Joint Statement

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1266547297' post='2191024']
I don't see what you are getting at here, could you elaborate?
[/quote]

that was capable of entering the conflict to support NSO and MK were capabale of entering the conflict to support FOK. either way brings in many alliances which is what we have now. as stated before, this should've ended with the \m/-Polar white peace but it didnt. why is that?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266545109' post='2190925']
It is missing at least two alliances. How can it guarantee white peace for the entire side if the entire opposing side does not agree? It can't.
[/quote]
Because, without the support of the signing alliances, the two alliances will not have the power required to gain reparations.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1266547462' post='2191034']
that was capable of entering the conflict to support NSO and MK were capabale of entering the conflict to support FOK. either way brings in many alliances which is what we have now. as stated before, this should've ended with the \m/-Polar white peace but it didnt. why is that?
[/quote]

Referring to your last question; because you and your friends declared war on C&G.

You are correct, we do have a treaty with FOK, but we have a treaty with Polar we didn't want to enter this conflict when it was Polar vs. \m/ because we had allies on both sides and intended to stay neutral.

FOK even came over to our embassy saying they wouldn't mind if we didn't assist them as they understood the predicament we were in.

Also if you follow the treaty web for long enough you could say that TOP were going to enter with C&G because of the large amount of treaty paths to follow. I believe LM said the same thing in another thread.

But I digress, this doesn't show any solid evidence that the C&G were going to collectively attack TOP, IRON, TORN, FEAR etc. Which is what I'd like to see in order for there to be some form of justification for you and your allies pre-emptive attack on C&G.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[ironchef]

[quote name='Katsumi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1266547137' post='2191015']
Will any of these alliances pay the costs for peace, or merely "offer" it?

It's foolish to assume this is a reasonable request. Your advantaged opponents would have offered it if it was. An outpouring of universal mercy is not to be expected, no matter how many nations burn to mountains of ash. Some will live without surrender terms, and some will pay dearly for their sins. See this reality, retract your signatures, and make a choice:

Either fight on to victory or accept your demise. [i]Escape is an impossibility.[/i]



/s/
[color="#0000FF"]Mio[/color], Voice of Fate
[/quote]

It’s not a "request" but a [b]reasonable offer[/b] to any alliance on the other side that would like out of this war. It is also a public statement that at no time in this war, will our stance on peace terms change. No reps, no decoms, no nothing just peace. We don’t care how you got here, who you are fighting, and what treaty if any you used. We will give you peace and you can go on your way. Try as you like to make it more than what it is. I would say if you have not done so in 28 pages of repetitive posting I say you have failed and should just stop it.

[schmutte693]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' date='18 February 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1266547448' post='2191033']
Oh, I never threaten. I was merely making an observation. The august collection of alliances that are signatories to this fine document are essentially asking our entire side to surrender to them, while said august alliances are in a losing position. I am but one man, and was simply questioning the wisdom of poking the bear with a stick, so to speak.
[/quote]

I do not believe that this document does, or intended to, ask your entire side to surrender to us. This document is given as a sign of good faith. To any alliance in a terrible position and wants out of this war, we are telling you that even if we could, we would not ask reps from your allies. We are telling you that we will end this war against the allies you are worried about leaving behind just as soon as we can, without leaving our own allies with the threat of exorbitant reps hanging over their heads. Moreover, as Sabre has said countless times thus far, we give this document as a best case scenario for peace negotiations. If you do not like/want white peace for us, make a counter offer. We (being the governments of signed coalition alliances, not including myself) will mull the terms, and likely make a counter offer, as these negotiations are generally done.

edit: spelling

Edited February 19, 2010 by schmutte693

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1266548005' post='2191058']
It’s not a "request" but a [b]reasonable offer[/b] to any alliance on the other side that would like out of this war. It is also a public statement that at no time in this war, will our stance on peace terms change. No reps, no decoms, no nothing just peace. We don’t care how you got here, who you are fighting, and what treaty if any you used. [b]We will give you peace and you can go on your way.[/b] Try as you like to make it more than what it is. I would say if you have not done so in 28 pages of repetitive posting I say you have failed and should just stop it.
[/quote]


How generous of you to grant us lowly peons with white peace.

