Joint Statement

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='18 February 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1266517759' post='2189926']
Folks on the opposing side all seem to think they're FAN, with the no-surrender thing. Well, they're not. FAN faced a war of extermination and said 'no'. The folks on the losing side of this war want to believe it's a war of extermination (see: Alterego) or, more accurately, wish to convince [i]others[/i] that this is what they face when, in fact, they do not.

Eventually, they will realize that this poor attempt at spin-control is one of the most counter-productive things they could have done.

But until then, this hilarious proposal puts the 'laughter' in 'slaughter'. And for that I am grateful.
[/quote]
Hmm.

Well we have been fighting longer than anyone else in the war and have lost 56% of our starting NS and are even now facing 10 to 1 odds against parties that initially refused to consider peace and have only recently agreed to "accept" our surrender provided we abandon the field and do nothing to assist our allies at some future point so whether some of the big guys are facing it or not, we definitely are. Nothing that I convey to my membership in private is different than what I convey here. We were aware from the onset that any major war the NSO entered would ultimately be a war for our survival. We are also aware that survival and statistical victory are not necessarily (or sometimes remotely) the same thing.

[martinius the great]

It doesn't change my initial statement. You joined the war through an MDP, so my statement was just a clarification to show that my first post was directed towards other alliances, in order to stop other NSO members from saying nonsense that "You are blah blah". Thanks for the information.

EDIT: This message is directed towards Ivan Moldavi.

Edited February 18, 2010 by martinius the great

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='martinius the great' date='18 February 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1266518033' post='2189936']
It doesn't change my initial statement. You joined the war through an MDP, so my statement was just a clarification to show that my first post was directed towards other alliances, in order to stop other NSO members from saying nonsense that "You are blah blah". Thanks for the information.

EDIT: This message is directed towards Ivan Moldavi.
[/quote]
You are correct. We entered the war via our MDP with the New Polar Order and are continuing to fight in the same war.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I honestly don't even want to see those who entered through any treaty at all punished. People sign oA's for a reason and you shouldn't be angry when an alliance honors said treaty out of friendship, as they are legally allowed to do as per the writing of the treaty. My distaste is towards those against CnG who entered without cause, or treaty, and no one else.

[Romeo Valenti]

[quote name='martinius the great' date='18 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1266517188' post='2189910']
I think you've failed to read our DoW topic, but I tell you this for the 100th time: Our allies at Aircastle asked us for help and we helped them, plain and simple. Their allies were being attacked, an attack upon one of their allies is like an attack upon them (because Aircastle values treaties very highly, and they aren't treaty whores). An attack upon Aircastle means an attack upon DF. I need no more E-lawyering. [/quote]


/me chuckles. Let's follow this logic a bit more, shall we? For the sake of argument, we have 5 alliances, titled Alliance A through Alliance E.

Alliance A attacks Attacks Alliance B. Alliance B has an MDP with Alliance C. Alliance C calls Alliance A's attack on Alliance B an attack on them as well. Alliance D, who has minimal interaction with Alliance B, Has an MDP with Alliance C. Because Alliance C declares the attack on alliance B to be an attack on alliance C, Alliance D, decides the attack is an attack on Alliance D as well. Alliance E, who by this point in the treaty web, has no interaction with Alliance B whatsoever, Has an MDP with Alliance D. Alliance E then claims Alliance A attacked them first? Is it just me or does this seem tragically flawed in some way?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Romeo Valenti

[deth2munkies]

Only read the OP,don't care about the inanity that surely followed.

This is a PR move and nothing more. No alliance on that list expects any alliance they're fighting to actually accept white peace, they're only doing this to paint them as "bloodthirsty" or "bullies" for rejecting it.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='MNNorthStars' date='18 February 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1266517922' post='2189931']
It's not so much unforgivable but rather absurd, considering the situation the listed alliances brought upon themselves.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]And I think you will find that I will be the last person to argue that assessment. However, you cannot claim that they are equally as bad as TOP and have supported its aggression. As Ivan said, escalation. You fellows are just as guilty as they.

Then again, that has nothing to do what I was saying. Impero says that had this announcement not been made they would have allowed white peace, and were likely going to (for some alliance anyway). Yet this harmless, although absurd mine you, announcement is somehow being taken as an offense. I can only conclude that you will assume that people will think you are giving into their demands if you grant them white peace now, and therefore lose face. I've seen this many times before, party A asks party B to do something (which party B would have done if not solicited), but to save face and prove that their decision making as not affected by outside influences, party B objects. Quite silly once you think about it, since by refusing to give white peace now that people are pandering for it you are only showing that your judgment is influenced by outside parties. You will simply go against whatever the public would like you to do, just so you can say otherwise.

My point stands. Your leadership is inept.[/color]

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1266485377' post='2189450']
Very true. I will say though it requires the almost godlike conception that an alliance did nothing of error and the blame both for the war and every stage of its prosecution lays entirely at the feet of its enemies. This means no acceptable compromise was ever possible and that your enemy is essentially evil incarnate. There were no mitigating circumstances which prompted your enemy to act in the manner he or she did. That I think requires the suspension of disbelief, and is an extremely arrogant assessment of a given conflict. I think that if someone believes this applies to the current conflict they are simply delusional.

Edit: grammar
[/quote]
Of course no war is ever completely the fault of any one side, however in this war's case, the blame is pretty darn close to completely on TOP/IRON/everyone else who attacked C&G. That being said, winners never pay reparations, losers do. It's one of the bad parts of losing

edit: holy crap I didn't notice how many pages this has gotten to since last night. Good work everyone?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Jens of the desert]

Good luck with that, OP.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahaha.

Perhaps we can start the peace process by filling my slots with [s]reps[/s] friendly aid offers?

