move despite my friends in GOD being in a distinctly different camp and yes I do support winning wars however possible but I also expect people to get called out on whatever tactics they use.


NpO put MK in a tough spot for the second time by threatening alliances that would pull their alliance in 2 directions, the first time was handled very privately and polar's continuation of that behavior brought out a more public response. do not try and say MK was in the wrong to be upset and be upset publicly while looking at the whole situation because that is simply foolish.

I am not trying to lawyer anything, in my very first post of this thread I mentioned that I thought neutrality in this war would have been the best way to honor all the friendships and treaties they hold but instead of trying to be fair and true to all t heir allies they instead decided to pick and choose which treaties to honor.

That is fine, but if that is the path they choose they have no business trying to talk about how they got played and how honorable they are, because they didn't and they are not.

[Aurion]

[quote name='HeinousOne' date='02 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1265131378' post='2153385']
Then again, I do notice that you are an honorary member of GOD and you back winning by any means necessary so perhaps I should not pay quite so much attention to your words in this matter.
[/quote]
Srqt's never exactly been shy in the past about criticizing our actions, honorary member or no. You're frankly doing him a massive disservice by implying otherwise.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

derp! wrong announcement. pls ignore.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1265130710' post='2153367']
Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked [b]unprovoked[/b], so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance.
[/quote]
Again we come down to a different wording of 'But C&G weren't involved!'. Well, they were (see the other threads on the matter for that argument), on the opposite side to Polar, and so it wasn't 'unprovoked'. You can e-lawyer about the MDP treaties if you like (and I think there's an argument to be made there, depending on the wording, as MK and GR were hit in the initial TOP blitz), but it is disingenous to claim that C&G weren't already going to be on the opposite side to Polar, and therefore pretty dishonest to be outraged about Polar re-entering the war on the Polar side.

And let's not forget that even with this re-entrance, NpO have not attacked a direct ally of C&G – in fact I would assume that's why they picked GOD since most Superfriends are a direct ally.

If you didn't want to be in opposition to Polar, you shouldn't have set your whole bloc up behind the raiding side from the beginning. Considering you had two MDPs to Polar and none to \m/, and showed no sign of being willing to defend NpO against the many alliances that jumped them without an obligation (starting with FOK), that was a pretty clear statement of intent, and you can't reasonably claim outrage when NpO continue on the same side they have always been on.

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1265130710' post='2153367']
Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked unprovoked, so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you have to throw common sense out the window. You're better than that, .. at least you try to make it seem like you are, anyway. Most people know better, but, you still should at least try to keep up appearances.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265131916' post='2153400']
Again we come down to a different wording of 'But C&G weren't involved!'. Well, they were (see the other threads on the matter for that argument), on the opposite side to Polar, and so it wasn't 'unprovoked'. You can e-lawyer about the MDP treaties if you like (and I think there's an argument to be made there, depending on the wording, as MK and GR were hit in the initial TOP blitz), but it is disingenous to claim that C&G weren't already going to be on the opposite side to Polar, and therefore pretty dishonest to be outraged about Polar re-entering the war on the Polar side.

And let's not forget that even with this re-entrance, NpO have not attacked a direct ally of C&G – in fact I would assume that's why they picked GOD since most Superfriends are a direct ally.

If you didn't want to be in opposition to Polar, you shouldn't have set your whole bloc up behind the raiding side from the beginning. Considering you had two MDPs to Polar and none to \m/, and showed no sign of being willing to defend NpO against the many alliances that jumped them without an obligation (starting with FOK), that was a pretty clear statement of intent, and you can't reasonably claim outrage when NpO continue on the same side they have always been on.
[/quote]
So you are claiming that TOP didn't preemptively strike C&G? What act of war did C&G make against TOP or TOP's treaty partners before the declaration of war against the entire bloc was issued?

and no NpO did not attack a direct ally of C&G they, for the second time in about a week, attacked a direct ally of their MDoAP partner Ragnarok, The alliance who was the first to sign a treaty with polar after the noCB war and an alliance who has done nothing to slight them since.