FOK Declaration of War

[Branimir]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1267038642' post='2201816']
I actually am quite neutral towards you Branimir, though I find some of your posts irritating and illogical as I'm sure you find mine the same way at times.[/quote]My dislike of somebody rarely is actually generated by their similar attitude towards me. I find some of my post illogical too, once I sober up, heh. xD
[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1267038642' post='2201816']I'd agree that the DoW may have been needed due to the tier balance, I just wish they could of found someone else to do it.[/quote]
Indeed, a point already addressed but I think it needs a mention again.

MK is pulling their treaty cards quite masterfully, firstly making Grub do a "salto mortale" because they knew he was silly enough to make it. Then pitting ex friends against each other to break their relations further. But something isn't said here-- your move enabled them to do that with treaties. When you are criticizing them for realpolitiking the way to further out maneuver you long term-- you have yourself to be blamed for that.

As has NPO for allowing the conditions for ad hoc karma coalition to form. Though, that mistakes were made, we admitted. (to preempt that line if somebody comes up with it).

[Bob Janova]

[quote]But something isn't said here-- your move enabled them to do that with treaties. When you are criticizing them for realpolitiking the way to further out maneuver you long term-- you have yourself to be blamed for that.[/quote]
That has been said, by everybody on the C&G side in this thread, heh. It is true though, TOP set themselves up to be abused like this.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266972678' post='2200144']
Ive been trying to party with you guys for years Only problem is we seem to allways be waving at each other from across the dance floor

Maybe we can meet at the bar up front and have a beer sometime
[/quote]
We seem to be compared to Valhalla a lot these days. Seems natural.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1267041603' post='2201873']
My dislike of somebody rarely is actually generated by their similar attitude towards me. I find some of my post illogical too, once I sober up, heh. xD

Indeed, a point already addressed but I think it needs a mention again.

MK is pulling their treaty cards quite masterfully, firstly making Grub do a "salto mortale" because they knew he was silly enough to make it. Then pitting ex friends against each other to break their relations further. But something isn't said here-- your move enabled them to do that with treaties. When you are criticizing them for realpolitiking the way to further out maneuver you long term-- you have yourself to be blamed for that.

As has NPO for allowing the conditions for ad hoc karma coalition to form. Though, that mistakes were made, we admitted. (to preempt that line if somebody comes up with it).
[/quote]

Pitting friends against ex-friends is what TOP has done. I really don't see how that is MK's doing?

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1267046776' post='2201993']
Pitting friends against ex-friends is what TOP has done. I really don't see how that is MK's doing?
[/quote]

It's MK's fault for being attacked and asking for help from its allies obviously.

[SilentFury]

Move could of been better ... With that being said !@#$ happens when you party naked and ur dutch...

o/ FOK

[Prime minister Johns]

Good luck finding an open TOP war slot in this day and age. Declaring war on TOP has become quite fashionable. Still welcome to the dogpile and watch where you put your hands.

[wickedj]

Have fun, FOK. ignore the haters...its all they know

[The Corrupt Teacher]

After taking a whole day catching up on this I can't think of really anything new to add other than reiterate the following:

1. Tough decision FOK but right move. (also why can't some people get it into their thick skulls that hey some of FOK really didn't want to do this, others were neutral, and other might have wanted this, look at your own alliance I'm sure it has all the same types of people in the same situations so trying to judge FOK on this is moot.)
2. TOP also sucks to be in your position as well and I actually feel a little sorry for you right now trying to figure out to best way to handle this.
3. Bob Janova...seriously...I can't read anything you write without cringing anymore and at one point I semi-respected you...until I realized you restate the same false points over and over like a broken record, just with different mislabeled and misused facts to fit your twisted logic. (AirMe and Stumpy covered the rest)
4. With the exception of Chairman Hal's off tilt rants I actually am beginning to like Valhalla. They shut up, honor treaties, and fight got to respect them.
5. LM I'd just stop bothering with responding if I was you. I honestly believe most of what you say but you put way too much faith in your friends to do the right thing and for as smart as you are that is incredibly naive. If you were really in charge of TOP I'd believe your claims it but as long as TOP has people like Saber and Crymson wielding influence in TOP I doubt anyone will ever trust you guys and except you as good guys. You obviously have shown you can misread peoples motives in things and have stated as such, so why don't you turn some of that reflection inwards to your own alliance mates and see if their intentions were really pure because I highly doubt it. Other than that your one of the few class acts in this game and I hope you stay that way.

