Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[HeinousOne]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='02 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1265124444' post='2153192']
We are not here to form a new hegemony nor do we try to control the actions other alliances take. We offer advise but thats as far as it goes. MK/GR advised Polar not to attack \m/. Polar chose not to take it. Understandable since the decision to go to war against \m/ was Polar's and Polar's alone.

Yes, we have a lot of treaties. We just have a lot of friends is all. It is expected that some of them would be at odds with one another at some point in time and this would be the point where we would advocate diplomacy over war.

We just expect that our allies back us up when we attacked for no reason as we would do the same thing for them, instantly. I'm 150% certain that if Polaris was in CnG's shoes, that MK and GR would of backed them up, no matter what, and the rest of CnG would of been there with them.
[/quote]

You make some good points and I respect that but at the same time we have seen alot of condemnation of Polar simply for attacking the ally of an ally. I understand someone wanting to condemn them for possibly being too aggressive with these two wars but when the condemnation is focused solely on the fact that they attacked the ally of an ally then that truly is an attempt to control the behavior of an alliance. I have yet to see a treaty worded that calls for an alliance to respect and not attack any allies of the other signatory of the treaty unless it is a bloc treaty possibly.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='02 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1265125420' post='2153208']
I cannot say I agree nor support this effort, yet I know it was a decision made under great duress. I will make no bones about it, you were placed in a horrible position having friends on both sides; and I admire you greatly for not abandoning the ones you valued greatly. That being said, it pains me and Nueva Vida too see friends fighting friends. I hope your make it out of this war with as little damage possible.
[/quote]

I think we can all acknowledge the situation they were in. It is just how dumb they went about it that I have an issue with. Considering GOD admitted they were organizing peace for NSO and the only reason FARK haven't offered terms is because their council hadn't voted on it, it seems like a not well thought out move. From where I'm standing if you want to get your ally peace you should talk to those whom are at war with them. Attacking (again) the ally of your ally, while I agree is a bit of a stretch in terms of treaties, just seems downright rude when you couldn't even try to talk to them beforehand.

[Drostan]

It's always flattering to have your low opinion of someone so lauded in the community validated.

I figured the resultant situation from your peace with \m/ et all would have your internal community in a dither and even predicted you'd do something stupid to save face. mmm. I think this qualifies.

I could degrade myself by going into semantics with you, but instead I will just point out that [b]you failed to defend your close allies when they were declared on without CB by a coalition of some of the strongest alliances on Planet Bob[/b]. Though you do seem to fit that side more, as you both favour unwarranted aggression and never seem to be able to tell who are your friends and who are your enemies.

With these latest actions there can be no doubting that the political life on Planet Bob will never be the same. It may be a messed up situation, but you were a foundational hand in it, and you will still be judged for your decisions difficult or no.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Penkala' date='02 February 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1265118949' post='2153092']
You understand wrong. Peace was taken off the table after NSO declared war on another SF member.
[/quote]

Wrong again. Peace was left behind when we refused the terms.

[quote name='EViL0nE' date='02 February 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1265120004' post='2153112']
Seriously, Polar, what kind of allies are you? You attacked RoK's treaty partner at the beginning of the short bus war over things that were none of your business and to protect Grub's ego, you're again attacking another of RoK's treaty partners (With a non-existent treaty path since NSO declared on Fark in support of IRON and you only have an MDP with them.) in the current conflict after ignoring the fact that your treaty partners and the treaty partners of treaty partners were in a defensive war having been declared on by TOP and IRON. It seems the only treaty you actually care about is the one with NSO.
[/quote]

Legality is needed when helping friends? That piece of paper is that important to you? I feel for your allies.

[quote]
As for NSO and Fark peace that Fark was never going to grant. Perhaps NSO would've gotten peace if they hadn't decided that the only logical way to receive peace was to counter-declare in support of IRON in the current war and actually tried to get peace. Obviously that minor detail doesn't support your current propaganda line.
[/quote]

See my above comment to Penkala. FARK put forth a term that was unacceptable. End of story.

[Goose]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='02 February 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1265124405' post='2153190']
If you think IRON is [b]Willing[/b] to surrender and be placed under surrender terms for the next 6 months then you are badly disillusioned. Albeit it would be interesting to see the circular rotation of hypocrisy undeniably complete the full rotation. Unfortunately for the "New-Hegemony" they face opponents who quite frankly have a larger set than they ever did. IRON would rather fight until BoB ceases to exist than be put in draconian surrender terms again. I assure those in CnG that once you are willing to surrender we are open to white peace. Those who wish to test our resolve better dig a deep trench.[/quote]
Take your chest thumping elsewhere. IRON was at best a footnote in my post. You completely missed the point, or ignored it. NSO hasn't the strength to significantly contribute to the forces against you. They can help you best by gaining peace now, rebuilding stronger than before, and sending you aid when this war is over. Yet, they refuse peace for ego and pride. Will their moral support destroy the infrastructure of your enemies? Will their honor rebuild your war torn nations when you achieve peace?

