Joint Statement

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1266551514' post='2191287']
Because that would be boring, and would make you boring leaders if you just cut to the chase everytime.


Don't be so assuming of other peoples actions. You might be wrong.
[/quote]

yeah, may have been boring but at the time it seemed the best course of action to take to our leaders.

i see you edited in and i'm not trying to be an $@! about all these. buuuut, if seems leadershiped assumed right as Archon has stated that he'd be treaty bound to enter the conflict if TOP/friends entered.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1266551147' post='2191262']
So, Archon was wrong as well?
[/quote]
wrong about what.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1266551031' post='2191258']
So because C&G was prepared to defend their allies from [i]your[/i] attacks...[i]they[/i] are the aggressive threat to [i]you?[/i]. TOP might as well have attacked Sparta too, since we are honor bound to defend C&G. Then TOP's allies might as well have pre-empted our allies, as we are all honor bounded to defend eachother.

Reading a treaty web and figuring out who will hit you if you hit their friends does not make them a threat, it makes them people who will hit you if you hit their friends. You can't try to say C&G was something that they are not. You just can't.
[/quote]

I'm not saying they were an agressive threat to us. TOP can speak to their belief CnG was a threat (although i don't think they ever used the term "aggressive threat" just "threat"), but I am saying from the context of the coalition CnG was a threat. They were a threat to us winning the war.

[quote]a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon,some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
[/quote]

Archon confirms that there was an intention to inflict "injury" "in retaliation for" "some action" AKA our side defending our treaty obligations to assist in the Polar-\m/ war. These were just the facts of the matter.

You are more than welcome to dispute the decision to preempt, but that is and was a military calculation based on the facts which we had available to us. We fealt given the closeness of the original numbers our preemptive action was necessary to our side's success in this war. And yes, by that logic we could have preempted Sparta as well. For various military reasons we did not believe that to be a good use of our strength and skill. That is what it boils down to.

I like now though that we are now at least getting it down to we wern't a "aggressive threat" instead of we weren't a "threat". That is a much more tenable position, but it doesn't change the military calculations.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266551770' post='2191300']
wrong about what.
[/quote]

Wrong about the fact that C&G was prepared to defend it's allies instead of sitting on the fence citing conflicting treaties...

[Saber]

Please don't discuss whether the preemptive attack was right or not. It was debated to death in 10 other threads and let's leave this to the topic at question.

For everyone wondering why I haven't responded to your questions, in Novada night fell long time ago and I am going to sleep. Good night.

Paradox Vult! [img]http://ordoparadox.com/top/style_emoticons/default/TOPpatriot.gif[/img]

[Sandwich Controversy]

You've got a handful to remove, I think.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1266548902' post='2191107']
You reckon I could get in on that? After all I made that 'rust in peace" sig you guys are wearing(ask your ephor of internal ) I have credentials and everything.
[/quote]


[quote name='TypoNinja' date='18 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1266550201' post='2191209']
Can I get in on that? I've always wanted to be a viceroy of something, I bet I can swing a bribe or two if needed.
[/quote]

All applications must be turned in here: http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=292607&Extended=1

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1266551948' post='2191309']
Wrong about the fact that C&G was prepared to defend it's allies instead of sitting on the fence citing conflicting treaties...
[/quote]
um...no? I just said that is what they did.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1266551980' post='2191310']
Please don't discuss whether the preemptive attack was right or not. It was debated to death in 10 other threads and let's leave this to the topic at question.
[/quote]

I agree with that. Though I will ceed that the decision to preemptively strike was more debatable. Though that is a discussion for military minds, not FA guys like myself.

edit: I am stepping out for a minute, I hope when I come back I have either a decent rebuttal to my comment, or an admission that my logic is sound.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1266551980' post='2191310']
Please don't discuss whether the preemptive attack was right or not. It was debated to death in 10 other threads and let's leave this to the topic at question.

For everyone wondering why I haven't responded to your questions, in Novada night fell long time ago and I am going to sleep. Good night.

Paradox Vult! [img]http://ordoparadox.com/top/style_emoticons/default/TOPpatriot.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Obviously it's been debated out here more than inside of TOP. I still can't believe you let Crym get away with going against Heptagon and authorizing the pre-emptive strike himself without their consent.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266552388' post='2191322']
Obviously it's been debated out here more than inside of TOP. I still can't believe you let Crym get away with going against Heptagon and authorizing the pre-emptive strike himself without their consent.
[/quote]
I guess you learn something new every day!
[img]http://addlepated.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the_more_you_know.jpg[/img]

Seriously I didn't know that until just now. I'm not really shocked either.