[Yankees Empire]

On behalf of The Resistance, no thanks.

[Bob]

[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]
Stop making me respect you. You are a jerk.

In terms of NATO and TFD, the double oA nature of their DoW on FoB was !@#$%*. Again, they should have waited, but at least they came in through a treaty and not without anything? :/

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Megamind]

[quote name='gambona' date='18 February 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1266511767' post='2189781']
Well, I know for a fact Legion rejected peace with neutrality clause.
[/quote]

Unless I'm mistaken the rejection had more to do with our allies not being given the same offer then it did with the neutrality clause.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

I thought this was a joke thread

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1266519774' post='2189987']
Stop making me respect you. You are a jerk.
[/quote]
Respect and like are not the same thing. I consider myself generally well respected and almost universally disliked at the same time. You can rest in the comfort that considering me a jerk does not place you in the minority.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Stetson76]

[quote name='deth2munkies' date='18 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266518389' post='2189948']
Only read the OP,don't care about the inanity that surely followed.

This is a PR move and nothing more. No alliance on that list expects any alliance they're fighting to actually accept white peace, they're only doing this to paint them as "bloodthirsty" or "bullies" for rejecting it.
[/quote]

I can only speak for myself and SNAFU when I say, to a certain degree you are correct, we do not expect anyone to surrender to us or take us up on this offer and in that sense this is a PR move. It is more than that however. It is a code of conduct (that hopefully will stay with these alliances beyond this war) that outlines our position in this conflict. We have no desire to do anything but see this stupid war end. And yes, stupid because \m/ are tools for raiding an alliance, stupid for Polar not communicating with their coalition partners, stupid for TOP/IRON not just waiting for the treaties to work themselves out so we could fight an even war, and stupid for C&G opting to burn alongside all of their allies thinking that if everyone's nation is a lake of glass they'll be safer. Here's an idea guys, if you're so convinced that TOP/IRON et al are so evil then you'll have even more support for the next time they try and pull something!

[HellAngel]

[quote name='nippy' date='18 February 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1266516146' post='2189892']
I believe you are intentionally turning a blind eye to what is actually being said. No one is 'bawwing'. That would imply we have something to cry about. No, we're simply laughing at this silly little attempt to skirt around consequences that are due. It was a valiant effort, but intent does not equal success.
[/quote]

Thats actually exactly what i meant. "LOOK AT THOSE FOOLS OFFERING WHITE PEACE LOLOLOL"

[Sandwich Controversy]

The Mushroom Kingdom humbly accepts your kind offer...

[Bob]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='18 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1266520204' post='2190002']
The Mushroom Kingdom humbly accepts your kind offer...
[/quote]
..of what, my dear esteemed Lord High Vanguard?

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1266520318' post='2190007']
..of what, my dear esteemed Lord High Vanguard?
[/quote]
Eternal war, that's what.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='18 February 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1266517415' post='2189915']
[color="#0000FF"]Wait, are you telling me that because some alliances signed onto this statement it would be an unforgivable crime for you to grant them white peace, which you would have done had they not signed onto this? Now I'll be the first to admit that this is a pretty silly statement, and really doesn't help these alliances at all. But by making these threats and spinning this into some sort of personal affront to you fellows, well, I can only say that you fellows are just as ridiculously inept as they are.[/color]
[/quote]

Erm...literally none of that was in what I said. Perhaps you quoted the wrong person?

[King Louis the II]

Thanks but...I don't think it is gonna happen...

[MagicalTrevor]

On that list, how many used an Optional Agression pact or even just Optional Agression to start the wars they find themselves entangled in?

If you wanted peace you wouldnt have chosen to start a war, or chosen to become entangled in the war.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Buffalo Niagara' date='18 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1266516267' post='2189894']
On our front, Valhalla is defending IRON who was attacked by FAN. PC, DT and NoR all jumped on Valhalla, with NoR's DoW being the ONLY one listing a valid treaty clause moving in support of DT. Those that came to support Valhalla get dogpiled on by I think a total of 14 alliances.
[/quote]
Not citing a treaty clause doesn't mean there wasn't one. PC and NoR both have treaties with DT.

[quote name='Buffalo Niagara' date='18 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1266516267' post='2189894']
MK has stated in his thread that peace for TOP and IRON will not be given for a long time due to the attacks on C&G.
[/quote]
We have not said TOP and IRON won't be given peace for a long time. We have said they won't be given white peace. When IRON and TOP are willing to bite the bullet and accept terms, then we're willing to talk peace.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='18 February 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1266517759' post='2189926']
Folks on the opposing side all seem to think they're FAN, with the no-surrender thing. Well, they're not. FAN faced a war of extermination and said 'no'. The folks on the losing side of this war want to believe it's a war of extermination (see: Alterego) or, more accurately, wish to convince [i]others[/i] that this is what they face when, in fact, they do not.
[/quote]
This is true. We have no intention of "forcing" any alliance to disband. Not that there are more than five or so alliances with the stones to fight a VietFAN

Edited February 18, 2010 by flak attack

[shahenshah]

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 February 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1266521034' post='2190031']
We have not said TOP and IRON won't be given peace for a long time. We have said they won't be given white peace. When IRON and TOP are willing to bite the bullet and accept terms, then we're willing to talk peace.
[/quote]

Terms where you want to 'neutralize' TOP, given TOP's structure, they'd be extremely bizarre, and extremely long term. If similar situation is applied on IRON, terms worse than ~NPO's. That sums to at-least 1-2 years of Tech farming and basically nothing else. Thats just an assumption, feel free to correct me and my bad if that isn't the case, however do explain how you intend to 'neutralize' via terms.

Edited February 18, 2010 by shahenshah