A Statement from the STA

[Penkala]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='04 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1265319088' post='2159411']
Perhaps I misunderstood your initial comment (I don't think so but I will give you the benefit of a doubt this time). Based on the recent chain of events and the overriding commentary in this thread it would have been expected and logical for you to have been addressing my counter declaration on Fark in defense of IRON as the "support of an aggressive action". But, I will assume that you are illogical and were actually defaulting back to the initial Polar declaration even though that has been a moot point in these discussions for days now.
[/quote]

So your position is that you're fighting a defensive war, and when I point out that Polar was the one who declared your response is that "that's been a moot point"? What? How do facts that show you were aggressive become "moot" in a discussion about aggression? When it's inconvenient for you?

[Lord Brendan]

I'm not sure how this topic ended up about NSO, but I have to ask:

Why would Fark accept your surrender if you were just going to turn around and re-enter the war in support of IRON? It's pretty much a staple of peace terms in large scale wars that the vanquished agree not to re-enter.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Penkala' date='04 February 2010 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1265321383' post='2159476']
So your position is that you're fighting a defensive war, and when I point out that Polar was the one who declared your response is that "that's been a moot point"? What? How do facts that show you were aggressive become "moot" in a discussion about aggression? When it's inconvenient for you?
[/quote]

NSO's entry into the NpO-\m/ was by MDP treaty. NSO entry into the TOP/IRON&CnG war are also by mutual defense treaty because NSO declared war on FARK for its attack on IRON. (They were already at war, Ivan just counter declared).

NSO has not declared any war using optional aggression during these conflicts.

Polar and \m/ were engaged. \m/'s mutual defense treaties were activated or conflicted or optional - PC, RoK, and The Corporation. NSO declared war on FOK when they entered via optional aggression to help PC. NSO declared (counter declared) on FARK when FARK entered by optional aggression.

So, yes NSO is fighting what can be said to be defensive wars.

[bzelger]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1265322791' post='2159520']
I'm not sure how this topic ended up about NSO, but I have to ask:

Why would Fark accept your surrender if you were just going to turn around and re-enter the war in support of IRON? It's pretty much a staple of peace terms in large scale wars that the vanquished agree not to re-enter.
[/quote]
Surrender? Vanquished? I don't think anyone on our side understood the peace terms to be anything other than a mutual agreement to walk away.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1265322791' post='2159520']
I'm not sure how this topic ended up about NSO, but I have to ask:

Why would Fark accept your surrender if you were just going to turn around and re-enter the war in support of IRON? It's pretty much a staple of peace terms in large scale wars that the vanquished agree not to re-enter.
[/quote]

Sure thats it.

[quote name='bzelger' date='04 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1265323261' post='2159539']
Surrender? Vanquished? I don't think anyone on our side understood the peace terms to be anything other than a mutual agreement to walk away.
[/quote]

Their trying to spin things to have people believe that FARK has NSO on the edge.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Fernando12

[Tromp]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='04 February 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1265322870' post='2159522']
NSO's entry into the NpO-\m/ was by MDP treaty. NSO entry into the TOP/IRON&CnG war are also by mutual defense treaty because NSO declared war on FARK for its attack on IRON. (They were already at war, Ivan just counter declared).

NSO has not declared any war using optional aggression during these conflicts.

Polar and \m/ were engaged. \m/'s mutual defense treaties were activated or conflicted or optional - PC, RoK, and The Corporation. NSO declared war on FOK when they entered via optional aggression to help PC. NSO declared (counter declared) on FARK when FARK entered by optional aggression.

So, yes NSO is fighting what can be said to be defensive wars.
[/quote]
You are missing one (pretty important) step:
- The agressive war of NpO versus \m/.

