Joint Statement

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1266508445' post='2189698']
Well, this went over as a resounding success.

I do believe that a lot of people are being overly harsh in regards to the majority of alliances included in the declaration. Many alliances entered because of direct treaty ties and only fulfilled their moral/legal/ethical/whatever obligation to their allies. It is relatively easy, at least in my opinion, to see their point of view in regards to not wanting this to escalate further.

The New Sith Order is not a part of this declaration because we are not part of any coalition, regardless of the perception of sides from outsiders. We don't fight for a crusade and we never fought to see another bloc or alliance destroyed. We fight for our allies. The only coalition that I could ever reasonably have considered waging war for/with (aside from Terra Cotta, which is protective of Brown specifically) was Frostbite. And to a certain extent that coalition, or the spiriti of it anyway, is the reason we are fighting in this war from the beginning. And we can all see how well that has played out for us, right?
[/quote]

At least it got you some respect from me (that has to count for something right?), and probably lots of others as well. While others lost NS [b]and [/b]respect.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kriekfreak

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1266508372' post='2189697']
It is very simple...
All of the alliances that activated treaties that had a non-chaining clause in it [i]chose[/i] to support TOP/IRON in their war of agression, and as such should be treated accordingly.
[/quote]

Right. So it's completely acceptable to point to the non-chaining clause when an ally is going to get stomped. However, it's perfectly OK to ignore the non-chaining clause when your ally is on the winning side.

I wonder, what do you think should happen if our (Umbrella & FOK's) side were to lose somehow...do you think Umbrella should be punished for ignoring the non-chaining clause?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='18 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1266508370' post='2189696']
So then we all die together...but hey, it's the principle of the thing, right? I mean white peace can't ever be mutually agreed to, it has to be offered, like mercy in the arena.

God, this thread is making my eyes hurt. Too much rolling.
[/quote]

You were the ones who signed the treaties so yes, as you say "We all die together". If a military treaty is not signed with the essence that you would be willing to lose everything for that alliance, you have signed an awful military treaty. Now with that said, white peace has to be offered... but usually, and in this case, the "victors" ( A) there are no victors in war and B) no one has won yet) have to be the ones who offer it because, well, your set of alliances aren't in the position to offer any terms.

Take it as you may, it's reality. Do I agree with it? No. The Karma War showed something great: it showed how we had the moral capacity to offer white peace to those who were fighting out of obligation, not necessarily out of agreement. [b]Even in the No Vision War[/b] (1V-GATO War), USN, who came in defense of CSN, received white peace, though granted they were alone in that regard.

Edited February 18, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='tobiash' date='18 February 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1266508617' post='2189703']
To bad that my 'Showing the future TV' was at the repairshop the last couple months!

Does that mean that if NpO had said: 'We dont feel like declaring on TOP, because we dont agree with you' then you would not have been shoutting: 'Treaty-breaker'.
[/quote]
I personally wouldn't have. This "just following treaties" thing was one of the key excuses people used in justifying joining in on Pacifican beatdowns (right, TOP?). It seems that this war has seen the full-fledged return of two relics of the "Pax Pacifica" era - ridiculous treaty chaining and the "just following treaties" mentality. I guess I was optimistic in hoping both had been dynamited.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1266508116' post='2189693']
For a member of an alliance who belongs to the "friends > infra" group, this is quite hilarious to see. Quite telling, too. I'm reminded of a scene from a movie called "Snatch"...something about balls and a Desert Eagle.
[/quote]

funny, the past few weeks have reminded me of a couple of scenes from movies...
from Back to the Future, where Biff and his lackeys pull Marty out of the car, beat him up a bit, drag him around back and dump him into the trunk of the band's car. The band gets out of the car, the lackeys !@#$ their pants, and try to pass the whole thing off as a misunderstanding, before tucking their tails and running away.
TOP&Co./Biff&lackeys, CnG/Marty, CnG's allies/Band, Archon/Doc Brown

from Tombstone, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are forced by violence from their quieter days of being Entrepreneurs within the growing town of Tombstone. The outlaw gang known as "The Cowboys" threaten Wyatt's retired lifestyle and opens up war against the successful Earp Family. Aided by the quick and cunning Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp fulfills a Mexican priest's prophesy of raging death and destruction to the Cowboys and brings Hell with him.
TOP&Co./Curly Bill & Cowboys, CnG/Earps, CnG's allies/Earps' supporters, Archon/Doc Holiday

There are several more if you are interested...

