suryanto tan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 In the NpO vs \m/ war, we made our stance clear and loud, and we notify every and each of our allies about our stance in advance. We see that war as a war against our interest, thus, it makes perfect sense for us to not support it. We also noticed that in that war, our allies is not in the losing side, and not even drawn into the war yet. We encourage them to stay out and most importantly we explain our reason well to them. I think it is only fair if we give you a benefit of the doubt that your entrance to the war on that side is for a good reason. Is it because the aggression by TOP/IRON against CnG is so against your sense of justice that you decided to fight against them? Or perhaps it is because the war is against your principle and is against your interest? Most people will point at you and assume that you have chosen to enter that side because it is the winning side, but I would rather not assume and ask a question here. I hope you earn the glory and respect you are looking for by this declaration. Good luck, WAPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bower3aj Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='05 February 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1265355213' post='2161135'] Mods, please lock this. It has served its purpose. [/quote] the right to ask for this is long gone. The leaders of the world are allowed to keep putting up their opinions of this DoW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyoabc Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='05 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1265355213' post='2161135'] Mods, please lock this. It has served its purpose. [/quote] well, this is unexpected after the DOW. we were discussing how you ended on your current stand and discussion in your thread is not allowed? hmmm.... bombs away..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Dumarest Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='suryanto tan' date='05 February 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1265355335' post='2161140'] I think it is only fair if we give you a benefit of the doubt that your entrance to the war on that side is for a good reason. Is it because the aggression by TOP/IRON against CnG is so against your sense of justice that you decided to fight against them? Or perhaps it is because the war is against your principle and is against your interest? Most people will point at you and assume that you have chosen to enter that side because it is the winning side, but I would rather not assume and ask a question here. [/quote] See here; http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='05 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1265355709' post='2161156'] See here; http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 . [/quote] Thank you. That is very informative and enlightening. To summarize: "[i]It is because TOP/IRON choose to attack without legal CB, thus you see it as wrong and will not support them, directly or indirectly. [/i]" Suppose today, TOP/IRON is winning the war with overwhelming odds, will you still enter the war against them via your optional aggression pact? Can I safely assume that you will stay true to your principle despite of being in the losing or winning side of the war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Poor show WAPA. Entering on an oA when your friends are burning on the other side. I sincerely hope that I am reading this incorrectly. Otherwise good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circlewood Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Honestly, remove that flag from the Op because if you really do care about it then you won't put it through the shame it's going through now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Dumarest Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='suryanto tan' date='05 February 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1265356462' post='2161175'] Suppose today, TOP/IRON is winning the war with overwhelming odds, will you still enter the war against them via your optional aggression pact? Can I safely assume that you will stay true to your principle despite of being in the losing or winning side of the war? [/quote] I would hope so, although a defensive entry would have been preferable. Obviously I am not happy at the reactions people have posted here. We felt we were dealing with possible conflicting treaties by picking a side, and sticking to it, in a similar way to how NEW did in the previous war. A difference was that we posted our notice in a public area of our own board, rather than risk being trolled on the OWF. Was that wise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='05 February 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1265357999' post='2161202'] I would hope so, although a defensive entry would have been preferable. Obviously I am not happy at the reactions people have posted here. We felt we were dealing with possible conflicting treaties by picking a side, and sticking to it, in a similar way to how NEW did in the previous war. A difference was that we posted our notice in a public area of our own board, rather than risk being trolled on the OWF. Was that wise? [/quote] It is different from us in many ways: 1. We see the war [b]as a war against our interest[/b]. We raid a lot, and we won't appreciate an alliance demanding us this and that in the future. It is in our interest to see such attempt never succeeded. [b]Are you seeing TOP/IRON war as a war against your interest as well? A war against your principle?