Joint Statement

[gambona]

need to take legion off of the list, their acceptance of peace from anyone would be veto'd by their council.

Edited February 18, 2010 by gambona

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Sunstar' date='17 February 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1266478093' post='2189190']
To those alliances listed by Canik above who entered the war through mandatory defensive treaty obligations, I wish you the best in your quest for white peace. To those alliances who entered this war through an oA or without any treaty cause, I personally will need to see a lot more on the table before I consider peace to be an appropriate course of action for you.
[/quote]

[quote name='Shinpah' date='17 February 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1266478195' post='2189201']
While I can't speak for the rest of the combatants, there is a special place in [s]my heart[/s] the depths of hell for those who oA into a CB-less war

I'm looking at you NATO and TFD [img]public/style_emoticons/default/facepalm.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Why? I'm pretty sure they knew they were on the losing side before they joined.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Chief Savage Man]

An interesting move I suppose.

[Alterego]

April 1st already? Yay peace

[King Xander the Only]

This is a nice grouping of nations.

Good luck.

[Comrade Korey]

Okay! Sounds like a good deal!

[NationRuler]

I'm gonna have to go ahead and keep launching my attacks....

Yeah...this is...awkward.....

[Lightning Count]

Wow, the aggressors are pleading for peace. Makes ya think they might just be feeling the pressure? lol

[Shinpah]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1266478318' post='2189207']
Why? I'm pretty sure they knew they were on the losing side before they joined.
[/quote]


Difference between mandatory defense and optional aggression; it's pretty clear that alliances that wish to wage aggressive war should be treated different in the end from those that are forced into a defensive conflict

[Nizzle]

This devolved into trashing the alliances in the OP, no way!

[quote name='Shinpah' date='18 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1266478508' post='2189215']
Difference between mandatory defense and optional aggression; it's pretty clear that alliances that wish to wage aggressive war should be treated different in the end from those that are forced into a defensive conflict
[/quote]

I would be careful with that, some of those on your side of the war used oA's to assist overwhelmed alliances.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Nizzle

[Callebaut]

Is this an attempt to even out the number of surrenders? I feel like it's fairly obvious that those who are on the receiving end of a retaliatory dogpile would be in favor of having their opponents peace out. It's convenient when supporting a "quick and satisfactory" end to war means safe backpedaling after a failed aggressive war.

As Sunstar said though, for those who entered through obligatory treaty causes, best of luck finding peace.

[gambona]

also, for the people who so vocally pointed out in other threads, if there are conditions, it is not white peace. We prefer Argyle peace because of the neutrality clause.

[Comrade Korey]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266478509' post='2189216']
This devolved into trashing the alliances in the OP, no way!
[/quote]
[i]Brilliant[/i] political move

^Is that meme dead yet? And I cannot even imagine the logic behind posting this

[Fort Pitt]

I'm going to go ahead and say that only the irrelivant alliances of those listed above will be getting peace soon, unless you guys want to admit defeat.

Like others, it ain't happening.

[The FSM]

This is admirable to say the least, however I do not believe you will get more than a few takers on this.

Good luck getting peace though folks.

[LordAkanata]

This is fine for those alliances that entered through treaties.

Speaking as a member of an alliance attacked at the outset, WITHOUT A CB, white peace is totally unacceptable for TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN.

[Darth Blitzer]

Well if this threads purpose was to garner a peace for your alliances................. i don't see how this helps that process at all

if this thread was an attempt at PR, i don't think it's helping in that department either

so uh, yeah good luck with that O_o

[Alterego]

[quote name='LordAkanata' date='18 February 2010 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1266478729' post='2189226']
This is fine for those alliances that entered through treaties.

Speaking as a member of an alliance attacked at the outset, WITHOUT A CB, white peace is totally unacceptable for TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN.
[/quote]
Dont forget PC

[Darklink7748]

How about no?

[img]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/abinidab/straws.jpg[/img]

[Sunstar]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1266478318' post='2189207']
Why? I'm pretty sure they knew they were on the losing side before they joined.
[/quote]
Even if it were true (which doesn't make sense, because who would declare an aggressive war without a CB they knew they would lose?), why does it matter? They attacked a group of alliances for no reason, and until they actually make some attempt to pay for the damage they caused, war should continue.

Again, good luck to the alliances on there who weren't foolishly aggressive in achieving white peace for themselves.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='18 February 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1266478187' post='2189200']
Since people on both sides of the war have accepted terms just like these, this is a thread that makes sense.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are just going to ignore that fact and act like jerks in this thread.
[/quote]
I think preemptively calling people jerks is, in a way, being a jerk.

That said, it wouldn't be a satisfactory end. So there you have it.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Shinpah' date='18 February 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1266478508' post='2189215']
Difference between mandatory defense and optional aggression; it's pretty clear that alliances that wish to wage aggressive war should be treated different in the end from those that are forced into a defensive conflict
[/quote]

Actually it has nothing to do with that. NATO had their friends in IRON in a tough position and joined in to relieve them from a situation that wasn't entirely their fault they were caught in, regardless of agreeing with the move made or not. As for TFD, the nature of our bond with NATO generally takes us where they go and vice-versa. They sure had no problem in coming with us against Umbrella on oA just three weeks ago, we weren't going to leave them hanging now either.

NATO had the opportunity to stay out? Yes, they had. Would you leave one of your CnG friends die alone because of a badly thought move? Somehow I doubt it.

EDIT: spelling

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lusitan

[PakAttack]

I applaud this announcement. Someone is trying to end this conflict in an honorable way.

[nutkase]

[quote name='LordAkanata' date='18 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1266478729' post='2189226']
white peace is totally unacceptable for TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN.
[/quote]

Only thing I can somewhat agree with. All others in my mind should receive White Peace.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Sunstar' date='18 February 2010 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1266478093' post='2189190']To those alliances who entered this war through an oA or without any treaty cause, I personally will need to see a lot more on the table before I consider peace to be an appropriate course of action for you.
[/quote]
I look forward to your declaration of war on FAN.