An Announcement From a Few Alliances

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='06 February 2010 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1265449046' post='2164115']
White peace means no one won and no one lost.

This is the peace I see here and I congratulate all parties on agreeing to it.

o\
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]The Immortals agreed not to reenter the war. You don't see TPF or NEW agreeing to anything, do you? Regardless of how you try to spin it, this is a defeat for the Immortals. Sowwy.[/color]

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 February 2010 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1265449468' post='2164120']
[color="#0000FF"]The Immortals agreed not to reenter the war. You don't see TPF or NEW agreeing to anything, do you? Regardless of how you try to spin it, this is a defeat for the Immortals. Sowwy.[/color]
[/quote]


Hopefully they are agreeing not to attack TI again.

But yes, it seems you win on that point.

However, let's not forget that a few of these same alliances also want white peace in their other fronts, and that is being refused.

[JBone]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='05 February 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1265425444' post='2162698']
So.. all direct allies of TPF are your meatshields?
[/quote]
Silly penguin....everyone knows that [i]TPF are the meat shields[/i].

Good fight Immortals.

[JBone]

[quote name='OneBallMan' date='06 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1265433881' post='2163078']There is no victory here.[/quote]
The hell you say....I'll take it, it's been a while. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img]

[darkfox]

I have mad respect for Immortals. They held up against very unfair odds that just got worse as the days went on. Immortals rebuild fast.

[Phil Collins1]

Congrats UCN

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Tick1' date='06 February 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1265446906' post='2164087']
78 more to go!
[/quote]
I mentioned this on IRC as well

That's a massive coalition on the other side :S

Anyway, from what I've heard from my buddies in the White sphere, the Immortals fought well considering their odds. White peace was desirable, since they probably would've found it rather difficult in any other outcome. We are not looking to disband alliances here.

[blackorchid]

It's been a pleasure to fight you Immortals. Congratz

[darkfox]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='05 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1265439255' post='2163699']
All I see here is an alliance abandoning its allies. Sorry if I ruined the hail fest.
[/quote]

Shoot UCN was fighting Immortals for a few days. Never got countered. I wonder who abandoned whom.

[suryanto tan]

It is my view that when an alliance cannot longer fight, they should admit defeat and surrender honorably. There is nothing wrong with admitting defeat. In fact, it is very honorable act, but it shows lack of competency in term of military readiness.

I humbly encourage those criticizing The Immortals to give them a fair treatment. I agree if you say that they are incompetence (to fight this large scale war), but you cannot claim that they are in disgrace for surrendering to the enemy. If Nusantara cannot longer fight, we will admit defeat and surrender to the enemy. Part of the sport is admitting defeat when it is due.

An alliance that decide to surrender is much more honorable than an alliance that insist to stay in the war but with 90% of the members hide in peace mode and inflicting almost 0 damage to the enemy, but keep singing the heroic song clear and loud that they are the most honorable folks for holding out the longest. I have no respect for such kind of alliance. They are only posturing, not fighting, but they pretend to be toughest.

Gentlemen, you have pointed your finger at the wrong direction. The Immortals is just fine in my opinion.

Edited February 6, 2010 by suryanto tan

[MadScotII]

Hopefully the first of many in the coming weeks/month

All the best in re-building etc.

[Ponderas]

[quote name='suryanto tan' date='06 February 2010 - 06:46 AM' timestamp='1265456806' post='2164253']
It is my view that when an alliance cannot longer fight, they should admit defeat and surrender honorably. There is nothing wrong with admitting defeat. In fact, it is very honorable act, but it shows lack of competency in term of military readiness.

I humbly encourage those criticizing The Immortals to give them a fair treatment. I agree if you say that they are incompetence (to fight this large scale war), but you cannot claim that they are in disgrace for surrendering to the enemy. If Nusantara cannot longer fight, we will admit defeat and surrender to the enemy. Part of the sport is admitting defeat when it is due.

An alliance that decide to surrender is much more honorable than an alliance that insist to stay in the war but with 90% of the members hide in peace mode and inflicting almost 0 damage to the enemy, but keep singing the heroic song clear and loud that they are the most honorable folks for holding out the longest. I have no respect for such kind of alliance. They are only posturing, not fighting, but they pretend to be toughest.

Gentlemen, you have pointed your finger at the wrong direction. The Immortals is just fine in my opinion.
[/quote]What he said.

[Banned]

[quote name='mhawk' date='06 February 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1265425299' post='2162689']That said this war is about people wanting blood. We're here to try to help our allies achieve peace where possible. Ideally everyone would stop this foolish war. I'm certain those that did attack CnG would peace out in fast order if allowed.
[/quote]

And how could CnG go to bed at night feeling safe and cozy with alliances out there that would declare war on them where no just cause for war exists?

This war was launched with one intention. To destroy CnG.

Interestingly enough, it is TOP's bloc, Citadel, that has fallen apart in the meantime.

