Joint Statement

[Jared]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1266531955' post='2190373']
I can think of several ways that "convincing of not producing a repeat performance" could be achieved. I am however not really certain CnG would agree with it given most statements made so far which came down to either "crippling terms" or "crippling destruction with depletion of warchests and tech". Both of which are more likely to cause long term resentment then true happy ending.
[/quote]
While I do not know who has made such statements, I full hardly very much so disagree with any such sentiment.
That being said I would be interested in hearing what you think the several ways are, if you would like to go into more detail.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Penkala' date='18 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1266535724' post='2190511']
Not sure if this has been addressed, but we gave plenty of white peace deals out during Karma. The same alliances have voluntarily lined up against us again and again as war appeared likely. We would be stupid to make the same mistake again.
[/quote]
Yes, white peace is exactly why they lined up against you.

Not the attitude of classifying those you fought as ex-hegemony and no moves of reconciliation (but plenty of "they deserved worse"). You *wanted* this.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='[b]bigwoody[/b]' date='18 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1266535590' post='2190507']
No, you can't. This announcement was made precisely to combat high ignorance like yours. How, pray tell, do you figure we are out to turn the tables and claim reps, when here we have already made a lasting white peace offer? We don't operate like you.


No, it doesn't. Claiming so without justification doesn't make it so. [b]Your side has a history of attempting to extract draconian reps[/b], believing your white peace offers are an attempt to open the floodgates to that end if a logical conclusion.
[/quote]

...

Need I say more?


On a more serious note: The ole' "I'll just say something over and over again till people believe it" thing doesn't really work out anymore, particularly for you. The justification for me saying inverse of his statement is the same as the justification he used in making it, both are based on reasonably the same premises and there is nothing to indicate otherwise thus far from either party. If anything, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, so way to take a respectful good faith comment from one side to another and turn it into a comedy gold mine by blurting out the bold portion above.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Saber]

[quote name='Jared' date='19 February 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1266535986' post='2190521']
While I do not know who has made such statements, I full hardly very much so disagree with any such sentiment.
That being said I would be interested in hearing what you think the several ways are, if you would like to go into more detail.
[/quote]
I can honestly tell you that show of good faith would go a long way. We understand you have reasons to be upset and I understand why the all aggressive posturing is done (also why you are working to gain an even bigger advantage obviously) but a show of good faith on your part would be one possible step in the right direction. By show of good faith I mean genuine attempt at reaching end of this global conflict. Either through our offer or some alternative.

Another idea that popped up before on OWF is some sort of mandatory NAP with a long period.

Those are two that come up in my mind, I really doubt there are many other ways to ensure "no repeat performance". Most of them will rely on trust and trust is not built by being unreasonable. Also I doubt TOP's military power can be seriously endangered even in case of total destruction. 220 battle hardened guys with nothing to lose and with 178 Manhattan Projects, 179 SDIs, 149 WRCs and 136 Hidden Silos are a threat even if zero infra/zero warchest. All that's needed is 1000 infra (9m?) and some cash and we can go to 3k+ nukes. Don't take this as a threat. It's not intended as one. It's intended to show that some level of trust will be absolutely required as only means to actually remove us as a military threat is to make us delete all our wonders which is very very unlikely to happen. In all other situations you'll have to trust us.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1266536727' post='2190546']
...

Need I say more?


On a more serious note: The ole' "I'll just say something over and over again till people believe it" thing doesn't really work out anymore, particularly for you. The justification for me saying inverse of his statement is the same as the justification he used in making it, both are based on reasonably the same premises and there is nothing to indicate otherwise thus far from either party. If anything, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, so way to take a respectful good faith comment from one side to another and turn it into a comedy gold mine by blurting out the bold portion above.
[/quote]
If you're going to try and bring up my personal history with asking for reps or lack thereof, you'll find I am being quite consistent.

Whereas, your side has the stated intent of extracting a piece of flesh for some of our involvement in the Polar-\m/ War, combined with a history of doing so, see the Karma War for reference. Rounded up with the stated beliefs of many that "the Karma War let everyone off too easy", and your "no u" defense falls apart.

[Desperado]

[quote name='Infidel Israeli' date='18 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266534193' post='2190451']
It's funny VA is on this list as they declined an offer JUST like it. Everyone wants an end to this war, just everyone wants to do it with them being the victors. Hypocrites.
[/quote]

You also have already threatened reps and are planning to demand them. This is exactly what the group of people making the announcement are saying. We will not demand any reps at any time of this conflict.

