WAPA DOW

[Alpha Number 8]

[quote name='Naomh Fionnbharr' date='06 February 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1265393556' post='2161711']
I'll now give you the official response from the WAPA membership.

"Sticks and stones may break our bones, but names will never hurt us"

I suggest you look at our history, we've been called many things, many alliances have attacked us and attempted to destroy us. They all failed miserably. No alliance and no coalition, no amount of bad and false statements and propaganda has destroyed us in the past. But if you feel you can, go ahead.

Now have a nice day
[/quote]

[quote name='_GunneR_' date='05 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1265348746' post='2160646']
Go WAPA. But be careful, your smug is showing.
[/quote]

I agree with you GunneR.. They smug is showing.

[The AUT]

[quote name='Naomh Fionnbharr' date='05 February 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1265392885' post='2161689']
I can see you have trouble reading, maybe this will help you.


[size="7"]
WAPA MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT WILL NOT HELP/AID ANY ALLIANCE ON THE IRON/TOP SIDE

OF THE WAR, BY THAT IT MEANS TREATY PARTNERS AS WELL. WE MADE IT CLEAR DAYS AFTER

THE CONFLICT BEGUN AND DAYS BEFORE WE WENT TO WAR OR NEW HAD ASKED US FOR HELP.[/size]
[/quote]

Alright well let me break it down for you since apparently you lack comprehension:

You signed a treaty, now uphold it. At the very least you could have remained neutral. I don't care if you don't like IRON/TOP, but you did like NEW as per the treaty (we didn't like, more or less used) and it's showing now. You decided to enter on a selective basis, you entered on an oA with 1TF rather than an MD with NEW.

tl;dr your words are meaningless and treaties much less so. Hopefully you are destroyed in the future. I would try to join WAPA and destroy your terrible alliance from within, but it appears you guys are doing a perfectly good job of this yourselves.

Edited February 5, 2010 by The AUT

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1265390576' post='2161637']
I got a better joke, The Dark Templar. Because the Templar theme is new, original and isn't being used by 8 other alliances.

But honestly the best joke is WAPA. I wake up and just seeing their AA in the morning brings me laughs, so cheers!
[/quote]

Becaue you're in Carthage and the Greek theme isn't used anywhere else?

Seriously if criticizing the creativity of a name is the best you got... epecially when your alliance uses a theme thats more overused then the "No U" meme... you need to get some fresh insults.

[The AUT]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' date='05 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1265396982' post='2161846']
Becaue you're in Carthage and the Greek theme isn't used anywhere else?

Seriously if criticizing the creativity of a name is the best you got... epecially when your alliance uses a theme thats more overused then the "No U" meme... you need to get some fresh insults.
[/quote]

Carthage is Greek, you're as knowledgeable as I thought you were.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1265397057' post='2161849']
Carthage is Greek, you're as knowledgeable as I thought you were.
[/quote]

Meh, Roman, Greek, Byzantine... same thing when you get down to it... they all just run into one.

[prince buster]

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1265396375' post='2161829']
Alright well let me break it down for you since apparently you lack comprehension:

You signed a treaty, now uphold it. At the very least you could have remained neutral. I don't care if you don't like IRON/TOP, but you did like NEW as per the treaty (we didn't like, more or less used) and it's showing now. You decided to enter on a selective basis, you entered on an oA with 1TF rather than an MD with NEW.

tl;dr your words are meaningless and treaties much less so. Hopefully you are destroyed in the future. [b]I would try to join WAPA and destroy your terrible alliance from within,[/b] but it appears you guys are doing a perfectly good job of this yourselves.
[/quote]
You would probably fail the entrance exam.

[Mayzie]

[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.
[/quote]

It's strange that you found those, considering you're not even a member of one of their allies, but yes, everything you said there is pretty much right to my knowledge. Of course, those here to just hurl abuse at WAPA are going to completely ignore your post.

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' date='05 February 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1265384613' post='2161529']
Our Australian NATO members are ashamed of you.[/quote]

It'd make sense for an Austrlian based alliance to have a Scottish flag, right?

[quote name='Vespassianus' date='05 February 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1265392068' post='2161668']
You broke a treaty, that's so simple. If treaties worth !@#$ for you why do you sign it? You fleed from danger and left an ally.
[/quote]

What?

[quote name=WAPA / NEW Treaty]ARTICLE VI - Optional Assistance
Both parties are strongly encouraged, but not required, to provide financial and/or military assistance in case one party engages in an offensive action or joins a conflict in defense of another treaty partner.[/quote]

I understand being pissed off because an alliance you thought [i]might[/i] land on your side of the conflict joins on the other but could you tell me how that treaty has been broken?