[joracy]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1266546967' post='2191008']
We are not expecting everyone will jump up today and say the war is over. Rather we expect that it will take some time to wrap it up. However we have decided to make a first step. Now at least we are moving in the right direction and we have stopped discussing in circles.
[/quote]

Well, I see that. Do you think there is a contradiction from signing a document designed to encourage alliances to peace out one by one, and arguing against us for having alliances peace out one by one, to create this divide and conquer technique?

[ironchef]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1266548292' post='2191074']
How generous of you to grant us [u]lowly peons[/u] with white peace.
[/quote]

Well you are Mushrooms

[Salmia]

[quote name='Katsumi' date='18 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266547137' post='2191015']
Will any of these alliances pay the costs for peace, or merely "offer" it?

It's foolish to assume this is a reasonable request. Your advantaged opponents would have offered it if it was. An outpouring of universal mercy is not to be expected, no matter how many nations burn to mountains of ash. Some will live without surrender terms, and some will pay dearly for their sins. See this reality, retract your signatures, and make a choice:

Either fight on to victory or accept your demise. [i]Escape is an impossibility.[/i]



/s/
[color="#0000FF"]Mio[/color], Voice of Fate
[/quote]


We've already seen several alliances peace out. This is to let people know there is an option out if they choose to take it. But we will fight until the end, that is how it is. A statement doesn't change how things are but it does show our intentions. You can take it however you want but we'll continue to fight on but this option is there for who wish to take it. This is to clarify that we don't wish harm. Do onto others what you wish onto you.

You can argue whatever you want to, it is simply a statement and it is amusing to see people twist it out of shape. It is what it is, either take it or ignore it. It is pretty funny to see people get bent up over it, because if you don't take it, how does it impact you? To mock and troll over a simple statement...

And I don't expect mercy from the world. I entered this with a hard fight and I know there is a hard fight ahead. I don't expect people to rush to my side and cheer me on. Politics are what they are, allies last through it all and that is why I fight.

A simple statement that doesn't impact anyone who doesn't choose to take it and we're already being knocked around yet people are making a huge deal over it. I find that says enough within itself.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1266548477' post='2191081']
Well you are Mushrooms
[/quote]

We grow far and wide baby, we're pretty a big deal.


But yeah, i was commenting more on the fact that white peace is more of an agreement signed by a group of alliances that the war will end amicably and there will be no reps or anything requested afterwards.

You don't grant people White Peace as if you're being merciful, that's not how it works.


(Sorry I'm feeling pretty pedantic tonight )

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ironchef' date='18 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1266548005' post='2191058']
It’s not a "request" but a [b]reasonable offer[/b] to any alliance on the other side that would like out of this war. It is also a public statement that at no time in this war, will our stance on peace terms change. No reps, no decoms, no nothing just peace. We don’t care how you got here, who you are fighting, and what treaty if any you used. We will give you peace and you can go on your way. Try as you like to make it more than what it is. I would say if you have not done so in 28 pages of repetitive posting I say you have failed and should just stop it.
[/quote]

Your idea of reasonable has little in common with reality, your spin is impressive too, but you forgot the two most important points.

1.
Your side started an aggressive war with a preemptive strike.

2.
You aren't actually winning.

Points one and two combine to bring us what I like to call "Point Blindingly Obvious"

When you jump somebody with a preemptive strike, but then start losing, they are not going to let you just walk away.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1266546594' post='2190995']
You know what a joke is right?
[/quote]

Actually we're currently taking in applications for the viceroy position. It is open to all members of the public of course.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='19 February 2010 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1266548790' post='2191100']
Actually we're currently taking in applications for the viceroy position. It is open to all members of the public of course.
[/quote]


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.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1266543890' post='2190861']
So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G? I'm not going to begin with reparations because that's not my place to say how much or anything like that.
[/quote]

Wrong? lol

Step out of your box.

[janax]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='18 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266545109' post='2190925']
It is missing at least two alliances. How can it guarantee white peace for the entire side if the entire opposing side does not agree? It can't.
[/quote]


We didn't sign this for a number of other reasons, unrelated to the actual message it contains.

Argent has rules in place the forbid us from accepting reps from any situation that is not unprovoked aggression on Argent itself. (for example, a "tech raid").

