Imperial Decree - New Polar

[scythegfx]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1265442041' post='2163924']
So you will let your allies get nuked until there's nothing left of them (potentially speaking), for your own purpose of preserving power?
[/quote]

You do realized we're being nuked too, right?

[Aurion]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 02:42 AM' timestamp='1265442155' post='2163930']
...to preserve our power? No, to prevent our allies and us from ending up in this situation in another month or two. They have shown a clear hostile intent, and that will not end here.

If our allies have a problem with us trying to prevent them from aggressively attacking us in the future, then they may address those complaints to us.
[/quote]

No Bob, you're [i]clearly[/i] using your allies as meatshields to further your hegemonic ambitions.

I KNOW THE TRUTH OF YOUR EVIL PLOT, SIR!

Edited February 6, 2010 by Aurion

[Bob]

[quote name='Arcades057' date='06 February 2010 - 02:46 AM' timestamp='1265442362' post='2163944']
So, wait, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and Archon and AirMe and... well, seemingly all of the other MK'rs around here these past few days. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but[/quote]
Err..yes. Archon and AirMe supported their allies. Damn them. I don't remember the circumstances, but damn that is a stretch.

[quote]
I know that this might take a little critical thinking in most of you, but to Archon and the rest of the MK'rs: Srsly, come off it. Stop acting like you were just sitting their minding your own business. I saw your nations prepared for war with Guerrilla Camps and all, and I'm a neutral observer. TOP/IRON and the rest pulled a GWIII Legion on you. Enough with the theatrics about "we were just sitting there in Defcon 1 with full troops and Guerrilla Camps because we LIKE doing that!" and bring some honest discourse back to CN.

You know, like Karma promised?
[/quote]
I think its been established word leaked of the preemptive attack and we moved to protect ourselves from it. There is a clear lack of OPSEC from their side evident there, but no plot by us. We heard about it, and reacted.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1265442278' post='2163942']
Their allies not being attacked in a few months and having to defend them again?


There was a CB. They dislike us.

And a moral high ground and positive PR do nothing for you when people are as obtuse are they are currently. Everyone finds a way to nitpick. We can either help us and our allies, or help out you and yours. I wonder who we are going to pick.
[/quote]

You can predict the future now? You know Citadel dissolved, right. And it is leadership responsibility to plan from now til a few months. This war is only continuing now by choice. To secure power and extract reps.

[Bob]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='06 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1265442596' post='2163953']
You can predict the future now? You know Citadel dissolved, right. And it is leadership responsibility to plan from now til a few months. This war is only continuing now by choice. To secure power and extract reps.
[/quote]
So..basically you are not arguing against my points and just stating the same thing over and over in order to make it seem like you are stating some great truth.

In terms of leadership planning for a few months from now, yes. This is them doing that. They are preventing this from happening again in a few months. Sorry that you don't approve.

What on earth does Citadel have to do with this? May the treaty rest in peace, and Umbrella continue to be our friends.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' date='06 February 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1265442434' post='2163947']
Just walking away from the war now simply ensures that it will resume at a later date. Their allies get nuked regardless. Why not now, rather than later?
[/quote]
practically speaking, it allows for more war on CN

It also lets the treaty web realign itself.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='05 February 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1265442596' post='2163953']
You can predict the future now? You know Citadel dissolved, right. And it is leadership responsibility to plan from now til a few months. This war is only continuing now by choice. To secure power and extract reps.
[/quote]
How is that different from the TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN decleration of war against C&G?

TOP and friends wanted to war with C&G to secure their power.
It turned out the sides have not added up to benefit TOP and friends, but how does that change their intent to damage C&G in order to secure their own power base?

[Moridin]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='05 February 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1265442596' post='2163953']
You can predict the future now? You know Citadel dissolved, right. And it is leadership responsibility to plan from now til a few months. This war is only continuing now by choice. To secure power and extract reps.
[/quote]

If one alliance attacks another alliance with the intent to remove it as a threat, the defender is not in any way obligated to give white peace whenever it's asked for. If I was C&G I would fight this war until its bitter end, when either myself or TOP was reduced to a smoking crater. TOP and IRON have shown themselves to be a danger to C&G, so I do not understand in the least the sentiment that C&G should end the war here and now.

[Doitzel]

Long live Emperor Grub.

lol...

[Aurion]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='06 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1265442596' post='2163953']
You can predict the future now? You know Citadel dissolved, right. And it is leadership responsibility to plan from now til a few months. This war is only continuing now by choice. To secure power and extract reps.
[/quote]

I'm gonna go ahead and point out that the issues C&G has are with TOP specifically, not the former Citadel alliances as a whole.

Edit: Damn it, Bob.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Aurion

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='06 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1265441457' post='2163884']
Which is why CnG was hit.

IRON was going to be forced to enter due to treaty obligations, and you were going to attack, and since you're in an MDAP bloc, you'd bring in the rest of CnG by default.