[/b] 2. None of our allies is in the war yet when we announce our stance publicly. [b]Your allies is in the war already.[/b] 3. We notified all our allies in private and discuss with them, make sure they understand us perfectly, and we ask for their consent. [b]You did not, your declaration on NATO surprised a lot of us. It will be more understandable if you enter in defend of an ally you see get beaten up badly (not winning), and need your dear help. Instead you chosen to enter via optional aggression on a relatively easy war on the winning side[/b]. 4. We make our stance public prior to the war spread to involve our allies. If you believe what you do is right, you should not be afraid (of the troll) at all. [b]You did not.[/b] [i]Was that wise ? [/i] I do not think so, my friend. Edited February 5, 2010 by suryanto tan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warbuck Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='yoyoabc' date='04 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1265349434' post='2160729'] @Wentworth, who did you PM? you can PM me for any official stuffs. i am helping out in the gov. @WAPA - I am speechlessly disappointed @NATO - Win or lose, show your nukes! [/quote] I echo the second two statements. Good luck nonetheless. NATO, glad to be on the field of battle, at your side. Let us kill 10 of their men for each of ours that falls. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canuck Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) lolWAPA Hope you guys have improved since Karma, for your sake. Or maybe that's why you're attacking NATO at the same time as 7 other alliances. Edited February 5, 2010 by Captain Canuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LYDIASLAND Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Captain Canuck' date='05 February 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1265362745' post='2161252'] lolWAPA Hope you guys have improved since Karma, for your sake. Or maybe that's why you're attacking NATO at the same time as 7 other alliances. [/quote] What is it with all you TFD guys ? we give you a little slap once and you have to hold a grudge for ever Never mind. Tally ho the WAPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canuck Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='LYDIASLAND' date='05 February 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1265363706' post='2161263'] What is it with all you TFD guys ? we give you a little slap once and you have to hold a grudge for ever Never mind. Tally ho the WAPA. [/quote] I hope we get to fight again, we can make it a tradition for every Great War . We can bring our buddies NATO and TGE along for the picnic too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb the Wise Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) I don't know why everyone considers the NpO vs \m/ war and TOP vs C&G two parts of the same war. It's [i]not[/i]. Even if it was supposed to be. You can thank TOP for that. And if any of you lackeys practiced any real diplomacy, you would have read both of these threads: http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3841 On Wapa's home forum 5-7 days ago respectively. One thing I've always liked about WAPA, is the restraint they have when posting on the Crapstorm that is the OWF. Point is, Maybe they don't post their "Policy statements" on the OWF for a reason. They don't have to answer to any of you that aren't on their forums and in their IRC chan. And if you really were Allies and Friends you would be. They haven't gone with the winning side, but the side they feel is just. Simple as that. And Planet Bob has spoken. Those of you trying to twist this into WAPA backstabbing their allies are pathetic. @ Wentworth the Brave Looking good in your new top hat @ circlewood your a jerk, how much more drivel are you going to post in this thread? @ Marginali You seem a bit butt-hurt. Your much more friendly in pms @ Lusitan your also a jerk Edited February 5, 2010 by Jeb the Wise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LYDIASLAND Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Jeb the Wise' date='05 February 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1265364214' post='2161270'] I don't know why everyone considers the NpO vs \m/ war and TOP vs C&G two parts of the same war. It's [i]not[/i]. Even if it was supposed to be. You can thank TOP for that. And if any of you lackeys practiced any real diplomacy, you would have read both of these threads: http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3861 http://www.wearepertharmy.co.uk/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=3841 On Wapa's home forum 5-7 days ago respectively. One thing I've always liked about WAPA, is the restraint they have when posting on the Crapstorm that is the OWF. Point is, Maybe they don't post their "Policy statements" on the OWF for a reason. They don't have to answer to any of you that aren't on their forums and in their IRC chan. And if you really were Allies and Friends you would be. They haven't gone with the winning side, but the side they feel is just. Simple as that. And Planet Bob has spoken. Those of you trying to twist this into WAPA backstabbing their allies are pathetic. @ Wentworth the Brave Looking good in your new top hat @ circlewood your a jerk, how much more drivel are you going to post in this thread? @ Marginali You seem a bit butt-hurt. Your much more friendly in pms @ Lusitan your also a jerk [/quote] Well said that man .I shall raise a glass to you this afternoon in ra boozer.Cheers.o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1L1O Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I;m sorry for wall of texts [quote] We Are Perth Army Policy Statement regarding the so-called TOP-C&G war Policy 1. Our basic position is that we will not support, directly or indirectly, the unwarranted aggressive wars initiated by TOP and IRON 2. [b]We prefer not to use optional aggression clauses to enter the conflict.