[scythegfx]

Slightly Pathetic and Desperate imo.

[Lord Curzon]

Really no one wants to respond to #603... I assume then no one disagrees with that line of thinking.

Edit: [OOC] Since I see Londo reading this, and Hyperion as well (whom I was most directly debating) I assume you both have no response. I suggest someone summon Archon to see you guys can come up with a rebuttal.[/OOC]

Edited February 19, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[joracy]

Well this is certainly interesting.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1266553483' post='2191378']
Really no one wants to respond to #603... I assume then no one disagrees with that line of thinking.
[/quote]
haven't got around to it yet. got a war to plan.

Never assume anything. I figured this war would have taught that lesson to everyone already.

[Eden Taylor]

Wow, I'm a member of one of the listed alliances, and I agree with anyone that's already said that this is a lame thread.

[twodivine]

* Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States
* Death Before Dishonor
* Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations
* DOOM
[s] * Echelon[/s]
* Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics
[s] * Global Democratic Alliance[/s]
* Global United Nations
[s] * ICB[/s]
* Independent Republic Of Orange Nations
* Invicta
* Menotah
* Molon Labe
* NATO
[s] * North Atlantic Defense Coalition[/s]
* Old Guard
* Olympus
* OMFG
* SNAFU
* The Foreign Division
* The Legion
* The Order of Light
* The Order of Righteous Nations
* The Order Of The Paradox
* The Phoenix Federation
* The Sweet Oblivion
[s] * United Blue Directorate[/s]
[s] * United Commonwealth Of Nations[/s]
[s] * United Sovereign Nations[/s]
* Valhalla
* Veritas Aequitas
* Zenith

This is getting to be a very small list. Who's next to get off the battlefield and seek peace?


Edit: Striked another off the list.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Myworld

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1266553800' post='2191397']
haven't got around to it yet. got a war to plan.

Never assume anything. I figured this war would have taught that lesson to everyone already.
[/quote]

haha touche sir. I look forward to reading it. btw if you have any questions feel free to hit me up on IRC

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1266554155' post='2191421']
haha touche sir. I look forward to reading it. btw if you have any questions feel free to hit me up on IRC
[/quote]
I might have to take you up on that. quads in 5 wars is a lot to coordinate :v

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1266554522' post='2191456']
I might have to take you up on that. quads in 5 wars is a lot to coordinate :v
[/quote]

Trust me... I know

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1266553483' post='2191378']
Really no one wants to respond to #603... I assume then no one disagrees with that line of thinking.
[/quote]

I'd be delighted to disagree with it, but frankly, I have no idea what point you were attempting to make. I read it three times, so you can't fault me for not trying.

[Choader]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1266553483' post='2191378']
Really no one wants to respond to #603... I assume then no one disagrees with that line of thinking.

Edit: [OOC] Since I see Londo reading this, and Hyperion as well (whom I was most directly debating) I assume you both have no response. I suggest someone summon Archon to see you guys can come up with a rebuttal.[/OOC]
[/quote]
What's there to respond to? You claimed you were defending your treaty obligations to assist in the Polar-\m/ war. With that kind of remark you're obviously a less then sane lunatic and any response would be a fruitless waste of time.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266554825' post='2191477']
What's there to respond to? You claimed you were defending your treaty obligations to assist in the Polar-\m/ war. With that kind of remark you're obviously a less then sane lunatic and any response would be a fruitless waste of time.
[/quote]

Ahh ok so we have reached the point of repetition. I suppose you're right, if you are not intellectually honest enough to accept there was a connection to the Polar-\m/ war we really do not have anything to talk about.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1266553483' post='2191378']
[OOC] Since I see Londo reading this, and Hyperion as well (whom I was most directly debating) I assume you both have no response. I suggest someone summon Archon to see you guys can come up with a rebuttal.[/OOC]
[/quote]
I'm just keeping this thread open to see if any TOPpers will eventually respond to [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2191322]610[/url]. I've seen five of them come in and out of here, start a response, then leave.

[Choader]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1266555411' post='2191513']
Ahh ok so we have reached the point of repetition. I suppose you're right, if you are not intellectually honest enough to accept there was a connection to the Polar-\m/ war we really do not have anything to talk about.
[/quote]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1266551811' post='2191302']
Archon confirms that there was an intention to inflict "injury" "in retaliation for" [b]"some action" AKA our side [size="5"]defending our treaty obligations[/size] to assist in the Polar-\m/ war[/b]. These were just the facts of the matter.
[/quote]
Please.