[SiCkO]

[quote name='gambona' date='18 February 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1266511767' post='2189781']
Well, I know for a fact Legion rejected peace with neutrality clause.
[/quote]


To clear things up, we shot them down because they would leave some of our allies which would leave them open to more attacks.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1266536979' post='2190557']
I can honestly tell you that show of good faith would go a long way. We understand you have reasons to be upset and I understand why the all aggressive posturing is done (also why you are working to gain an even bigger advantage obviously) but a show of good faith on your part would be one possible step in the right direction. By show of good faith I mean genuine attempt at reaching end of this global conflict. Either through our offer or some alternative.

Another idea that popped up before on OWF is some sort of mandatory NAP with a long period.

Those are two that come up in my mind, I really doubt there are many other ways to ensure "no repeat performance". Most of them will rely on trust and trust is not built by being unreasonable. Also I doubt TOP's military power can be seriously endangered even in case of total destruction. 220 battle hardened guys with nothing to lose and with 178 Manhattan Projects, 179 SDIs, 149 WRCs and 136 Hidden Silos are a threat even if zero infra/zero warchest. All that's needed is 1000 infra (9m?) and some cash and we can go to 3k+ nukes. Don't take this as a threat. It's not intended as one. It's intended to show that some level of trust will be absolutely required as only means to actually remove us as a military threat is to make us delete all our wonders which is very very unlikely to happen. In all other situations you'll have to trust us.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure MK's biggest concern with letting you guys go right now would be your tech level.

[Lucius Aerilius]

I got a big kick out of this.

"Ummm... we attacked you for no reason, now we're in a world of trouble... sooooo... white peace?"

Surrender or fight. Your only real options kiddies.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Lucius Aerilius

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603']
I got a big kick out of this.

"Ummm... we attacked you for no reason, now we're in a world of trouble... sooooo... white peace?"

Surrender or fight. Your only real options kiddies.
[/quote]
I pick fight.

This has more to do with those alliances who have expressed to us a desire to leave the fight, but not to leave their comrades behind. We are putting our cards out publicly that peace is available to those alliances, in order to alleviate those concerns.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 February 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1266537080' post='2190562']
If you're going to try and bring up my personal history with asking for reps or lack thereof, you'll find I am being quite consistent.

Whereas, your side has the stated intent of extracting a piece of flesh for some of our involvement in the Polar-\m/ War, combined with a history of doing so, see the Karma War for reference. Rounded up with the stated beliefs of many that "the Karma War let everyone off too easy", and your "no u" defense falls apart.
[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken, your the one who just randomly used the words "your" and "history", no? So I'm sure you knew that would seem like a very, very silly thing to say considering you being the source.

I don't follow the rest of your post though. Nowhere have I seen a cohesive coalition announcement in this war. Nowhere have I seen anyone pay reps in this war. No where have I mentioned any of those things here. I offered up no defense, as I had nothing to defend, just an explanation as to my rationale on the subject at hand; which was decidedly on the opposite side of the spectrum from "no u" so I'm not very clear on where that "no u" you said came from, or what would draw you to a "no u" conclusion after reading what I said. If there was some confusion, I apologize, but I think my points were rather clear.

Once again, my comment (which was respectfully made and to someone other than yourself) on the subject was not on the merits of the announcement conceptually, but just simply that having eight people who were about to walk off the battlefield a few hours before sign something asking those who they were surrendering to, to surrender themselves is insulting to those who were about to give them peace with the only term being that they not reenter. The fact that you feel the need to respond to it aggressively again and again is regrettable, as is the fact that you seem to be drawing "nou"'s (?) from it, but I fear there is not much more I can do to make you understand my narrowly tailored point. As far as I'm concerned, the matter at hand is still the original announcement, and I really dont see what any of the conclusions you've drawn from my take on that (i.e. "no u", "karma", etc") have to do with absolutely anything I've said at all.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[mitchh]

[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603']
I got a big kick out of this.
[/quote]
Glad to be of service.
[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603']
"Ummm... we attacked you for no reason, now we're in a world of trouble... sooooo... white peace?"
[/quote]
If I wanted to watch bad reruns, I'd be watching TV, not attacking at update. This point has been covered umpteen times.
[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603']
Surrender or fight. Your only real options kiddies.
[/quote]
Makes it difficult to surrender when there are no terms, you know?

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1266536979' post='2190557']
I can honestly tell you that show of good faith would go a long way. We understand you have reasons to be upset and I understand why the all aggressive posturing is done (also why you are working to gain an even bigger advantage obviously) but a show of good faith on your part would be one possible step in the right direction. By show of good faith I mean genuine attempt at reaching end of this global conflict. Either through our offer or some alternative.

Another idea that popped up before on OWF is some sort of mandatory NAP with a long period.