[/b] BUT 3. If a friendly alliance with which we have a defensive treaty is declared on, and requests our help, then we will provide it, as best as we are able, subject to point 1 above. HOWEVER 4. We will not attack a friendly alliance. Notes 1. We Are Perth Army has no diplomatic ties to any of the principal players in this conflict. The only information we have to judge it on is that contained in the original Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox. That announcement did not seem to include any valid reason for the declaration of war. 2. When we say we will help our friends "as best as we are able" this is a necessary concession to the realities of the treaty web. We have six defensive treaties, but are probably not able to wage six offensive wars simultaneously. Sadly, we may have to tell one or more allies, "Sorry, our forces are already commited to other wars". We hope this will not be necessary, and that our friends will not cause embarrasment by asking the impossible of us. 3. For the purpose of this policy the following is a list of those we consider friendly alliances. 1 Touch Football 57th Overlanders Aqua Defense Initiative Carpe Diem Christian Coalition of Countries EPIC Nations Farkistan Grand Lodge Of Freemasons Nueva Vida NUHyperforce Nusantara Elite Warriors Republic of Aquisgrana The Despised Icon The German Empire The Immortals The Order Of Light 4. If we do enter the conflict we will be doing so purely for the sake of our friends we have previously agreed to help. We have no axe to grind and no wish to re-open old wounds or cause new ones. [/quote] I'm interested on bolded statement And i'm notbackstabbed by WAPA, just dissapointed, days ago WAPA wanted to activate oA to engage Athens. Guess our luck was bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 WAPA, you went to bandwagon instead of defending your direct ally who is under attack. Disappointing? No. WAPA never change, you remain the same infra lovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warbuck Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' date='05 February 2010 - 04:22 AM' timestamp='1265365350' post='2161285'] I;m sorry for wall of texts I'm interested on bolded statement And i'm notbackstabbed by WAPA, just dissapointed, days ago WAPA wanted to activate oA to engage Athens. Guess our luck was bad [/quote] I am as well, as this is what WAPA had communicated to me- that they would only enter if one of their allies was declared on. I know that this was probably not an easy decision for WAPA, but I am disappointed nonetheless that they entered this via oA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obscurus Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 It just seems that in this one conflict (or two conflicts, or how many conflicts as I have lost the count) the sides have become very, very murky (I for one, don't really know which side is which - and that makes my head hurt). However, from the deepest of our heart, we wish well to our friends, in every side they belong to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LYDIASLAND Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 [quote name='Captain Canuck' date='05 February 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1265363896' post='2161266'] I hope we get to fight again, we can make it a tradition for every Great War . We can bring our buddies NATO and TGE along for the picnic too. [/quote] LOL will you never learn ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmeestar Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) Edit: Invalid point I now realise Edited February 5, 2010 by Shmeestar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) [quote name='LYDIASLAND' date='05 February 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1265369156' post='2161320'] LOL will you never learn ? [/quote] The question is, have your 14k infra nations learned to keep more than 21 million warchest? Edited February 5, 2010 by Lusitan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearHead Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Well WAPA, ignorance is bliss, right? And lol @ the RoK guy calling somebody a jerk. XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackorchid Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Though sometimes we might have differences with anyone on this radiated planet, we still consider you all as a friend. That's include you WAPA. But then again... goodluck and... goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Vespassianus' date='05 February 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1265366348' post='2161291'] WAPA, you went to bandwagon instead of defending your direct ally who is under attack. Disappointing? No. WAPA never change, you remain the same infra lovers. [/quote] Oh well, WAPA with a might of 2 mil warchests wasn't going to do much. lol [quote]Total Money: $5,448,956[/quote] Good stuff WAPA Edited February 5, 2010 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.