FOK Declaration of War

[Micheal Malone]

[quote name='drommels' date='25 February 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1267115859' post='2203111']
If you make it a MDAP you can have iFOK do a pre-emptive strike on us
[/quote]
I've been meaning to take down FOK a peg or two...

/me cinches the belt in tighter.

I gots me some work to do, yall sit tight.

[Bob Janova]

[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]
This is true in this case (as FOK and TOP were on opposite sides already; there is significant precedent for treaties on the 'wrong side' of coalition wars being ignored), but I was responding to a post which made that claim. The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. The fact that it's not a whole new war doesn't affect that either way.

[quote]"The defendant has said he is not guilty three times! What more do you want!"[/quote]
Considering the 'defendant' is the one who entered the war and therefore knows his own motivation, I'd say that's a whole lot more relevant than 'the prosecution has said it is a new war a million times' which is all your side of that argument has.

[erikz]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
This is true in this case (as FOK and TOP were on opposite sides already; there is significant precedent for treaties on the 'wrong side' of coalition wars being ignored), but I was responding to a post which made that claim. The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. The fact that it's not a whole new war doesn't affect that either way.


Considering the 'defendant' is the one who entered the war and therefore knows his own motivation, I'd say that's a whole lot more relevant than 'the prosecution has said it is a new war a million times' which is all your side of that argument has.
[/quote]
Regardless of the fact that TOP and FOK have been the best of friends for the last 2,5 years (this has been discussed enough now): are you telling me VE would choose not to activate a D-clause from a MDoAP treaty when asked by their allies who need their support?

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
This is true in this case (as FOK and TOP were on opposite sides already; there is significant precedent for treaties on the 'wrong side' of coalition wars being ignored), but I was responding to a post which made that claim. The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. The fact that it's not a whole new war doesn't affect that either way.
[/quote]
We got declared on by TORN out of the blue. Being a former treaty partner hardly make you safe from counters when you attack said alliance treaty partners.

I really don't think you have much of a case with these attempts to smear FOKs name. Keep on trying though the crocodile tears over the moral outrage here is just delicious as the rest of your tears.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
This is true in this case (as FOK and TOP were on opposite sides already; there is significant precedent for treaties on the 'wrong side' of coalition wars being ignored), but I was responding to a post which made that claim. The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. The fact that it's not a whole new war doesn't affect that either way.


Considering the 'defendant' is the one who entered the war and therefore knows his own motivation, I'd say that's a whole lot more relevant than 'the prosecution has said it is a new war a million times' which is all your side of that argument has.
[/quote]

Why are you not up in arms about TORN's declaration on MK? They were MK's former treaty partners and MK leadership is a main reason how they were able to obtain peace in the Karma war. I don't see you telling TORN they have a lack of class.

EDIT: Did not see Neneko posted the same thing.

Edited February 25, 2010 by AirMe

[Martijn]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class.
[/quote]

If TOP hadn't attacked MK, FOK and TOP would now not be fighting. It's as simple as that. Of course FOK did not want to go to war with TOP and as Divi and many others have already gone out of their way to explain, FOK is not happy with this situation at all.

But having said that, treaty obglitations are not to be taken lightly. FOK's signature on an MDP means something and that is why we are now meeting on the battlefield. If that isn't classy, I don't know what is.

[Divi Filius]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class.[/quote]

Yet, TOP declaring on an MDP partner of that same 'old friend' without any CB whatsoever doesn't show a 'lack of class' ?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Divi Filius' date='25 February 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1267124567' post='2203287']
Yet, TOP declaring on an MDP partner of that same 'old friend' without any CB whatsoever doesn't show a 'lack of class' ?
[/quote]

He holds the rest of us to different standards than he does TOP.

[CheeKy]

People who dont have anything to do with this have the biggest mouths...

[President Obama]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. [/quote]
Bob, I really don't see it as a lack of class on the part of FOK. From my understanding they really had very little choice in the matter, as TOP attacked a MDP partner of FOK and that partner requested assistance in the war. FOK did what most alliances would do and honored their treaty. Due to TOP and FOK no longer sharing a treaty they had no legal reason to stay uninvolved and a strong legal obligation to declare war.

It's an unfortunate situation to be fighting such long time friends as FOK and I wish that it didn't have to be like this, but FOK didn't show any lack of class in this war in my opinion.

Edited February 25, 2010 by President Obama

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 08:31 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]

So basically what you are getting at is whatever TOP says is true. Just because they said they weren't starting a new war in their DoW doesn't mean it is the truth.