Those are two that come up in my mind, I really doubt there are many other ways to ensure "no repeat performance". Most of them will rely on trust and trust is not built by being unreasonable. Also I doubt TOP's military power can be seriously endangered even in case of total destruction. 220 battle hardened guys with nothing to lose and with 178 Manhattan Projects, 179 SDIs, 149 WRCs and 136 Hidden Silos are a threat even if zero infra/zero warchest. All that's needed is 1000 infra (9m?) and some cash and we can go to 3k+ nukes. Don't take this as a threat. It's not intended as one. It's intended to show that some level of trust will be absolutely required as only means to actually remove us as a military threat is to make us delete all our wonders which is very very unlikely to happen. In all other situations you'll have to trust us.
[/quote]
Just wanted to build on this and say that while we do have the means to do a significant amount of damage and probably always will (as Saber explains above), our ability to actually [b]defeat[/b] you, now but particularly in the future, is certainly in question.

Suppose our motives really are to destroy CnG and we wish to use a white-peace as a decoy. Much of the coalition we fight with today in no way supports that stance (as far as I can tell at least). So any conflict between us in the foreseeable future would certainly see our side significantly weaker than it is now, even if TOP as a whole were individually stronger, as many of the alliances we fight alongside currently would not support us. So, if you assume our intentions are to cause CnG et al more harm, the smart move from our point of view would be to try to extend and manipulate the current conflict to our advantage, rather than peace-out and try to start again (when we would have less support).

So even if you don't trust our intentions to be as stated, this peace offer (and peacing out in general) would make defeating you in the future harder, not easier.

[Banksy]

[quote name='mitchh' date='19 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1266538960' post='2190627']
Makes it difficult to surrender when there are no terms, you know?
[/quote]
*Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace

[Andre27]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='19 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1266539189' post='2190637']
*Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace
[/quote]

Makes it rather easy actually, all you have to do is say "We agree"

[Craig]

Don't start a war you don't want to pay to end. Prepare to pay or die.

[Ford86]

[quote name='andre27' date='18 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1266539473' post='2190649']
Makes it rather easy actually, all you have to do is say "We agree"
[/quote]
To bad its not going to happen that way

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Goose' date='18 February 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1266531385' post='2190349']
My apologies for not being clearer. I was merely addressing the question of whether CSN would have remained at war with NSO if you hadn't counter-declared on Fark, not the point of NSO already being in a state of war prior to IRON's declaration on C&G.
[/quote]
I see, well regardless I can't make that make logical sense to me since NSO declared on CSN in order to help with the defense of STA, not CSN declaring on NSO in defense of Fark. But sure, whatever.

[ty345]

[quote name='andre27' date='18 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1266539473' post='2190649']
Makes it rather easy actually, all you have to do is say "We agree"
[/quote]
Are you sure your side was in the Hegemony? Because SURELY they would know that the attackers with low odds don't get to decide on terms.

Also, to the OP: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Desperado' date='18 February 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1266537113' post='2190563']
You also have already threatened reps and are planning to demand them. This is exactly what the group of people making the announcement are saying. We will not demand any reps at any time of this conflict.
[/quote]

Actually, the only alliance that (as far as I know) have threatened reparations was Mafia. As far as I know, AI, KoTC, IAA & HoG have stated these terms were acceptable for VA. They declined.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Voodoo Nova

[Andre27]

[quote name='ty345' date='19 February 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1266540027' post='2190673']
Are you sure your side was in the Hegemony? Because SURELY they would know that the attackers with low odds don't get to decide on terms.

[/quote]

Is it not the C&G side claiming moral superiority? Then show it by granting white peace when you don't have to.
Are you folks afraid you'll set a trend or something?

[Saber]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='19 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1266539189' post='2190637']
*Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace
[/quote]
Given that I called you to offer an alternative I'd say we're open to something else than white peace. But you're free to use it as an excuse. Anyone who read the thread and my posts here knows what you said is not true.

[White Chocolate]

Well done.

[mitchh]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='18 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266539189' post='2190637']
*Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace
[/quote]
Not true.

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266530440' post='2190311']
If you find our offer of global white peace unacceptable you are free to offer alternatives. But remember, global peace, not divide and conquer sprinkled with threats.
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2190311

Edit: Saber beat me by two seconds

Edited February 19, 2010 by mitchh

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Sunstar' date='18 February 2010 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1266478093' post='2189190']
Its nice to see in one place a list of alliances which support unwarranted aggression and wish to get away without paying for the massive damages they caused to over a hundred different alliances.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should pay for the damage done in the war you kept going, despite having ended with NpO-\m/. Yes, that sounds right.