If I were calling shots in CnG (and I'm not), TOP, IRON, and friends would be waiting a long time for peace terms to be on the table, and they would be harsh. Unprovoked attacks against the sovereignty of a nation, an alliance, or a bloc, should not be tolerated. For the safety of the citizens and nation rulers, they cannot be tolerated. Personally, I call for a long and drawn out war. The ancient addage of friends > infra comes to mind when reading this topic. When you walk out on a treaty partner before you've even been to war for a week it speaks volumes of the level of honor that your government has, and it speaks volumes of what are likely some serious underlying issues (lack of warchests anybody?)

Having seen the allies of TPF and of NPO before them, I can say that the remains of Hegemony are not a place that I would ever place the trust of an alliance I were running. For yourself mhawk, maybe it seems ok to have allies that don't properly support you. Take forever to show up to a war, and then finally only show up at the last minute to make it look as though they're by your side. I assure you, the grass really is greener on the other side. On this side, there is an expectation that when you come under attack, your allies ride to battle with you. They don't roll over quickly. And they don't cry over the loss of pixels. Here, there is a thing called honor in your word. Integrity. You should get some new treaty partners, and find out what it's all about.

[Lord Boris]

Wow. Wasn't expecting to wake up this morning to see this. Good luck on the rebuild to TI.

[TIEIXIAIS]

Wise decision and good luck to TI in rebuilding.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Banned' date='06 February 2010 - 06:37 AM' timestamp='1265467032' post='2164433']
And how could CnG go to bed at night feeling safe and cozy with alliances out there that would declare war on them where no just cause for war exists?

This war was launched with one intention. To destroy CnG.

Interestingly enough, it is TOP's bloc, Citadel, that has fallen apart in the meantime.

If I were calling shots in CnG (and I'm not), TOP, IRON, and friends would be waiting a long time for peace terms to be on the table, and they would be harsh. Unprovoked attacks against the sovereignty of a nation, an alliance, or a bloc, should not be tolerated. For the safety of the citizens and nation rulers, they cannot be tolerated. Personally, I call for a long and drawn out war. The ancient addage of friends > infra comes to mind when reading this topic. When you walk out on a treaty partner before you've even been to war for a week it speaks volumes of the level of honor that your government has, and it speaks volumes of what are likely some serious underlying issues (lack of warchests anybody?)

Having seen the allies of TPF and of NPO before them, I can say that the remains of Hegemony are not a place that I would ever place the trust of an alliance I were running. For yourself mhawk, maybe it seems ok to have allies that don't properly support you. Take forever to show up to a war, and then finally only show up at the last minute to make it look as though they're by your side. I assure you, the grass really is greener on the other side. On this side, there is an expectation that when you come under attack, your allies ride to battle with you. They don't roll over quickly. And they don't cry over the loss of pixels. Here, there is a thing called honor in your word. Integrity. You should get some new treaty partners, and find out what it's all about.
[/quote]

I think this can be answered pretty directly.

1) Your assertion that CnG was sitting there and was randomly attacked is purely propaganda. Are you stating that had TOP and IRON declared on some random SF alliance, CnG would have stayed out? The context of that attack was that CnG had already stated their position to mixed allies in a [b]Global war[/b]. This very same type of attack superfriends did against polar's allies two years ago. Any realistic honest answer would be appreciated instead of "we were just minding our business."

2) We asked our allies to stay out and exercise a complex military operation that would give the best chance for peace. We didn't feel like gratifying the CnG lust for massive war at the expense of all our friends. We acted responsibly with the hard work of our friends instead of pouring it down the drain. You state the grass is greener, but what do we see here? We see CnG abusing their friends by asking them to be put into very politically and ethically bad positions (Polar and STA). They hold no concern for those alliances other than they serve as a shield for CnG because they don't want to peace out. If you state the reason for maintaining the war is the threat of Citadel, well they don't exist. If you can explain how our decision to attempt a strategy with greatest possibility of overall peace is cowardly and lacks integrity, perhaps you can ask how asking Polar to commit suicide so you can avoid slightly more damage instead of peacing out with all parties is honorable?

3) You can argue our allies took forever, but they were following a clear plan, the same as CnG was considering our allies entered the war well before CnG did when Polar was attacked by PC and FOK. Although for a group known as SuperComplaints y'all work hard to keep it up. Always the victim in every circumstance. Personally I'd hate to be known as a bunch of complainers.

[Jerichoholic]

[quote name='mhawk' date='06 February 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1265468478' post='2164493']
I think this can be answered pretty directly.

1) Your assertion that CnG was sitting there and was randomly attacked is purely propaganda. Are you stating that had TOP and IRON declared on some random SF alliance, CnG would have stayed out? The context of that attack was that CnG had already stated their position to mixed allies in a [b]Global war[/b]. This very same type of attack superfriends did against polar's allies two years ago. Any realistic honest answer would be appreciated instead of "we were just minding our business."