[anenu]

[quote name='CheeKy' date='25 February 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1267127819' post='2203363']
People who dont have anything to do with this have the biggest mouths...
[/quote]

welcome to CN where the people least involved have the most facts about the situation and their opinions must be heard or their head will explode.

[Tick1]

[quote name='anenu' date='25 February 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1267130590' post='2203423']
welcome to CN where the people least involved have the most facts about the situation and their opinions must be heard or their head will explode.
[/quote]

I think it is the other way around, people not involved in this war have the most facts about the situation and post their opinions to make your own head explode. Hello!

Edited February 25, 2010 by Tick1

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class. The fact that it's not a whole new war doesn't affect that either way.
[/quote]

... as opposed to the ultra-classy move of declaring war on the defense treaty partner of an old friend.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Krack' date='25 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1267136590' post='2203675']
... as opposed to the ultra-classy move of declaring war on the defense treaty partner of an old friend.
[/quote]
While not ideal in either case, it is quite different.

o/ FOK

Edited February 25, 2010 by mitchh

[Gurney Halleck]

War is hell.


Fok had to make a tough decision here. I can relate.



o/ Fok

[Bob Janova]

Regarding TORN-MK, I don't really care about TORN so I had forgotten about that relationship. Yes, obviously that is deeply unclassy too.

Regarding TOP-MK, declaring on a MDP partner of a friend is quite different from declaring directly on that friend. In Karma FOK declared on the NPO, an MDP partner of their allies MHA; Grämlins and MHA declared on IRON; I'm sure there were many others. Now, declaring pre-emptively wasn't a great idea, as discussed elsewhere, but simply declaring war on a friend of a friend is pretty much unavoidable in a coalition war. FOK were already on the other side so it wouldn't have made sense to talk to them about it beforehand.

Regarding 'you would activate too', I would have activated FOK on every front except TOP (and possibly IRON, not sure how relations are there). Just because you're on the opposite side doesn't mean you have to fight directly. Or if I was hurting so badly that I needed to play the low class card, considering peace has been on the table from the beginning I'd be going to the peace talks and getting out of a needlessly destructive war by now.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='26 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267193319' post='2204878']
Regarding TORN-MK, I don't really care about TORN so I had forgotten about that relationship. Yes, obviously that is deeply unclassy too.

Regarding TOP-MK, declaring on a MDP partner of a friend is quite different from declaring directly on that friend. In Karma FOK declared on the NPO, an MDP partner of their allies MHA; Grämlins and MHA declared on IRON; I'm sure there were many others. Now, declaring pre-emptively wasn't a great idea, as discussed elsewhere, but simply declaring war on a friend of a friend is pretty much unavoidable in a coalition war. FOK were already on the other side so it wouldn't have made sense to talk to them about it beforehand.

Regarding 'you would activate too', I would have activated FOK on every front except TOP (and possibly IRON, not sure how relations are there). Just because you're on the opposite side doesn't mean you have to fight directly. Or if I was hurting so badly that I needed to play the low class card, considering peace has been on the table from the beginning I'd be going to the peace talks and getting out of a needlessly destructive war by now.
[/quote]
I'm glad you brought up RON. When MK activate a defensive treaty we're being manipulative and unclassy since FOK and TOP are former treaty partners. When IRON activate a aggressive clause to make TORN join in their attack on MK that's not unclassy?

Do you even pretend that your arguments make sense anymore or are you just posting the first thing that comes to mind nowadays?


edit:
Bottom line is that TOP choose to attack us and we're a treaty partner of FOK. If our side would have been outnumbered as TIFDTT thought we were going to be I have no doubt FOK still would have come to our defense. Would that have been unclassy? No of course not. If you're looking for something to complain about here it'd be TOP attacking a direct treaty partner of FOK.

Edited February 26, 2010 by neneko

[AirMe]

[quote name='neneko' date='26 February 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1267193794' post='2204883']
I'm glad you brought up RON. When MK activate a defensive treaty we're being manipulative and unclassy since FOK and TOP are former treaty partners. When IRON activate a aggressive clause to make TORN join in their attack on MK that's not unclassy?

Do you even pretend that your arguments make sense anymore or are you just posting the first thing that comes to mind nowadays?


edit:
Bottom line is that TOP choose to attack us and we're a treaty partner of FOK. If our side would have been outnumbered as TIFDTT thought we were going to be I have no doubt FOK still would have come to our defense. Would that have been unclassy? No of course not. If you're looking for something to complain about here it'd be TOP attacking a direct treaty partner of FOK.
[/quote]

Neneko summed it up pretty nice. I have nothing to add.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]When IRON activate a aggressive clause to make TORN join in their attack on MK that's not unclassy?[/quote]
Like I say, I don't care about TORN, but yes it is. I don't really see what your point is though – other people doing bad things doesn't mean that it's ok when you do it.