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1265392578' post='2161679']
You are under a term which asks you to declare in defense of your allies. Your allies were NEW. Instead, you decided to exercise an oAP with 1TF and declare on NATO instead.[/quote]

See above, so in the circumstances, helping either of us was optional, where's this 'term' you speak of?

Also, coming back in this thread, posting the same !@#$ every hour doesn't make what you're saying right.

[quote name='Balder' date='05 February 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1265392969' post='2161690']
That makes it better? So if I announce that I won't be joining the losing side of the war, [b]despite all of my treaties being there[/b], and then bandwagon... that's okay?
[/quote]

Nice try, but no. If you read the thread, allies of WAPA's, as well as alliances which they hold in high regard but have no written agreement with are involved on both sides, the majority on this one.

Jeb kindly pointed out earlier where WAPA stated their position in this war, shortly after the war kicked off, in a similar fashion to what NEW did in the previous war, only WAPA actually have allies lined up on this side, which wasn't the case with NEW's statement of intent.

I can only imagine it was an oversight on WAPA Gov's part, not telling all of their allies and friends on an indvidual basis, a mistake I'm sure they'll take steps to try and rectify in coming days.

Other than that, I don't see where they screwed up, their position was clear, the majority of the alliances they consider close friends have been drawn to this side. They're clearly not happy at what appears to anyone without any inside knowledge of the attacks by TOP & IRON on C&G as someone using an opportunity when C&G's outside treaties may have been tied up elsewhere to take advantage of their position and declare war on them because of their own paranoia.

Initially, we (1TF) were dragged to this side of the war due to TOP & IRON's unprovoked attack on GR activating the defence clause in our treaty, it took us a few days to get back to a position to be able to declare after our withdrawal from our war with FOK, at which point there were so many alliances fighting on that front that we were unable to declare directly on them. Instead it was decided that we'd be most useful assisting GR's allies in FoB, by declaring on NATO, an alliance almost three times our size, so we did, with the help of WAPA. At the time we declared, we weren't aware that any other alliances would be attacking NATO, other than GOONS, us 'bandwagoning' never even crossed our minds.

In WAPA's statement, it said that they'd 'prefer' not to go in on an oA, not that they wouldn't if they were asked to. The entrance is not ideal, I admit, but the intent to defend an ally, 1TF most certainly is.

All the best WAPA, I'm pleased to be able to fight alongside you guys.

[prince buster]

[quote name='Captain Canuck' date='05 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1265394013' post='2161733']
LOL I you implying we surrendered cause of WAPA? Oh man that's some good stuff there
[/quote]
Upon hearing that WAPA's allies, The German Empire, had been attacked by The Foreign Division, the decision was made by the highest echelons of WAPA command that the alliance should now enter the conflict known as the Karma War. At 2PM server time - 8pm GMT - WAPA launched attacks on TFD.
A couple of days later, TFD surrendered to WAPA, a terrific result, as TFD were the first alliance to surrender in the Karma War

I should know, as a member of WAPA's Firm, i accepted the surrender.

Edited February 5, 2010 by prince buster

[The AUT]

[quote]Meh, Roman, Greek, Byzantine... same thing when you get down to it... they all just run into one.[/quote]

Wow, the insight is just impeccable. Didn't even bother to Google. Carthage is a colony of Phoenicians founded at the tip of North Africa in modern day Tunis. It has nothing to do with the Greek/Roman/Byzantine Occidental cultures it was one of the last remaining true Oriental cultures in the Middle East.


[quote]See above, so in the circumstances, helping either of us was optional, where's this 'term' you speak of?

Also, coming back in this thread, posting the same !@#$ every hour doesn't make what you're saying right.[/quote]

No, it was not. NEW got attacked, therefore it activates the [u]mutual defense[/u] part of the treaty. This is not subject to interpretation, it is a treaty that should have been upheld in the [i]defense[/i] of NEW. With you, on the other hand, the [i]optional aggression[/i] clause of your treaty was activated. There is no obligation to uphold this part of the agreement, and instead they went against NEW in some way or another.

But of course I don't know what we have to due to get through to you guys. Perhaps a screw you and have a [i]wonderful[/i] day.

Edited February 5, 2010 by The AUT

[Mayzie]

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1265398787' post='2161898']
No, it was not. NEW got attacked, therefore it activates the [u]mutual defense[/u] part of the treaty. This is not subject to interpretation, it is a treaty that should have been upheld in the [i]defense[/i] of NEW.[/quote]

You certainly have a skewed perception of a non chaining treaty, I think you'll notice in the section I quoted it states that should either enter into war via agression or in defence of an outside ally, the defence becomes optional. NEW declared war on Athens and Immortals, in defence of FEAR. Now tell me what clause that falls under again?