This is hardly rocket science.
[/quote]

So we were hit because we stated we would defend PC against any counter attacks . The only way I would see us engaging IRON is if NSO declared war on PC in defense of Polar, and IRON hitting us in defense of NSO. Since NSO declared on FOK, that removed one of the very few chances of Athens entering the war. There where other ways of entering, but this one seems to be the one you are using most to back up your argument.

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='06 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1265443008' post='2163976']
So we were hit because we stated we would defend PC against any counter attacks . The only way I would see us engaging IRON is if NSO declared war on PC in defense of Polar, and IRON hitting us in defense of NSO. Since NSO declared on FOK, that removed one of the very few chances of Athens entering the war. There where other ways of entering, but this one seems to be the one you are using most to back up your argument.
[/quote]
So MK wasn't going to defend FOK amirite?



edit: referring to this treaty http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52180

Edited February 6, 2010 by R3nowned

[neneko]

I do appriciate the effort you're putting in to trying to figure out exactly what the cb we were attacked with was but the "you were allied to our enemies" argument isn't holding up guys. You need a new angle on this.

How about the time machine approach? CnG have no proof that you don't have a time machine.

[Hyperion321]

So....is this a 3 sided war now?

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1265443216' post='2163983']
So MK wasn't going to defend FOK amirite?



edit: referring to this treaty http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52180
[/quote]


I wasn't talking about MK. I was talking about Athens.

[Bob]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1265443216' post='2163983']
So MK wasn't going to defend FOK amirite?



edit: referring to this treaty http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52180
[/quote]
Err.. FOK has been covered by other allies of theirs, and they had just declared war on our treaty partner in Polaris.

Quite frankly, I would not have been in favor of defending someone after they had just declared war on our ally. Things got confusing that war, very, and I have no idea what was going on MKwise D: we were all over the place emotionally.

He was referring to Athens though. Again, you try to argue something that didn't happen.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Starfox101]

Stepping down is a great decision.

You've done more harm than good for Polar as of late, regardless of what heights you led them to, it's quite clear your time is done.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Moridin' date='06 February 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1265442779' post='2163964']
If one alliance attacks another alliance with the intent to remove it as a threat, the defender is not in any way obligated to give white peace whenever it's asked for. If I was C&G I would fight this war until its bitter end, when either myself or TOP was reduced to a smoking crater. TOP and IRON have shown themselves to be a danger to C&G, so I do not understand in the least the sentiment that C&G should end the war here and now.
[/quote]

CnG aren't the only 7 fighting here. Can CnG state for sure that all those that have come in to aid CnG want to continue this war. Or are they willing to take white peace. If they choose white peace and TOP and co. also will accept white peace, then it has to be said that this war is continuing by CnG's choice. CnG Leaders have an obligation to CnG, yes. But they also have to consider those that came in to fight on your side and what they want out of this war. If continuing is what they choose, then at least its their choice. If not then they have to consider peace now.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Fernando12

[Prime minister Johns]

Screw it, I am just going to launch my nukes and if nothing is left of me at the end I will tip my hat and say good day to you sir and take my leave from this screwed up planet.

[KIADO]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='06 February 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1265443355' post='2163989']
So....is this a 3 sided war now?
[/quote]

I didnt see any war decs yet

[Venizelos]

this is what Polar should have done the night they declared their conflict with \m/ is over, instead of waiting a week, then declaring on our allies and actually worsening the chances NSO has of getting an easy peace.

[Bob]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='06 February 2010 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1265443569' post='2163999']
CnG aren't the only 7 fighting here. Can CnG state for sure that all those that have come in to aid CnG want to continue this war. Or are they willing to take white peace. If they choose white peace and TOP and co. also will accept white peace, then it has to be said that this war is continuing by CnG's choice. CnG Leaders have an obligation to CnG, yes. But you also have to consider those that came in to fight on your side and what they want out of this war. If continuing is what they choose, then at least its their choice. If not then you have to consider peace now.
[/quote]
You aren't in a place to make that request of CnG, my apologies. I can assure you that if our allies have problems, they know where we are and can talk to us about them.

You will not see any evidence of that here, as we know where to keep those discussion: in private.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='06 February 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1265443569' post='2163999']
CnG aren't the only 7 fighting here. Can CnG state for sure that all those that have come in to aid CnG want to continue this war. Or are they willing to take white peace. If they choose white peace and TOP and co. also will accept white peace, then it has to be said that this war is continuing by CnG's choice. CnG Leaders have an obligation to CnG, yes. But you also have to consider those that came in to fight on your side and what they want out of this war. If continuing is what they choose, then at least its their choice. If not then you have to consider peace now.
[/quote]

C&G can't guarantee their allies won't offer or accept white peace, but since we haven't seen that happen there's no reason to argue the point. If that were to happen C&G would be granting peace out of military necessity and not whatever insane moral obligation you think they have.

[bigwoody]

Honestly it is like I can't keep track of who is backstabbing who right now.

Good luck to whoever has to sort out this mess when this war ends.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1265443216' post='2163983']
So MK wasn't going to defend FOK amirite?



edit: referring to this treaty http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52180
[/quote]

Whats that? a non-chaining clause?