Anyway after reading all of this I felt like I had to say something to justify my wasted time. Now I'm going to slip off back into my state of obscurity and general inactivity.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='24 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1267041912' post='2201879']
We seem to be compared to Valhalla a lot these days. Seems natural.
[/quote]

Sadly its the Valhalla that was lead by a guy well documented to be a raving ego maniac they were probably alluding too.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='25 February 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1267080854' post='2202810']
Sadly its the Valhalla that was lead by a guy well documented to be a raving ego maniac they were probably alluding too.
[/quote]


Burn

Oh well, I've already tossed my two cents in here. A sad day to see former inseperable allies cross swords. Heres to a brighter future

[erikz]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1267039618' post='2201838']
Well I'm glad that you now agree that TOP entered as part of a coalition and that it isn't a whole new war.

It doesn't say that they wanted to 'take out' C&G, it says '[i]defeat[/i]'. You can defeat an alliance without taking them out, and as part of a wider war effort. That sentence really isn't the call to a severe rolling that your side is taking it as.
[/quote]
Whatever way you like or want to twist it Bob; they started a new war. The \m/ vs. Polar war was totally different and unrelated and TOP took a chance. Can't blame them for trying what they believed tho.

Edited February 25, 2010 by erikz

[Scorponok]

Another alliance called in to help MK... Too bad.

Good luck out their FOK!

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Whatever way you like or want to twist it Bob; they started a new war.[/quote]
... except that it states three times in their DoW that they are not.

Did Legion start a new war in GW3 for you too?

[erikz]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1267104920' post='2202958']
... except that it states three times in their DoW that they are not.

Did Legion start a new war in GW3 for you too?
[/quote]
I was non-existent then. My nation was founded in the last days of the UJW.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1267036552' post='2201758']
No. What's sad is that you think your alliance is better -- and less complicit -- in the world we sought to dismantle along with the NPO than NPO is. We didn't need TOP to down the unchecked power of Pacific last time; we did so in spite of it. This war is nothing more and nothing less than judgment. The final curtain has come to call on the old world order and TOP is finally answering for their crimes, as should have happened a year ago.
[/quote]

Feeling like you always need some moral crusade, eh?

It's almost like a card you can play at any second, you bring up their past sucking up to the teet of the Hegemony the moment they lay on a side that isn't yours. It's a pretty handy card, as most people were sucking up to the teet of the hegemony during that time.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1267038419' post='2201812']
It's a matter of hope I suppose. I would like to see global peace because I think it's the right thing to do as the context of the initial overall war has changed (This honestly should have been done within the first 2-3 days of Polaris declaring peace if we think about this logically). I understand that CnG as a whole would not want to give white peace after taking a multitude of high-tech nukes. While I can without a doubt say that I would give white peace if the roles were reversed, I cannot expect people to live to the same standards I place upon myself. If you were in our shoes though, would you not ask for white peace? Just like CnG for time on end was bawwing about TOP playing peace-making in situations and sticking our noses in places we should not have (yes see I can admit a screw up) and called us stat collectors, I can understand you being irritated with our baaawwing in regards to adding another one on top of the 21 alliances at war with us (and yes this is militarily what you should of done when facing an enemy with a concentrated tier prepared for war. I'd of done the same against Polaris in their mid tier had a war ever broken out along those lines). Realize that in part, it is a defense mechanism. What else can we do but say "oh well, here comes another one"? In the sense of FOK it is not that it is another alliance coming at us, but that it is FOK. It's an emotional stab to the heart more then anything. While you say that we are happy to war eternally, yet we cry for white peace, I believe you mistake us. We say we are READY for an eternal war. Do we wish for it or are we happy to have one? No. It's more fun to ride the cyclical nature of war/peace and be an active member of the political world which, as FAN can probably testify to, they were not during their VietFAN era. As an active and generally older (age-wise we don't have many young players) the enjoyment for us comes from being political players while excelling at nation building and war. So as I said, while we are READY for an eternal war, we would much rather have white peace and be active members of the community striving for more fun instead of having to play the role of detractor/enemy. Do I believe we'll get white peace? No. Will I continue to push for it? Of course. It's the logical thing to do. Just like you always [ooc] under-bid in contract negotiations [ooc] you under bid in what you hope to receive for peace. Ideologically there are things that TOP will refuse. We will refuse things similar to what NPO did to many alliances. We will not disband, we will not limit people being involved in our alliance or in the manner they are (govt restrictions). There are various other things we will not do that we are WILLING to fight eternally for. For our right to deny those things, just as FAN fought for the right to exist in the manner they saw fit, we are WILLING and READY to fight for our beliefs, our ideological culture, and our existence (though I seriously doubt this last one is even a question as I hope all here have realized the atrocity involved with disbanding an alliance). So yes many members will cry for white peace though it may not be given, partially because we truly felt betrayed by Polaris and that we feel as though the context of our entrance has changed. I say may not be given because eventually, it may truly become so costly (in terms of sheer monetary loss as I've stated turtling is much cheaper then taking hits, to continue a war against us, since we are both willing and ready to carry to that extent that it may just be the logical and smart thing for all sides to peace out globally. Looking from a cost/benefit analysis, that is why I would give white peace. And if it turns out that a war pops up 3 months from now and we do it all again, at least it'd be fun (though I seriously doubt that would happen, at least not the same sides). Just because I pissed the bed, doesn't mean I can't change the sheets.
[/quote]That's a fine analysis if you assume TOP mean CnG no harm in the long run. But if there's an alliance with a game-dominating top-tier, allied with and doing the work for one of the most malicious and sneaky alliances in the game (guess), then letting them build up and wait for a better opportunity is not good for us.