EDIT: Just an example for you, the NpO - \m/ war, NEW stated that they wouldn't be joining the NpO side no matter what, similar to what WAPA did here. If WAPA had come to our defence, NEW weren't obligated to defend them and to my knowledge had no intention of doing. I wonder if we'd see the same people with the same arguments if that situation had happened.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Mayzie

[The AUT]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='05 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1265399249' post='2161915']
You certainly have a skewed perception of a non chaining treaty, I think you'll notice in the section I quoted it states that should either enter into war via agression or in defence of an outside ally, the defence becomes optional. NEW declared war on Athens and Immortals, in defence of FEAR. Now tell me what clause that falls under again?
[/quote]

At [i]worst[/i] the proper thing to do was remain neutral. Not to bandwagon on the backs of a selection of a treaty. But then again it seems like this is to be expected from such an alliance. I mean you attacked NATO, an alliance that protected your friends in NV. Things are forgotten quickly and this is no exception. Good luck, have fun. Hope we don't ever trust the likes of any of you two again.

[Vespassianus]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='05 February 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1265399249' post='2161915']
You certainly have a skewed perception of a non chaining treaty, I think you'll notice in the section I quoted it states that should either enter into war via agression or in defence of an outside ally, the defence becomes optional. NEW declared war on Athens and Immortals, in defence of FEAR. Now tell me what clause that falls under again?
[/quote]

Mayzie, i like you, but this non chaining stuff is !@#$%^&*, just e-lawyering. Their ally got attacked and they ignore it. If they refuse to defend their ally they shouldn't be allies.

[merdesa]

[quote name='Naomh Fionnbharr' date='05 February 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1265391780' post='2161665']
Maybe you should pay more attention to the wording of our policy to the war that was released days prior to us entering the conflict. We stated that we would not aid any alliance fighting on the IRON/TOP side "directly or indirectly" That includes NEW. NEW then asked the impossible of us, that was to break our policy and enter the war on their side. This of course we rejected and we maintained our policy of not aiding the IRON/TOP side.[/quote]

I did in fact read it at the link that was provided (I would say you should have posted them on OWF, who cares about trolls?) my first sentence was to restate what I read to make sure I had it correct. You consulted NEW and said "look, this is what we think, this is our stance, so we can't aid you." Correct?

[quote]We did not consult NEW on our decision to go to war along side 1TF against NATO for a number of reasons of which I cannot state as I do not have that authority.
[/quote]

But then you didn't consult them to say "hey guys, we're gonna be going into the war on the other side"? They're treatied to you, and you have a defense pact, I would think at least would be to consult them --you may not get their blessings, but you wouldn't come off as hiding something or "backstabbing".

I would think consulting them would have been the best option, but of course I can see the dilemma where NEW could have then tipped off NATO or whoever... and why shouldn't they?

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Naomh Fionnbharr' date='05 February 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1265383771' post='2161514']
[quote]
15[14:45] <Finner[DMoFA|WAPA]> Officially WAPA will not support the IRON/TOP side of this war. This is regrettable as it leaves NEW in a hard position. I regret to say that WAPA will be unable to aid or assist NEW by deploying its forces or aid through monies.
15[14:45] <Finner[DMoFA|WAPA]> I am truly sorry
[/quote]


NEW accepted this response without any official compliant on our forums or through the IRC channels. At least no record is written that I am personally aware of. [b]WAPA did not "hang NEW out to dry" or "back stab" them[/b], our stance was made very clear, prior to the Government considering going to war.
[/quote]

Yes, you did leave them out to dry.

[quote = 'IRC Logs']I regret to say that WAPA will be unable to aid or assist NEW by deploying its forces or aid through monies.[/quote]

If your members are so fond of NEW, they should have no problem fighting for NEW, regardless of any sides that may exist.

[The AUT]

Good post Agnu but with all do respect, you forgot the infra variable which likely factored heavily into WAPA's decision.

Edited February 5, 2010 by The AUT

[Bob]

Have fun WAPA. Can we roll you after, just for old times sake?

[tamerlane]

[size="3"][b]HEY WAPA![/b] [b]TURN THAT ADMIN DAMNED SMUG DOWN!
[/b][/size]
Good luck guys.

[Salmia]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='05 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1265352364' post='2160999']
Poor show, leaving TOOL and NEW hanging
[/quote]

They didn't leave TOOL hanging, we have a PIAT, not a MDoAP with WAPA. That PIAT includes an ODP, a MDoAP/MADP would rank in importance. I do not speak for other alliances but for TOOL. I do not view this as a shock at all.

I went to speak to WAPA four or five days ago, they made it clear their stance in the very thread they've linked to in this thread. I am not kissing up to them or anything, but that thread clearly states which side they view as oA (TOP/IRON), therefore making \m/'s side defense mandated to them. They made it very clear to me that they would defend CnG's side if drawn in.

