Joint Statement

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1266608410' post='2192325']
I know that at face value TOP did enter to help IRON defend NSO, but I can't help looking at Crym's words and see that as a shell for the real reason.



That right there shows that Crym, regardless of your belief in defending IRON over just going after C&G, was in this war for personal reasons. He authorized the pre-emptive strike [i]against the heptagon[/i] (in my opinion) so that he could facilitate the defeat of C&G. What he planned to do with C&G if he won is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that this war was mostly not about strategic maneuvering at all - instead it was about one man's personal agenda against an entire bloc, and he abused his power to interpret his alliance's laws in order to carry out that agenda.

Perhaps I seem heated in this argument, maybe even overly so, but nothing angers me more than an alliance leader putting his personal goals above those of his people. Pre-empting C&G and calling it an "interpretation" is just plain selfish on his part and not fair to your members at all. They deserve better treatment than that. Yes, technically Crym authorizing the pre-emptive strike could be called "legal" given his amount of power to interpret your charter, but that does not make it right given the true reasons for said decision. In fact, it's about as far from right as possible. He came into this war to assist in Polar's moral war...but he sacrificed those morals to do so.
[/quote]

Given that I am neither in TOP nor privy to Cryson's private thoughts I will not attempt to give you a full answer. I will merely point out that the phrase

[quote]much our reason[/quote]

does not mean

[quote]war was mostly not about strategic maneuvering at all[/quote]

You can argue that "much" was not about strategic maneuvering, but the fact remains that "much" is not equal to "mostly". Given TOP's commitment to white peace for CnG before the attack, I find it difficult to believe that the primary motivation was the complete destruction of CnG beyond the conflict at hand. My perception of Crymson's motives was primarily to win the NpO-\m/ war, if CnG got damaged in the process that was a bonus rather than the goal. But again, I don't claim to speak for him, just adding my observations.

[Krack]

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1266613861' post='2192424']
I was just answering the guy who asked what bloc was being discussed. Since you used the term "bloc" to refer to the TOP/IRON side of the war, I was pointing out that the term was being used loosely. But if you want to continue to be insecure and put words in my mouth feel free. I was just quoting what you said and in fact made no judgments about it other than it's an incorrect use of the term "bloc".
[/quote]

Not when I was referring to Duckroll, which I was. It appears to me that everyone else is going to wind up getting white peace and not destroyed, regardless of how long the war goes (except for TOP, but I think that was kind of obvious).

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I admit, I could have expressed myself more clearly because what I wrote made it sound like I was including TOP in the bloc that was being destroyed; which was not my intention. To make my statement clearer: Any influence Duckroll has is because of their ties to TOP and its military strength; that strength is being wasted.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Krack

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266614796' post='2192440']
Not when I was referring to Duckroll, which I was. It appears to me that everyone else is going to wind up getting white peace and not destroyed, regardless of how long the war goes.
[/quote]

Duckroll is not a bloc, so you're still wrong. This is irrelevant though, which is what stetson is saying.

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1266614985' post='2192444']
Duckroll is not a bloc, so you're still wrong. This is irrelevant though, which is what stetson is saying.
[/quote]

Okay, fair enough. Since it needs a moniker, I'm going to start referring to it as a "Coordination of Failed Alliances" or "Cofa". Your cofa is being destroyed. It is a result of your own actions.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1266615236' post='2192448']
Okay, fair enough. Since it needs a moniker, I'm going to start referring to it as a "Coordination of Failed Alliances" or "Cofa". Your cofa is being destroyed. It is a result of your own actions.
[/quote]

I think his point is simply that we ought not to nit pick. If you want to call it a bloc, whatever, we all know what you mean.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1266614639' post='2192438']
You can argue that "much" was not about strategic maneuvering, but the fact remains that "much" is not equal to "mostly". Given TOP's commitment to white peace for CnG before the attack, I find it difficult to believe that the primary motivation was the complete destruction of CnG beyond the conflict at hand. My perception of Crymson's motives was primarily to win the NpO-\m/ war, if CnG got damaged in the process that was a bonus rather than the goal. But again, I don't claim to speak for him, just adding my observations.
[/quote]
I still don't see eye to eye with you on this.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266615898' post='2192461']
I think his point is simply that we ought not to nit pick. If you want to call it a bloc, whatever, we all know what you mean.
[/quote]