2) We asked our allies to stay out and exercise a complex military operation that would give the best chance for peace. We didn't feel like gratifying the CnG lust for massive war at the expense of all our friends. We acted responsibly with the hard work of our friends instead of pouring it down the drain. You state the grass is greener, but what do we see here? We see CnG abusing their friends by asking them to be put into very politically and ethically bad positions (Polar and STA). They hold no concern for those alliances other than they serve as a shield for CnG because they don't want to peace out. If you state the reason for maintaining the war is the threat of Citadel, well they don't exist. If you can explain how our decision to attempt a strategy with greatest possibility of overall peace is cowardly and lacks integrity, perhaps you can ask how asking Polar to commit suicide so you can avoid slightly more damage instead of peacing out with all parties is honorable?

3) You can argue our allies took forever, but they were following a clear plan, the same as CnG was considering our allies entered the war well before CnG did when Polar was attacked by PC and FOK. Although for a group known as SuperComplaints y'all work hard to keep it up. Always the victim in every circumstance. Personally I'd hate to be known as a bunch of complainers.
[/quote]
1) Is it a valid CB to attack the ally of somebody you or your allies are planning to attack? I understand that there have been instances in the past, before my nation came into existence, where preemptive attacks were made in alliance wars, but weren't those mainly because the alliances in question were planning to DoW them? As far I can tell, this was "they might attack an alliance who might attack an alliance CnG is allied to and CnG might come to their aid, so let's skip 4 steps and attack them directly." Or you could take the words from the original DoW which was that CnG didn't like them (TOP/IRON/etc) so they had to go.

2) Wasn't the CC delayed because the only man in the coalition who can plan a war was occupied? There was no "plan" there, it was just a failure of leadership.

3) See #1

[Barnaby von Farter]

[quote name='Jerichoholic' date='06 February 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1265470454' post='2164547']
As far I can tell, this was "they might attack an alliance who might attack an alliance CnG is allied to and CnG might come to their aid, so let's skip 4 steps and attack them directly." Or you could take the words from the original DoW which was that CnG didn't like them (TOP/IRON/etc) so they had to go.
[/quote]

You're right, Jerichoholic. This seems to be a large part of the problem. IF TOPRON had information that CnG was going to hit [i]them[/i]...which would be a derpy thing to do, I could see their pre-emptive strike as being justified. If there was information that CnG was going to hit a direct ally of TOPRON, I could still see their pre-emptive strike making some bit of sense. As it is, this was TOPRON initiating a completely different front, a blatant sign of disconnected aggression. Those who say "oh well, CnG could just walk away from this now and we could have peace *weep*" are obviously not taking into consideration the TOPRON DoW.

[Locke]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='06 February 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1265439255' post='2163699']
All I see here is an alliance abandoning its allies. Sorry if I ruined the hail fest.
[/quote]
Had their allies told them to stay in and they refused, this would be true. I don't believe this is the case.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

Infra hugging at its finest. I'd go to ZI many times before abandoning my allies, regardless of their reasons for warring.

[Locke]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' date='06 February 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1265486049' post='2164957']
Infra hugging at its finest. I'd go to ZI many times before abandoning my allies, regardless of their reasons for warring.
[/quote]
Go take a look at SpacingOutMan and suryanto tan's posts again before you make yourself look even more foolish. Here, I'll even give you handy links:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80143&view=findpost&p=2162782
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80143&view=findpost&p=2164253
Consider yourself enlightened.

[OneBallMan]

[quote name='suryanto tan' date='06 February 2010 - 06:46 AM' timestamp='1265456806' post='2164253']
It is my view that when an alliance cannot longer fight, they should admit defeat and surrender honorably. There is nothing wrong with admitting defeat. In fact, it is very honorable act, but it shows lack of competency in term of military readiness.

I humbly encourage those criticizing The Immortals to give them a fair treatment. I agree if you say that they are incompetence (to fight this large scale war), but you cannot claim that they are in disgrace for surrendering to the enemy. If Nusantara cannot longer fight, we will admit defeat and surrender to the enemy. Part of the sport is admitting defeat when it is due.

An alliance that decide to surrender is much more honorable than an alliance that insist to stay in the war but with 90% of the members hide in peace mode and inflicting almost 0 damage to the enemy, but keep singing the heroic song clear and loud that they are the most honorable folks for holding out the longest. I have no respect for such kind of alliance. They are only posturing, not fighting, but they pretend to be toughest.

Gentlemen, you have pointed your finger at the wrong direction. The Immortals is just fine in my opinion.
[/quote]

If anyone else said it, I'd probably call this self-serving BS. But from you guys, whom I respect faithfully, I will heed your words in the genuine spirit in which they were delivered and give TI a pass.

[Lord Curzon]

Glad to see this settled with white peace. Congrats guys

[tukangsate]

My respect to The Immortals...you gave a god fight



-Salut-

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Locke' date='06 February 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1265486322' post='2164961']
Go take a look at SpacingOutMan and suryanto tan's posts again before you make yourself look even more foolish. Here, I'll even give you handy links:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80143&view=findpost&p=2162782
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80143&view=findpost&p=2164253
Consider yourself enlightened.
[/quote]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that an alliance not named GGA would have the competence to survive less than a week of war.