I don't know who else they have MDoAPs with (FEAR/NEW) that is between them. For TOOL, they haven't left us hanging. They made their stance clear. They're facing split treaties on both side, you have to choose a stance and define your treaties by it. That is what WAPA did, TOOL has faced the same in Karma. I won't belittle them for it. For TOOL, they haven't left us hanging. They made it clear to us what their stance was and we acknowledge that.

A MDoAP/MADP would take precedence over a PIAT in this big of a war.

EDIT: Also while we're on opposite sides, WAPA, I do indeed respect you and good luck. This war hasn't been an easy for many people treatywise.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Salmia

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Vespassianus' date='05 February 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1265399434' post='2161919']
Mayzie, i like you, but this non chaining stuff is !@#$%^&*, just e-lawyering. Their ally got attacked and they ignore it. If they refuse to defend their ally they shouldn't be allies.
[/quote]


Chaining clauses are not !@#$%^&*. They are actually a very relevant clauses for allies who don't necessarily feel like fighting for their ally's allies. Say we wanted to make a treaty with TORN (purely fictional as you can see) but didn't wnat to be tied to IRON. Welp; we sign an no-chaining and thusly we have mitigated the risk of having to fight for IRON's mistakes.

Just because it doesn't work out the way you like, !@#$%^&* it does not make.

Edited February 5, 2010 by tamerlane

[Bower3aj]

[quote name='prince buster' date='05 February 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1265393160' post='2161695']
loving the nonsense from the foreign division guys about the karma war. Their short memories seem to blanking the fact that they were the first alliance in the war to surrender. lol
[/quote]


[quote name='prince buster' date='05 February 2010 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1265398666' post='2161892']
Upon hearing that WAPA's allies, The German Empire, had been attacked by The Foreign Division, the decision was made by the highest echelons of WAPA command that the alliance should now enter the conflict known as the Karma War. At 2PM server time - 8pm GMT - WAPA launched attacks on TFD.
A couple of days later, TFD surrendered to WAPA, a terrific result, as TFD were the first alliance to surrender in the Karma War

I should know, as a member of WAPA's Firm, i accepted the surrender.
[/quote]

Dang it WAPA, if you're going to brag about a previous war and claim that the people that surrendered to you are forgetting history you should probably not forget the history that you are referring to.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54849"]TORNs surrender[/url] though some might say they just backed out and didn't surrender. They did agree to pay reps.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55720"]IRAN and UFs surrender[/url], there is no arguing here this is very clearly the first set of terms.

over a day later [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55949"]TFDs surrender[/url] is posted. So depending on how you see it TFD was the third or forth alliance to surrender in the Karma war.

[Mayzie]

To be fair Bower, they shouldn't be doing anything of the sort. TFD, NATO & Co comments in here have looked to get a rise out of WAPA and they have, that's all there is to it. I'm just trying to ignore the majority of it, you'd be better off doing the same.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Mayzie

[LYDIASLAND]

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 February 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1265396375' post='2161829']
Alright well let me break it down for you since apparently you lack comprehension:

You signed a treaty, now uphold it. At the very least you could have remained neutral. I don't care if you don't like IRON/TOP, but you did like NEW as per the treaty (we didn't like, more or less used) and it's showing now. You decided to enter on a selective basis, you entered on an oA with 1TF rather than an MD with NEW.

tl;dr your words are meaningless and treaties much less so. Hopefully you are destroyed in the future. I would try to join WAPA and destroy your terrible alliance from within, but it appears you guys are doing a perfectly good job of this yourselves.
[/quote]


EMM your right thats why we have been here 4 years this year . You sir dont have a clue.WAPA is about friendship thats a thing a lot of you guys dont understand. WAPA will never die we will be here long after planet bob does.Sorry about that but thats the facts now live with it

[Bower3aj]

fair enough Mayzie. I do kinda feel for the TFD guys though. I have a [OOC] RL friend [/OOC] that is in TFD. In just over a months time there have been 4 wars and so far he has always been on the second line, and so far the second line has not gotten the chance to fight.

Of course I understand the thought process behind it all. Strategy is not something that can ever be downplayed, but I have to be a little sympathetic.

[FreddieMercury]

Wow, WAPA. And I was beginning to really like you guys. This is just disappointing.

[color=#1C2837][font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
[quote]EMM your right thats why we have been here 4 years this year . You sir dont have a clue.WAPA is about friendship thats a thing a lot of you guys dont understand. WAPA will never die we will be here long after planet bob does.Sorry about that but thats the facts now live with it [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#1C2837][font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#1C2837][font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]I sympathize with your position having to choose between a friend and politics, but it was you who placed yourself in this situation by signing a treaty with someone not within your treaty web. You signed it out of genuine friendship, but now you're wiggling out of that friendship over politics.[/size][/font][/color]

[Tick1]

WAPA! You made me quite happy!

Edited February 5, 2010 by Tick1