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='18 February 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1266508916' post='2189709']
I personally wouldn't have. This "just following treaties" thing was one of the key excuses people used in justifying joining in on Pacifican beatdowns (right, TOP?). It seems that this war has seen the full-fledged return of two relics of the "Pax Pacifica" era - ridiculous treaty chaining and the "just following treaties" mentality. I guess I was optimistic in hoping both had been dynamited.
[/quote]
I personally believe, and have said so consistently since the beginning, that any idealism that actual change will take place is erroneously based on the belief that those in power in general will act in accordance to means that would easily see their power truncated.

Most people don't put the effort in to become top dog only to willingly and freely give their new bone away.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1266508716' post='2189705']
Right. So it's completely acceptable to point to the non-chaining clause when an ally is going to get stomped. However, it's perfectly OK to ignore the non-chaining clause when your ally is on the winning side.

I wonder, what do you think should happen if our (Umbrella & FOK's) side were to lose somehow...do you think Umbrella should be punished for ignoring the non-chaining clause?
[/quote]
No, it doesn't have to do with stomping, losing or anything like that at all.
It is about the cause of this war, a war of [i]agression[/i]. By declaring war on alliances that are countering TOP/IRON you are not "defending them from agression", but rather supporting them in their agression. This makes you as much at fault for this war as TOP/IRON. Those are different things, no matter how many people will believe they are "defending their friends [from agression]", it simply isn't true.

[Tick1]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1266478318' post='2189207']
Why? I'm pretty sure they knew they were on the losing side before they joined.
[/quote]

Please refer to the DoW, then refer to the shift in the war. (Shift: When Polar finally made a decision)

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1266509145' post='2189717']
No, it doesn't have to do with stomping, losing or anything like that at all.
It is about the cause of this war, a war of [i]agression[/i]. By declaring war on alliances that are countering TOP/IRON you are not "defending them from agression", but rather supporting them in their agression. This makes you as much at fault for this war as TOP/IRON. Those are different things, no matter how many people will believe they are "defending their friends [from agression]", it simply isn't true.
[/quote]
Any escalated war involves alliances joining in on a side of aggression. The party that declares does so because they have the assurance that if they are countered upon their allies will defend them. When this fails and alliances do not honor their treaties they are called cowards and considered bad allies, when they do honor their treaties and join in to defend their allies they are demonized by the enemy. That is just how it works. There is no right or wrong in the equation. Justification implies a moral absolute that simply does not exist.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1266509102' post='2189716']
I personally believe, and have said so consistently since the beginning, that any idealism that actual change will take place is erroneously based on the belief that those in power in general will act in accordance to means that would easily see their power truncated.

Most people don't put the effort in to become top dog only to willingly and freely give their new bone away.
[/quote]
Such an analysis might be accurate if the change in political power had been over how was ruling and not a structural change of [i]how[/i] someone rules. After the Karma War this was a multipolar world, with power divided amongst Frostbite, TOP and its vassals, and CnG (with SF tied loosely to them but wielding less political power). The mexican standoff that resulted from that reduced the severity of things like Pax Pacifica's beatdowns, because no political axis wanted to become "the bad guys" and open themselves up to attacks from the other two sides. That's part of why the TPF non-war folded so quickly. TOP and (ex)Frostbite were set at the start of this war because they were working together against the other third, but kind of fell apart.

Furthermore, I think we [i]have[/i] seen some change since Karma - permanent ZI has been disavowed by a lot of alliances and seems to be used a lot less. Certainly the main practitioners are no longer in a position to use it and most of those with political power now do not. It was certainly made into a bigger deal than it was by the necessity of those resisting Pacifica, but I think it's basically over. There's some change right there.