The simple version is: you took an opportunity [treatybabble goes here] to hit what you perceived as an easy target in the form of your strongest enemy. You misread the situation and were betrayed (remember: not by us) and every sanctimonious "forum veteran" with a citadel-earned reputation in danger came rushing to your aid shouting about the legal technicalities of the issue.

I appreciate your honesty, especially compared to the people doing your arguing for you (badly). But I disagree that white peace is anything like a "good idea" for MK.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1267104920' post='2202958']
... except that it states three times in their DoW that they are not.

Did Legion start a new war in GW3 for you too?
[/quote]"The defendant has said he is not guilty three times! What more do you want!"

[Haflinger]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1267037457' post='2201788']
Oh come on, surely you know I was jesting considering I put all the smileys in just like MK does after I say things! Really I was just joking though.
[/quote]
LM, nobody has a sense of humour anymore. Only MK posters are allowed to make jokes. The rest of us all look like this now.

[img]http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mdownes/bdhome/csm1.jpg[/img]

[Martijn]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1267104920' post='2202958']
... except that it states three times in their DoW that they are not.
[/quote]

It is completely irrelevant if TOP's attack is a seperate war or part of something larger. It changes nothing to the fact we have a treaty with MK and not with TOP, making the defence of MK against TOP the only possible option.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Martijn' date='25 February 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1267112517' post='2203062']
It is completely irrelevant if TOP's attack is a seperate war or part of something larger. It changes nothing to the fact we have a treaty with MK and not with TOP, making the defence of MK against TOP the only possible option.
[/quote]


Logic? On my planet? SAY IT AIN'T SO! It's more likely than you think.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Martijn' date='25 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1267112517' post='2203062']
It is completely irrelevant if TOP's attack is a seperate war or part of something larger. It changes nothing to the fact we have a treaty with MK and not with TOP, making the defence of MK against TOP the only possible option.
[/quote]

Stop spinning Martijn, we all know MK tricked TOP into attacking them and then FOK into defending them from TOP in order to get both alliances killed and to emerge the victor. Right? Right!

[neneko]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='25 February 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1267115284' post='2203102']
Stop spinning Martijn, we all know MK tricked TOP into attacking them and then FOK into defending them from TOP in order to get both alliances killed and to emerge the victor. Right? Right!
[/quote]
Our next step is to sign a mdp with iFOK and trick FOK into attacking us to make you two fight eachother. There is no end to the evil plots here.

[drommels]

[quote name='neneko' date='25 February 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1267115467' post='2203104']
Our next step is to sign a mdp with iFOK and trick FOK into attacking us to make you two fight eachother. There is no end to the evil plots here.
[/quote]

If you make it a MDAP you can have iFOK do a pre-emptive strike on us

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='drommels' date='25 February 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1267115859' post='2203111']
If you make it a MDAP you can have iFOK do a pre-emptive strike on us
[/quote]

Now there's an idea.