(Too much e-lawyering I see you doing, for whatever reason. Lighten up a bit. )

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='bzelger' date='04 February 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1265323261' post='2159539']
Surrender? Vanquished? I don't think anyone on our side understood the peace terms to be anything other than a mutual agreement to walk away.
[/quote]

The STA was not yet vanquished and I do not consider our mutual peace agreement to be a surrender for either party. I was referring to NSO.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1265322791' post='2159520']
Why would Fark accept your surrender if you were just going to turn around and re-enter the war in support of IRON? It's pretty much a staple of peace terms in large scale wars that the vanquished agree not to re-enter.
[/quote]

I know that you guys are trying to spin this such that \m/ won -- and I'm not sure why really, because you'd have to be very stupid or very high to believe that line -- but there's no winner when white peace is declared.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='04 February 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1265323936' post='2159571']
I know that you guys are trying to spin this such that \m/ won -- and I'm not sure why really, because you'd have to be very stupid or very high to believe that line -- but there's no winner when white peace is declared.
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about \m/ or Polar.

Perhaps my use of the word "surrender" was counterproductive if that's all anyone is going to address. I shall repeat then:

Why would Fark offer NSO peace if they were just going to turn around, reload, and re-enter the war in support of IRON?

Edited February 4, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[elpadrino]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1265324133' post='2159578']
I wasn't talking about \m/ or Polar.

Perhaps my use of the word "surrender" was counterproductive if that's all anyone is going to address. I shall repeat then:

Why would Fark offer NSO peace if they were just going to turn around, reload, and re-enter the war in support of IRON?
[/quote]

Superfriends side is continuously claiming that the [polar vs \m/] and the [TOP-IRON VS CnG] are two completely different wars, thats why they agreed on peace with almost everyone after the [polar - \m/] peace, almost because for the sith to get peace they have to agree to not join into the next big war, so they offer peace to you in one big war but you have to sign what you are going to do in the next one...

what everyone did when the polar - \m/ war ended was the logical white peace with everyone because that war made no sense anymore, FARK decided that if the NSO want to get peace they have to compromise to join his side or stay out in the next big war or they wont get peace in that one...
its a low move no matter how you look at it

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1265327048' post='2159673']
Superfriends side is continuously claiming that the [polar vs \m/] and the [TOP-IRON VS CnG] are two completely different wars, thats why they agreed on peace with almost everyone after the [polar - \m/] peace, almost because for the sith to get peace they have to agree to not join into the next big war, so they offer peace to you in one big war but you have to sign what you are going to do in the next one...

what everyone did when the polar - \m/ war ended was the logical white peace with everyone because that war made no sense anymore, FARK decided that if the NSO want to get peace they have to compromise to join his side or stay out in the next big war or they wont get peace in that one...
its a low move no matter how you look at it
[/quote]

Whether or not it's the same war or two separate wars has nothing to do with it.

Giving an alliance white peace just so that they can run off and attack one of your allies the next day is pointless. There's nothing "low" about it.

Even the Sith have seen the wisdom of this in the past:
[quote name='SirWilliam' date='06 May 2009 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1241588173' post='1503915']
Molon Labe and DOOM, acknowledging their continued participation in this war is of no assistance to their allies and acknowledging defeat at the hands of MK, STA, NSO, and NpO, agree to the following terms for peace:
-[b]Molon Labe and DOOM will not re-enter the conflict[/b] by offering military assistance (including spying) to any present combatants.

[b]Signed for NSO,[/b]
Ivan Kalinski Moldavi, Dread Lord of Stromholde, Dark Lord of the Sith, Sovereign of the New Sith Order
[/quote]

Edited February 5, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[elpadrino]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1265328093' post='2159721']
Whether or not it's the same war or two separate wars has nothing to do with it.