EDIT: it's worth considering that if the NSO had stayed out of this war at the very start, and Polar had dealt with \m/, PC, and FOK! by themselves, it would have been an even fight and it would have prevented the serious blunders that have happened on your side. I suspect that FOK! or one of the others would've continued to escalate the war, meaning you would have gotten involved anyway, but just an interesting possibility.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Gopherbashi]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1266508445' post='2189698']
Well, this went over as a resounding success.

I do believe that a lot of people are being overly harsh in regards to the majority of alliances included in the declaration. Many alliances entered because of direct treaty ties and only fulfilled their moral/legal/ethical/whatever obligation to their allies. It is relatively easy, at least in my opinion, to see their point of view in regards to not wanting this to escalate further.

The New Sith Order is not a part of this declaration because we are not part of any coalition, regardless of the perception of sides from outsiders. We don't fight for a crusade and we never fought to see another bloc or alliance destroyed. We fight for our allies. The only coalition that I could ever reasonably have considered waging war for/with (aside from Terra Cotta, which is protective of Brown specifically) was Frostbite. And to a certain extent that coalition, or the spiriti of it anyway, is the reason we are fighting in this war from the beginning. And we can all see how well that has played out for us, right?
[/quote]
Amen, brother.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1266509145' post='2189717']
No, it doesn't have to do with stomping, losing or anything like that at all.
It is about the cause of this war, a war of [i]agression[/i]. By declaring war on alliances that are countering TOP/IRON you are not "defending them from agression", but rather supporting them in their agression. This makes you as much at fault for this war as TOP/IRON. Those are different things, no matter how many people will believe they are "defending their friends [from agression]", it simply isn't true.
[/quote]

As dear Archon taught us during the Athens/Knights of Ni! debacle, just because a friend took a poor decision and is in the middle of a messed up situation, their friends won't let him die alone. Now, you can see it as supporting a war of agression, but personally (and apparently to Archon too in that situation), standing behind that friend has little to do with supporting their actions.

[Bob Janova]

If only the raiding side was reasonable we wouldn't even be here today.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='18 February 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1266509805' post='2189724']
Such an analysis might be accurate if the change in political power had been over how was ruling and not a structural change of [i]how[/i] someone rules. After the Karma War this was a multipolar world, with power divided amongst Frostbite, TOP and its vassals, and CnG (with SF tied loosely to them but wielding less political power). The mexican standoff that resulted from that reduced the severity of things like Pax Pacifica's beatdowns, because no political axis wanted to become "the bad guys" and open themselves up to attacks from the other two sides. That's part of why the TPF non-war folded so quickly. TOP and (ex)Frostbite were set at the start of this war because they were working together against the other third, but kind of fell apart.

Furthermore, I think we [i]have[/i] seen some change since Karma - permanent ZI has been disavowed by a lot of alliances and seems to be used a lot less. Certainly the main practitioners are no longer in a position to use it and most of those with political power now do not. It was certainly made into a bigger deal than it was by the necessity of those resisting Pacifica, but I think it's basically over. There's some change right there.
[/quote]
I don't believe the world has been multi-polar. The ex-hegemony group was more or less beat down in Karma and were not really an effective power again until recently, even if they had some level of influence and while I would like to personally claim that Frostbite was some big badass coalition it was two mid tier alliances and one big alliance and that is it. Realistically, not a real powerhouse, even if my bravado and hubris would portray it otherwise.

The world has effectively been reduced to one hyperpower, CnG, with one tag-a-long, SF and a few peripheral groupings. If CnG wanted (wants?) something to happen, it generally happened. I know first hand that MK had more influence within Frostbite than NSO, a signatory, did because of its longstanding ties with STA and Polar. I believe the same could be said for SF with other allliances connectivity.

Karma saw the emergence of CnG as the ultimate force in the Cyberverse. I can't fault them for it, they did a good job at securing the post. I never bought into the idea of a "brave new world" and believe that by and large the status quo has been maintained, just that the key players on the stage have shifted.

As far as the idea of perma-ZI goes, the only reason that has changed is because one alliance pushed it a lot (apparently - it never did so when I was around before) and that alliance lost control. If such a policy had been in effect within MK and the general CnG population then I do not believe we would be observing any substantive difference now.