As such, our signatures on this document would be redundant. If it needs to be spelled out, we don't and wouldn't expect, accept or impose reps on alliances involved in this CF.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='SpoiL' date='19 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1266548909' post='2191108']
Wrong? lol

Step out of your box.
[/quote]

Without evidence that C&G were guaranteed to attack TOP and friends, it's not a justified pre-emptive strike. Therefore, wrong.


Come into my box.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='janax' date='18 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266548972' post='2191110']
We didn't sign this for a number of other reasons, unrelated to the actual message it contains.

Argent has rules in place the forbid us from accepting reps from any situation that is not unprovoked aggression on Argent itself. (for example, a "tech raid").

As such, our signatures on this document would be redundant. If it needs to be spelled out, we don't and wouldn't expect, accept or impose reps on alliances involved in this CF.
[/quote]

Was not referring to your either.

[Homura]

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1266548005' post='2191058']
It’s not a "request" but a [b]reasonable offer[/b] to any alliance on the other side that would like out of this war. It is also a public statement that at no time in this war, will our stance on peace terms change. No reps, no decoms, no nothing just peace. We don’t care how you got here, who you are fighting, and what treaty if any you used. We will give you peace and you can go on your way. Try as you like to make it more than what it is. I would say if you have not done so in 28 pages of repetitive posting I say you have failed and should just stop it.
[/quote]
Why be so inflexible? Win and take reparations for yourselves.

[Saber]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1266545109' post='2190925']
It is missing at least two alliances. How can it guarantee white peace for the entire side if the entire opposing side does not agree? It can't.
[/quote]
We talked on IRC and it you misunderstood. This offer was not: "We'll accept separate white peace if you offer it to us, please do." It is a proposed solution to the whole global conflict.

Alliances Voodoo Nova talked about did not accept separate white peace his ally offered because they still have other allies in the war.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Saber

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1266549005' post='2191112']
Without evidence that C&G were guaranteed to attack TOP and friends, it's not a justified pre-emptive strike. Therefore, wrong.


Come into my box.
[/quote]

Great Lord Ruler Chief Emperor Spoilbob graduated high school with an 'A' average. Who are you trying to dupe?

I'm not going to dig the quote out, but it's already been stated that the appropriate parties weren't going to ignore their treaty obligations when the other party forced that treaty to be activated. There's your 'proof', as irrelevant as it is to the obvious course the war would've taken.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='SpoiL' date='19 February 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1266549349' post='2191143']
Great Lord Ruler Chief Emperor Spoilbob graduated high school with an 'A' average. Who are you trying to dupe?

I'm not going to dig the quote out, but it's already been stated that the appropriate parties weren't going to ignore their treaty obligations when the other party forced that treaty to be activated. There's your 'proof', as irrelevant as it is to the obvious course the war would've taken.
[/quote]


Which obligations were we [MK] going to follow then? I assume you'd know, what with your A grade. Also if you read the TOP DoW, they claim it wasn't just a pre-emptive strike for the Polar vs.\m/ war. Apparently we had shown we wanted to destroy them time and time again. Looks more like paranoia to me than a 'pre-emptive strike'

[twodivine]

The way this is going the OP better re-think their OP statement. Seems that the list is getting smaller.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='18 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266548712' post='2191094']
Your idea of reasonable has little in common with reality, your spin is impressive too, but you forgot the two most important points.

1.
Your side started an aggressive war with a preemptive strike.

2.
You aren't actually winning.

Points one and two combine to bring us what I like to call "Point Blindingly Obvious"

When you jump somebody with a preemptive strike, but then start losing, they are not going to let you just walk away.
[/quote]

this is the same war that \m/-Polar were fighting. a new one was never started.

[Urmom]

One thing that is bothering me in this thread is when people say that this war was CB-less. I'd like to see planet Bob evolve away from this thinking since it's rather outdated. Casus Belli means a justification for war. We feel that we had justification for this war. Our line of thinking was that CnG would just enter the war down the line when we were beaten up and wipe the floor with us. Instead of taking the chance of that happening, we just skipped right to it. You may disagree with it and think that it wasn't the best plan, but it doesn't mean that a CB isn't there. We wouldn't attack for no reason unless we felt threatened. I notice a lot more people are being careful with their wording though which is good. Anyways, just my .02.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1266549688' post='2191166']
this is the same war that \m/-Polar were fighting. a new one was never started.
[/quote]

We weren't fighting in that war though. Were we?