Giving an alliance white peace just so that they can run off and attack one of your allies the next day is pointless. There's nothing "low" about it.
[/quote]

everyone peaced everyone because the \m/ war was over and given that we all joined to honor treaties it made no sense to keep fighting, its obvious that polar \m/ PC FOK ... peace at first considering that the rest will chain the peace soon as everyone was there just because of them..., and everyone peaced but when almost no one was still at war FARK decided to impose surrender terms to the NSO (not joining the next war with their treaty partners), FARK taken advantage of that situation was not the more moral move

but anyway I play in a Sith teme alliance so I suppose that is a good move as long as you get profit from the situation

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1265327048' post='2159673']
Superfriends side is continuously claiming that the [polar vs \m/] and the [TOP-IRON VS CnG] are two completely different wars, thats why they agreed on peace with almost everyone after the [polar - \m/] peace, almost because for the sith to get peace they have to agree to not join into the next big war, so they offer peace to you in one big war but you have to sign what you are going to do in the next one...

what everyone did when the polar - \m/ war ended was the logical white peace with everyone because that war made no sense anymore, FARK decided that if the NSO want to get peace they have to compromise to join his side or stay out in the next big war or they wont get peace in that one...
its a low move no matter how you look at it
[/quote]
To be honest, it seems like everybody here is arguing opposite what they just were.

If this is, in fact, two separate wars, NSO's role in the Polar-\m/ conflict, and the peace terms for it, shouldn't be dealing with TOP/IRON-CnG war. If this is just the continuation of Polar-\m/ conflict, then the term to not re-enter is completely understandable.

Seems to me as the roles are reversed, as many on the SF-CnG side consider this two wars, and many on the TOP-IRON side see this as a continuation of the Polar-\m/ conflict. Just an observation which makes me smile.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1265328093' post='2159721']
Whether or not it's the same war or two separate wars has nothing to do with it.[/quote] Sure it does. Or else so many people wouldn't have wasted so much time claiming one or the other.
[quote]
Giving an alliance white peace just so that they can run off and attack one of your allies the next day is pointless. There's nothing "low" about it.

Even the Sith have seen the wisdom of this in the past:
[/quote]Well, unlike the aforementioned parties, we're still far from defeated, so there's really no reason for us to agree to unequal terms.

When you invoke past events as precedent, make sure that the circumstances are at least the same when doing so.

[elpadrino]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1265328093' post='2159721']
Whether or not it's the same war or two separate wars has nothing to do with it.

Giving an alliance white peace just so that they can run off and attack one of your allies the next day is pointless. There's nothing "low" about it.

Even the Sith have seen the wisdom of this in the past:
[/quote]

not related at all (the molon labe situation), everyone give peace considering that the war was about \m/ raiding smaller alliances and/or the racial incident with Grub, and \m/ recogniced what they were asked to the first day to achieve peace, then when everyone leaves some people use the excuse to satisfy not realted grudges, and thats my opinion but yeah maybe I´m wrong.

Anyway less talk and more war!!

Edited February 5, 2010 by elpadrino

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1265329253' post='2159769']
everyone peaced everyone because the \m/ war was over and given that we all joined to honor treaties it made no sense to keep fighting, its obvious that polar \m/ PC FOK ... peace at first considering that the rest will chain the peace soon as everyone was there just because of them..., and everyone peaced but when almost no one was still at war FARK decided to impose surrender terms to the NSO (not joining the next war with their treaty partners), FARK taken advantage of that situation was not the more moral move

but anyway I play in a Sith teme alliance so I suppose that is a good move as long as you get profit from the situation
[/quote]

You're forgetting to mention a very important part of the story. NSO was the only alliance engaged in the Polar-\m/ War with treaty ties to TOP, IRON, DAWN or TORN. While it made sense for everybody else in the war to agree to white peace, NSO's situation was unique - although your reason for fighting in the first war no longer existed, a new war had begun that would pit you against the very same opponent.

Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind grant you peace if they strongly expected you would re-declare the next day?

[elpadrino]

double

Edited February 5, 2010 by elpadrino

[ForPointSix]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1265328093' post='2159721']
Whether or not it's the same war or two separate wars has nothing to do with it.