Again, this isn't a critique of CnG at all. I believe in the might makes right principle, I created it here, so I can't fault them for using their authority, but I believe a lot of people are deluded about what that actually entails.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='18 February 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1266509805' post='2189724']
EDIT: it's worth considering that if the NSO had stayed out of this war at the very start, and Polar had dealt with \m/, PC, and FOK! by themselves, it would have been an even fight and it would have prevented the serious blunders that have happened on your side. I suspect that FOK! or one of the others would've continued to escalate the war, meaning you would have gotten involved anyway, but just an interesting possibility.
[/quote]
To address your edit.

I never held any false expectations on what our entry meant and no one has seen the NSO lamenting the effects even now. I understand that a lot of alliances don't like the idea of losing their precious infrastructure but, by and large, the people that join NSO knew that at some point we would end up in a major conflict that would probably not end well because of my generally sunny disposition towards other alliances.

[Buffalo Niagara]

[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]
So this means treaty obligations should be ignored? Thank you for clearing that up...


/me stands by my treaty partners

[raasaa]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='18 February 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1266506585' post='2189671']
[b]ODN Total NS[/b]

1/28 - 10.9 million

2/18 - 7.6 million

82/365 in Peace Mode losing money every day...unless of course they are chilling out for 5 days before going back into the sausage grinder, where they will lose even more NS.

Yeah, friggen hilarious.
[/quote]
Percentage wise, they lost less than Valhalla....considering the fact that they have been at war far longer than you guys have

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='18 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1266508370' post='2189696']
So then [b]we all die[/b] together...but hey, it's the principle of the thing, right? I mean white peace can't ever be mutually agreed to, it has to be offered, like mercy in the arena.

God, this thread is making my eyes hurt. Too much rolling.
[/quote]
I don't get it....why are you hell bent on dying when no one is interested in killing you [img]http://media.moddb.com/images/members/1/309/308136/Mario_Facepalm.gif[/img]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1266510175' post='2189734']
As dear Archon taught us during the Athens/Knights of Ni! debacle, just because a friend took a poor decision and is in the middle of a messed up situation, their friends won't let him die alone. Now, you can see it as supporting a war of agression, but personally (and apparently to Archon too in that situation), standing behind that friend has little to do with supporting their actions.
[/quote]
Lovely example....only issue with that example is the fact that Athens apologized, worked with Knights of Nii to resolve the situation..and paid out reparations.

I am yet to see anything similar to that from TOP and IRON

Edited February 18, 2010 by raasaa

[Tromp]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1266509750' post='2189722']
Any escalated war involves alliances joining in on a side of aggression. The party that declares does so because they have the assurance that if they are countered upon their allies will defend them. When this fails and alliances do not honor their treaties they are called cowards and considered bad allies, when they do honor their treaties and join in to defend their allies they are demonized by the enemy. That is just how it works. There is no right or wrong in the equation. Justification implies a moral absolute that simply does not exist.
[/quote]
In short, you agree with me... The IRON/TOP side being agressors. I couldn't care less what those on that side of the fence think about alliances who are refusing to support the agressors, as it is not important to me. What is important, is that all the alliances that are willing to support IRON/TOP (and they solidified it now with this announcement) are making themselves as responsible for the war as IRON/TOP and have to face the consequences of it.

[Wargarden]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1266509102' post='2189716']

Most people don't put the effort in to become top dog only to willingly and freely give their new bone away.
[/quote]
----------------------------------
TL;DR: This whole thing is nothing to do with 'top dog' status.

Getting suckerpunched and fighting your way out of a corner, just to be insulted by someone offering to stop a fight they started with little or no reprobation.

----------------------------------

Personally I agree with your earlier post about alot of people being too harsh on some of the people who simply came to the defense of of their treaty partners. I've seen a few alliances jump at the chance to activater a treaty, and I've seen others grumble and wish they'd never signed it....and from both sides.