I think I want to call it a cofa.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1266575015' post='2191834']
You know what my analysis [i]does[/i] acknowledge? That your side of the war has less NS, Score, nations, and nukes. How's that for "reality of the situation on the ground"? Here's some [u]more[/u] acknowledgment of reality ... every day this war continues, your side gets weaker (compared to its opponents). And here's the coup de gras of reality acknowledgment: If TOP ever reaches the point where its warchests are empty (and its rapidly approaching), your side might as well pack it in as far as considering yourselves influential global powers; without their tech, your bloc is impotent.
[/quote]
Bloc?

TOP is not in a bloc. Remember how Karma was not a bloc, but a wartime coalition?

There ya go.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='pigsticker' date='19 February 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1266600183' post='2192189']
just a query, knowing crymsom's massive dislike for C&G, will he ever be put into a position again where he could act out his innermost dislikes, bearing mind that his actions could always have the suspicion that it's motivated by his dislikes.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that part of TOP's terms should be the banning of Crymson from government, similar to how caffine was barred from Echelon government and Chris Kaos banned from GATO government?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1266615236' post='2192448']
Okay, fair enough. Since it needs a moniker, I'm going to start referring to it as a "Coordination of Failed Alliances" or "Cofa". Your cofa is being destroyed. It is a result of your own actions.
[/quote]

bloc wasnt the right term to use. i was in a hurry and wanted to get a post in. but Duckroll isnt going anywhere just because of this war.

[Facade]

Wait, the losing side is offering white peace?

I'd take it if I were you C&G. You never know when they might all of a sudden win.

[Lafiel]

[quote name='General Witz' date='18 February 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1266479392' post='2189267']
A fair proposal and a great showing of diplomatic cohesion between all alliances who co-signed this offer, well done to the leadership involved
[/quote]

Good Propaganda I'm Sure Gobels would have been very proud of you if you have been worked under him.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Lafiel' date='19 February 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1266628664' post='2192740']
Good Propaganda I'm Sure Gobels would have been very proud of you if you have been worked under him.
[/quote]

Really. Gobels. You're gonna go there?!? Wow I didn't realize the mud slinging had reached such a fever pitch. I figured we could at least have a shred of decency and mutual respect.

[OOC]btw I think you mean "Goebbels" not "Gobels"[/OOC]

Edited February 20, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266615954' post='2192464']
I still don't see eye to eye with you on this.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]

Fair enough. Like I said, just adding my observations having interacted with him. I'll leave TOP to speak for TOP. I can however say from TORN's perspective that this was about winning the war at hand and standing with our allies, but I realize thats not really what you're interested in. I will continue to contend that this was the primary motivation for the other members as well, but you're right we'll have to agree to disagree.

In any event, I think we can certainly both agree that this issue is not nearly as black and white as the current propaganda would have us believe, and is by no means "TOP is paranoid and evil, ect, ect". That is a silly line which doesn't do justice to the intricacies of the situation.

[pigsticker]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1266621875' post='2192617']
Are you suggesting that part of TOP's terms should be the banning of Crymson from government, similar to how caffine was barred from Echelon government and Chris Kaos banned from GATO government?
[/quote]
It could be an option instead of reps. Seeing that he seemed to be acting on his own personal agenda (maybe), his actions to the ouside world will always be tainted by the suspicion.

It does not have to be a total ban, but more along the highest level of the government and maybe the FA side of things.
He could still contribute to his alliance internally.

After all C&G claims to want to remove TOP as a threat to them, so what better way than for C&G to remove this threat by allowing more level-headed(i.e. less emotional persons to lead TOP.

Some people might be offended as it might constitute an interference in the direct governance of their alliance, but it's just an idea that might be explored.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='pigsticker' date='19 February 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1266638463' post='2192898']
It could be an option instead of reps. Seeing that he seemed to be acting on his own personal agenda (maybe), his actions to the ouside world will always be tainted by the suspicion.

It does not have to be a total ban, but more along the highest level of the government and maybe the FA side of things.
He could still contribute to his alliance internally.