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='02 February 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1265126351' post='2153227']


Legality is needed when helping friends? That piece of paper is that important to you? I feel for your allies.



[/quote]

I feel for MK as well. I wonder when NpO will honor that treaty.

[chefjoe]

I must say this makes me reconsider some thoughts I had lurking around in my head.

This OP has honor and that if nothing else is respectable, good job AG.

Edited February 2, 2010 by chefjoe

[Prime minister Johns]

You can give your ignorance free reign to invent whatever crackpot theories you like to explain the NpO's motivations but without actually being a NpO government official it will just be so much idle speculation.

I just find it very amusing that some people claim to know why Grub is doing this better than Grub.

[Bob Janova]

A lot of people here seem to be forgetting that there is only one war, and that TOP and IRON entered it, on Polar's side, while every other front was still live. This isn't like some uninvolved alliance coming in and jumping on GOD, it's Polar realising that they've been played by Supergrievances to let half of their side fight and die alone, that NSO, TOP and IRON aren't going to be allowed to peace out like the other frays, and that in order to stop half of their side being rolled by their supposed friends they must re-enter on the Polar side.

The chain seems pretty clear: NSO won't let IRON be killed for coming in to help them, Fark won't give IRON peace, so Polar has to come in again in order to stop its friends being killed.

You don't just get to peace out (taking advantage of Grub's kindness in allowing an almost white peace with the initial problem alliance) some of the larger alliances on the other side in order to redeploy your troops elsewhere and then not complain when the other side of the war regroups against your move.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='HeinousOne' date='02 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1265125721' post='2153213']
You make some good points and I respect that but at the same time we have seen alot of condemnation of Polar simply for attacking the ally of an ally. I understand someone wanting to condemn them for possibly being too aggressive with these two wars but when the condemnation is focused solely on the fact that they attacked the ally of an ally then that truly is an attempt to control the behavior of an alliance. I have yet to see a treaty worded that calls for an alliance to respect and not attack any allies of the other signatory of the treaty unless it is a bloc treaty possibly.
[/quote]

One

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Foreign_Article_5

Two

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

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='02 February 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1265126572' post='2153237']
You can give your ignorance free reign to invent whatever crackpot theories you like to explain the NpO's motivations but without actually being a NpO government official it will just be so much idle speculation.

I just find it very amusing that some people claim to know why Grub is doing this better than Grub.
[/quote]

There is no need for speculation. Grub decided to fight an alliance that already offered and was working towards a joint peace with NSO. He didn't fight the alliance that was the one "not offering peace." He didn't even contact the alliances to find out why they weren't offering peace. And worst of all, he is still not defending his treaty partner in MK.

I don't even see how you can properly spin that.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Goose' date='02 February 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1265121923' post='2153151']
You honestly expect Fark to give peace to IRON just to get rid of NSO? Honestly, NSO and IRON would both be better off if NSO were to get peace now, rebuild and save. Then, when IRON is at peace, aid-bombing IRON as best they can. What you're doing now is simply lugging your cross through the streets with the intent to climb on and nail yourself to it.
[/quote]
I think this will be a damaging long war for both sides and now NpO is involved as well to make it even more damaging the longer you keep it going. How much damage is it worth it for Superfriends to take for CnG's sake? CnG is the only one your really helping by keeping IRON at war, your allies in SF get no benefit from this war other than lots of damage. We're prepared to fight until all of us get white peace, so might as well just enjoy ourselves till then.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1265126710' post='2153240']

The chain seems pretty clear: NSO won't let IRON be killed for coming in to help them, Fark won't give IRON peace, so Polar has to come in again in order to stop its friends being killed.
[/quote]

Never mind the fact that FARK was going to vote on giving them peace, what kind of logic is that to attack GOD? The alliance that had offered peace and was working together with NSO to get them peace from all their wars? Where is their support of MK, an alliance that wasn't even fighting?

You're being blissfully ignorant here bob.