However, I think the idea that there was even a 'top dog' before this thing started is a misconception. I personally think TOP really tried to stay away from power politics post-Karma war (minus a few single characters). CnG was really just a bloc of retards with the simple understanding that there is safety in numbers. Minus Athens, none of us has ever rattled saberes...and you'll have to excuse Athens, they're kind of like Lenny from 'Of Mice and Men.' When the NpOcaly\m/se started, CnG wanted to stay as far afield from it as we could. Nothing would have pleased most of our members more than seeing \m/ beaten to hell...no matter the justification or reasoning. We may not have liked NpO's motivations, but many were interested in ends rather than means. And suddenly that all came to a screetching conclusion THE SAME TIME TOPCo. planted a big ol' kiss on the back of CnG's skull.

Now this leads me to conclude that there was indeed no top dog and was infact a three or four way power balance on Bob and that one of those powers felt threatened.

------------------------------------

My problem with this attack and this White Peace offer is : (and let me preface this with saying I have no disgust for powerplays and generally thats what this game is about...get power to rule or have enough to be left alone (CnG).)

The [u]preemptive attck [/u]by TOPCo. [u]was touted as defense [/u]of treaty partenrs on the basis of CnG enevitable entry into the war and most likely against them. However!! Was there no communication between TOPCo. and their allies so that their allies could tell them that their war was ending and no premptive strike was needed? Or did they indeed communicate and understand the lack of need for this strike and carry it out due to stubborness or thirst for war or power?

Either way I conclude that TOPCo. aggressed CnG and is now being beaten half to death by us and our allies. Now the offer of a white peace seems silly , sort of like the guy against the wall with blindfold and cigarette saying, 'alright chaps, had enough yet?"

I personally see this ending sporadically. Defense partners will gain advantages and incur white peace treaties until its back to major players and their allies. Its already started to happen.

But seriously, if someone punches me in the face out of nowhere and we tussle and I gain an advantage and he says, 'okay lets stop fighting, I think you've had enough'... am I gonna say 'sure?'

Getting suckerpunched and fighting your way out of a corner, just to be insulted by someone offering to stop a fight they started with little or no reprobation.

(edited to dis-merge rambling criss-cross thoughts of Ivan's point and my feelings towards the attck and this peace offer silliness.)

Edited February 18, 2010 by Wargarden

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='18 February 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1266507284' post='2189681']
I'm not sure what's so "arrogant" about the OP? Was it too defiant? Too cocky? Too self-assured or filled with false bravado? It was none of those things.

It is neither misplaced nor delusional. It is a sign however that those who undersigned will not settle for becoming something less than they are.
[/quote]


The false bravado, seemingly delusional mindset (assuming this wasn't some sort of joke and this front really thinks they are in a position to ask for others to surrender to them), and inferred arrogance is rather clear considering the fact that [i]the majority of alliances on that list have been trying to surrender in private channels[/i], plain and simple. Just because one or two parties have came along and talked them out of it does not mean the intent has not been made clear, and more importantly it doesn't change the numbers. To then turn around and ask for others to surrender to them in a large and public manner only a few hours later is nothing short of bizarre, or at best just a very, very bad attempt to get smaller alliances less in the know to surrender randomly.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1266510175' post='2189734']
As dear Archon taught us during the Athens/Knights of Ni! debacle, just because a friend took a poor decision and is in the middle of a messed up situation, their friends won't let him die alone. Now, you can see it as supporting a war of agression, but personally (and apparently to Archon too in that situation), standing behind that friend has little to do with supporting their actions.
[/quote]
If TOP/IRON were wronged, then maybe I could've understand it. Now, not so much.
They started this war because they felt it was the opportune moment to do so, and out of dislike for CnG. (Read the TOP DoW again.)

You are fighting for the grudge TOP/IRON holds against CnG, not for your treatypartners alone. This announcement made that clear, if it wasn't already.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1266510725' post='2189747']
In short, you agree with me... The IRON/TOP side being agressors. I couldn't care less what those on that side of the fence think about alliances who are refusing to support the agressors, as it is not important to me. What is important, is that all the alliances that are willing to support IRON/TOP (and they solidified it now with this announcement) are making themselves as responsible for the war as IRON/TOP and have to face the consequences of it.
[/quote]
Of course they are the aggressors. If anyone in NSO says otherwise you can direct them to me for clarification. I believe IRON and TOP know that their declaration on a non-combatant bloc constitutes an aggressive act. I would hope that it hasn't been stated otherwise. In every war there is an aggressor, that does not change the dynamics of the situation. Escalation occurs because treaties exist, if you never want to be part of escalation then you should have no treaties.