[b]After all C&G claims to want to remove TOP as a threat to them, so what better way than for C&G to remove this threat by allowing more level-headed(i.e. less emotional persons to lead TOP.
[/b]
Some people might be offended as it might constitute an interference in the direct governance of their alliance, but it's just an idea that might be explored.
[/quote]

Only mildly ironic, tbqh.

[RePePe]

The minute an alliance let's a foreign power control aspects of its government, is the minute that alliance's members lose sovereignty.

For it is very unlikely for Alliance A to win a war and then pass up on the opportunity to further itself with forced changes to enemy Alliance B.

Prosperity in the hands of an enemy cannot surpass a weakened, but free, state.

[LOLtex]

[quote name='pigsticker' date='19 February 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1266638463' post='2192898']
It could be an option instead of reps. Seeing that he seemed to be acting on his own personal agenda (maybe), his actions to the ouside world will always be tainted by the suspicion.

It does not have to be a total ban, but more along the highest level of the government and maybe the FA side of things.
He could still contribute to his alliance internally.

After all C&G claims to want to remove TOP as a threat to them, so what better way than for C&G to remove this threat by allowing more level-headed(i.e. less emotional persons to lead TOP.

Some people might be offended as it might constitute an interference in the direct governance of their alliance, but it's just an idea that might be explored.
[/quote]

Pretty sure we're not going to accept any surrender terms that destroys one of the most vital aspects of our alliance, democracy.

[MarcusFuriusCamillus]

[quote name='LOLtex' date='20 February 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1266646996' post='2193174']
Pretty sure we're not going to accept any surrender terms that destroys one of the most vital aspects of our alliance, democracy.
[/quote]

The same concept that gave your alliance Darth Vincent, Heroray (both top 20 nations now gone), Jstep, Yir, and other members of ONOS when Ivan Moldavi became their viceroy and led to their total collapse, thus leapfrogging TOP into the mix where they formally weren't even a blink in a sanctions eye?

TOP never engaged in wars, or if they did, they were certain it would be a curbstomping.... welcome to the jungle, stop crying that the defenders are defending too much. If you wanted a quick war, you shouldn't have stuck your noses in at all. Retribution? Vengeance? Call it what you will... I firmly believe if you can't handle the losses, don't go to Vegas thinking you are gonna win and not preparing for losses. What exactly was TOP's exit strategy coming in? win and bully the losers into giving you MORE tech? Right back at ya. And stop blaming Crymson's judgement like he ruled with an iron fist and his followers were forced to go along.... that was/is NOT how a "democracy" works if I'm not mistaken.

Edited February 20, 2010 by MFC

[Ying Yang Mafia]

Well if [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81217"]this is white peace[/url] then I can't really say I complain.

[wickedj]

Somehow i find it amusing and a tad ironic that no more than 24 hours after this announcement did roughly a dozen of the aforementioned alliances leave the war

[Krashnaia]

Are you planning to update the list?

'cuz seems that about half of it has already ditched the TOP/IRON warmongers.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Krashnaia

[raasaa]

[quote name='wickedj' date='20 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1266652179' post='2193345']
Somehow i find it amusing and a tad ironic that no more than 24 hours after this announcement did roughly a dozen of the aforementioned alliances leave the war
[/quote]
Things can get confusing during wartime. Maybe they read it as "if we sign and post this, we will get white peace". So once it was posted they started talking to their attackers for peace

[Haflinger]

How is it surprising that not long after a group of alliances posts a peace offer, some of them leave the war?

[avernite]

[quote name='pigsticker' date='20 February 2010 - 05:01 AM' timestamp='1266638463' post='2192898']
It could be an option instead of reps. Seeing that he seemed to be acting on his own personal agenda (maybe), his actions to the ouside world will always be tainted by the suspicion.

It does not have to be a total ban, but more along the highest level of the government and maybe the FA side of things.
He could still contribute to his alliance internally.

After all C&G claims to want to remove TOP as a threat to them, so what better way than for C&G to remove this threat by allowing more level-headed(i.e. less emotional persons to lead TOP.

Some people might be offended as it might constitute an interference in the direct governance of their alliance, but it's just an idea that might be explored.
[/quote]

It would require an amendment of our Charter, not to mention being plain unacceptable.

So, no.