[EViL0nE]

Breaking radio silence, that's a paddlin'

Edited February 2, 2010 by EViL0nE

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='02 February 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1265126933' post='2153246']
Never mind the fact that FARK was going to vote on giving them peace, what kind of logic is that to attack GOD? The alliance that had offered peace and was working together with NSO to get them peace from all their wars? Where is their support of MK, an alliance that wasn't even fighting?

You're being blissfully ignorant here bob.
[/quote]

You're forgetting that fark was, is, and forever shall be a really terrible alliance. And that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about them.

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='EViL0nE' date='02 February 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1265127024' post='2153248']
you've still dishonored yourself[/quote]

I don't believe that is an appropriate topic for such a venue as this.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1265126710' post='2153240']
A lot of people here seem to be forgetting that there is only one war, and that TOP and IRON entered it, on Polar's side, while every other front was still live. This isn't like some uninvolved alliance coming in and jumping on GOD, it's Polar realising that they've been played by Supergrievances to let half of their side fight and die alone, that NSO, TOP and IRON aren't going to be allowed to peace out like the other frays, and that in order to stop half of their side being rolled by their supposed friends they must re-enter on the Polar side.

The chain seems pretty clear: NSO won't let IRON be killed for coming in to help them, Fark won't give IRON peace, so Polar has to come in again in order to stop its friends being killed.

You don't just get to peace out (taking advantage of Grub's kindness in allowing an almost white peace with the initial problem alliance) some of the larger alliances on the other side in order to redeploy your troops elsewhere and then not complain when the other side of the war regroups against your move.
[/quote]
But in order for all this to be true you have to either concede one of the following.

1) that it was ok for Grub to condone a preemptive strike on no less than 2 MDoAP partners by the largest alliance on Bob.

and/or

2) That it was somehow SuperGrievances fault that TOP was not notified of the peace between \m/ and Polar before their declaration, and therefore knowingly suckered TOP into a war.

I do not believe either of those things to be true and if neither are true than Grub is not honorable nor was he or TOP suckered into anything.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='02 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1265124051' post='2153182']
[color="#0000FF"]I never said you were the the only one guilty of it, but you are guilty. And quite frankly, you really have no one to blame but yourselves for being in this predicament. You can say Polar is responsible for putting you in this difficult situation, but they aren't the ones who made you sign treaties with the rest of the world and tying yourselves to every faction and mini-faction out there.

You know, winning the Most Entangled Alliance of 2009 should have been a wake up to you. But you know what they say about hindsight.[/color]
[/quote]

The main predicament that came about in this situation was when FOK retaliated against NpO to help an ally.

I don't feel FOK has treated us in any hostile way, nor do i think they've done anything to make us reconsider our friendship towards them. I really wish i could say the same about NpO. (so no, even though i may also think we may have signed one treaty too many i don't think the consequences had any impact in this current war; nice try though)

[Jgoods45]

Wrong button.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jgoods45

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 February 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1265127261' post='2153258']
The main predicament that came about in this situation was when FOK retaliated against NpO to help an ally.

I don't feel FOK has treated us in any hostile way, nor do i think they've done anything to make us reconsider our friendship towards them. I really wish i could say the same about NpO. (so no, even though i may also think we may have signed one treaty too many i don't think the consequences had any impact in this current war; nice try though)
[/quote]

One treaty too many? Are you sure it was only one, and not maybe 5 or 6?

[Hadrian]

Well, NpO, you actually managed to win back my respect.

Full steam ahead!

o/

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1265127136' post='2153254']
You're forgetting that fark was, is, and forever shall be a really terrible alliance. And that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about them.
[/quote]

That's not even close to an argument against those points whatsoever.

[Krunk the Great]

Apparently the new fad is revolving-door peace

[Angrator]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='02 February 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1265126787' post='2153243']
Grub decided to fight an alliance that already offered and was working towards a joint peace with NSO. [/quote]

That's news to me.

[quote] He didn't fight the alliance that was the one "not offering peace." He didn't even contact the alliances to find out why they weren't offering peace. [/quote]

Ah yes, I'm sure if he contacted them things would have been settled easily. Opps! My bombs went where?!?

[quote] And worst of all, he is still not defending his treaty partner in MK.

I don't even see how you can properly spin that.
[/quote]

It's as simple as sometimes people simply need to pick a side. As regrettable as it may be, sometimes you have to pick the best of two bad options. Polar was put in a bad position. Everyone but you apparently can see that.

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='02 February 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1265127529' post='2153265']
That's not even close to an argument against those points whatsoever.
[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say MK.
[edit:] it can be applied to both parties though. My bad.

Edited February 2, 2010 by astronaut jones