Your assertion that any alliance that comes to the defense of those aggressors are automatically aggressors of equal weight however I disagree with. The aggression takes place, that creates a war situation, in general a one alliance versus another alliance system. If another alliance or group of alliances decide that instead of letting their ally sit and be attacked by the aggressor they are going to counter then they have made an aggressive act (in defense of an ally) towards the initial aggressor. Thus escalation begins. Each alliance that declares is the aggressor by default of the definition of declaring but those subsequent declarations are not tantamount to equating to the initial declaration.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Wargarden' date='18 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1266510770' post='2189748']
----------------------------------
TL;DR: This whole thing is nothing to do with 'top dog' status. It has everything to do with getting suckerpunched and fighting your way out of a corner, just to be insulted by someone offering to stop a fight they started with little or no reprobation.

----------------------------------

Personally I agree with your earlier post about alot of people being too harsh on some of the people who simply came to the defense of of their treaty partners. I've seen a few alliances jump at the chance to activater a treaty, and I've seen others grumble and wish they'd never signed it....and from both sides.

However, I think the idea that there was even a 'top dog' before this thing started is a misconception. I personally think TOP really tried to stay away from power politics post-Karma war (minus a few single characters). CnG was really just a bloc of retards with the simple understanding that there is safety in numbers. Minus Athens, none of us has ever rattled saberes...and you'll have to excuse Athens, they're kind of like Lenny from 'Of Mice and Men.' When the NpOcaly\m/se started, CnG wanted to stay as far afield from it as we could. Nothing would have pleased most of our members more than seeing \m/ beaten to hell...no matter the justification or reasoning. We may not have liked NpO's motivations, but many were interested in ends rather than means. And suddenly that all came to a screetching conclusion THE SAME TIME TOPCo. planted a big ol' kiss on the back of CnG's skull.

Now this leads me to conclude that there was indeed no top dog and was infact a three or four way power balance on Bob and that one of those powers felt threatened. My problem with this attack is : (and let me preface this with saying I have no disgust for powerplays and generally thats what this game is about...get power to rule or have enough to be left alone (CnG).)

The [u]preemptive attck [/u]by TOPCo. [u]was touted as defense [/u]of treaty partenrs on the basis of CnG enevitable entry into the war and most likely against them. However!! Was there no communication between TOPCo. and their allies so that their allies could tell them that their war was ending and no premptive strike was needed? Or did they indeed communicate and understand the lack of need for this strike and carry it out due to stubborness or thirst for war or power?

Either way I conclude that TOPCo. aggressed CnG and is now being beaten half to death by us and our allies. Now the offer of a white peace seems silly , sort of like the guy against the wall with blindfold and cigarette saying, 'alright chaps, had enough yet?"

I personally see this ending sporadically. Defense partners will gain advantages and incur white peace treaties until its back to major players and their allies. Its already started to happen.

But seriously, if someone punches me in the face out of nowhere and we tussle and I gain an advantage and he says, 'okay lets stop fighting, I think you've had enough'... am I gonna say 'sure?'

This whole thing is nothing to do with 'top dog' status. It has everything to do with getting suckerpunched and fighting your way out of a corner, just to be insulted by someone offering to stop a fight they started with little or no reprobation.
[/quote]
Did you really pull one sentence out of my comment and use it out of context to go on a rant about how this war isn't about who is top dog when that was not what I said or even remotely close to the point I made in the post you only partially referenced? Just asking for clarity here.

[Delta1212]

I agree with the need to deescalate. If TOOL or Argent would like to accept peace with the promise to remain neutral for the rest of the conflict, I'd be happy to discuss the issue.

[Co God Ben]

I find certain irony in that an alliance that signed this "white peace" offer indignantly rejected the same offer to them becaust peace with a neutrality clause isn't white peace. Glad to know your sense of lulz hasn't been dulled this war.