Giving an alliance white peace just so that they can run off and attack one of your allies the next day is pointless. There's nothing "low" about it.

Even the Sith have seen the wisdom of this in the past:
[/quote]

Your point makes no since given that almost every Alliance on the NpO side of the war (NpO vs \m/ war) is connected to TOP or IRON in some form or another. So why is it that NSO was the only alliance not given white peace?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Chron' date='04 February 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1265329559' post='2159779']
Well, unlike the aforementioned parties, we're still far from defeated, so there's really no reason for us to agree to unequal terms.
[/quote]

You are beaten! It is useless to resist!

There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you.

[quote name='ForPointSix' date='04 February 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1265330318' post='2159818']
Your point makes no since given that almost every Alliance on the NpO side of the war (NpO vs \m/ war) is connected to TOP or IRON in some form or another. So why is it that NSO was the only alliance not given white peace?
[/quote]

You are mistaken. No alliance on the NpO side of the war had a treaty with TOP or IRON; NSO was/is the sole exception.

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1265329711' post='2159785']
Anyway less talk and more war!!
[/quote]

Sounds good to me. You're in my range, although we're both in anarchy and your defensive slots are full.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Baldr]

[quote name='Tromp' date='04 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1265323546' post='2159558']
You are missing one (pretty important) step:
- The agressive war of NpO versus \m/.

(Too much e-lawyering I see you doing, for whatever reason. Lighten up a bit. )
[/quote]

And of course, in turn, \m/ had declared on FoA. If they hadn't, this whole situation probably wouldn't have happened.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 February 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1265324133' post='2159578']
Why would Fark offer NSO peace if they were just going to turn around, reload, and re-enter the war in support of IRON?
[/quote]

Would Fark have agreed to peace out under the agreement that they were not allowed to re-enter the war? It seems to me that if one side is saying "We want you to leave the war, and you aren't allowed to return to the war, but we want to continue to fight" that they are making up some rules for the other side, while being unwilling to follow those same rules themselves.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Baldr

[elpadrino]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1265329888' post='2159795']
You're forgetting to mention a very important part of the story. NSO was the only alliance engaged in the Polar-\m/ War with treaty ties to TOP, IRON, DAWN or TORN.
[/quote]

irrelevant, there were more alliances in the war that everyone know that like them (did SF expected invicta to defend CnG?) it was obvious that while not directly treatied to this 4 there were many friends with that side of the treaty web in that war, FARK were just the only ones that took advantage of the situation

the war with you and Fark is great and fun no matter the causes so lets talk in the battlefield

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1265330767' post='2159843']
irrelevant, there were more alliances in the war that everyone know that like them (did SF expected invicta to defend CnG?) it was obvious that while not directly treatied to this 4 there were many friends with that side of the treaty web in that war, FARK were just the only ones that took advantage of the situation

the war with you and Fark is great and fun no matter the causes so lets talk in the battlefield
[/quote]

I look forward to it. I have 3 slots open if you ever get out of anarchy; if not I call dibs on one of your slots when they open up.

[elpadrino]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 February 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1265331401' post='2159875']
I look forward to it. I have 3 slots open if you ever get out of anarchy; if not I call dibs on one of your slots when they open up.
[/quote]

haha see you there if we ever get out of anarchy

[Denial]

It's a pleasure to once again be fighting shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies in the Siberian Tiger Alliance.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Baldr' date='04 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1265330650' post='2159837']
And of course, in turn, \m/ had declared on FoA. If they hadn't, this whole situation probably wouldn't have happened.
[/quote]

If NpO hadn't existed, this whole situation probably wouldn't have happened! \m/ did something Polar didn't like, and Polar declared war on them. First DoW was Polar's. Therefore, it's aggressive. This is one of the most clear-cut cases in history. NpO did [i]not[/i] attack in defense of [i]anyone[/i] - the war had ended.

Anyways, not the topic, etc.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Penkala