[quote]If you're looking for something to complain about here it'd be TOP attacking a direct treaty partner of FOK. [/quote]
Do you even read the post you quote?
[quote name=me]declaring war on a friend of a friend is pretty much unavoidable in a coalition war. FOK were already on the other side so it wouldn't have made sense to talk to them about it beforehand.[/quote]
The fact that FOK like you doesn't mean that TOP have to like you.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='26 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1267198567' post='2204955']
Like I say, I don't care about TORN, but yes it is. I don't really see what your point is though – other people doing bad things doesn't mean that it's ok when you do it.


Do you even read the post you quote?

The fact that FOK like you doesn't mean that TOP have to like you.
[/quote]

Equal outrage at equal events I believe it what we are getting at. You only show outrage when someone does it to TOP, but when someone does it to someone else you don't give a crap. It is that kind of ambivalence from people that allow things like the FARK Massacre, Continuum, California, and noWedge to happen.

"Meh it's not happening to me, why should I care?" except in this case you are "Meh it's TOP, they can't do anything wrong in my eyes so it must be MK's and C&G's fault."

EDIT: And again with your last bit there, it is ok for TOP to attack one of FOK's treaty partners but it's not ok for FOK to defend said treaty partner. Is someone holding your brain for ransom bob?

Edited February 26, 2010 by AirMe

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='26 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1267198567' post='2204955']
The fact that FOK like you doesn't mean that TOP have to like you.
[/quote]
TOPs attack on MK was unavoidable? I'd argue it was very avoidable they just could have got the pre-emptive strike plans out of their collective minds if the FOK relations really meant that much to them. TOP was by no means forced to declare on us.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]TOPs attack on MK was unavoidable?[/quote]
No, but the problem with it is not that MK is a friend of a friend. I think it's been well established that attacking before C&G entered militarily was a bad idea, but that would be the case whether or not the 90% of the world that C&G is allied to included TOP's friends or not.

[quote]Equal outrage at equal events I believe it what we are getting at[/quote]
Yeah because people on your side are not being at all partisan, right? I'll fight for my friends before I fight for other people – and so will you and everyone else on this planet. It's not like TORN are winning the PR war right now anyway. I think you'll find I argued against the injustice in all four of your examples, by the way (although Continuum was mostly internal).

[quote]Meh it's TOP, they can't do anything wrong in my eyes[/quote]
Will you guys please stop with this strawman, I've said from the beginning of this front that the pre-emptive attack was wrong.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='26 February 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1267210461' post='2205160']
No, but the problem with it is not that MK is a friend of a friend. I think it's been well established that attacking before C&G entered militarily was a bad idea, but that would be the case whether or not the 90% of the world that C&G is allied to included TOP's friends or not.
[/quote]
What? If you're trying to make a point here I'm not seeing it. TOP attacked us. We're treatied to FOK. FOK attacked TOP. TOP was in no way forced to attack us. If they wanted to avoid getting hit by FOK attacking us was a pretty bad idea.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='26 February 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1267210461' post='2205160']
Will you guys please stop with this strawman, I've said from the beginning of this front that the pre-emptive attack was wrong.
[/quote]
What exactly was wrong with the preemptive attack? I see you defend it in half your posts so it's pretty hard to see why you think it's wrong.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote]
What exactly was wrong with the preemptive attack? I see you defend it in half your posts so it's pretty hard to see why you think it's wrong.
[/quote]
In all fairness, I can understand why. I hope you don't mind someone who is purely half and half explain.

Many are deeming TOP more so as 'immoralists' because of their militaristic decision, when in reality, it is a decision for an entity to decide and it doesn't necessarily make them evil men; just stupid. When people bring up TOPs actions, they bring up two things:
1. TOP is like NPO (Which is politically retarded for anyone to compare, seriously..whoever says this has no idea of what the political spectrum was and is)
2. TOP is stupid for attacking first.

2 is right, 1 is ignorance.

So, this I believe is the blend, well, at least for myself. Do I agree with their method? No. Do I think MK wanted this war? Hell yes, even my mother wanted this war. Do I believe MK and TOP would eventually fight? Yes. Does this make TOP bullies? No. Does this make TOP militarily stupid? In my opinion, yes, they are better than this, and stupid strike as well. Do I find it funny most called them stat mongrels and now they attacked people are crying? Absolutely.

But in all reality, it stems to what argument your making. I say 'you' figuratively and not pointed towards you, but I do think people tend to stir their own arguments or statements up. My response purely depends on how the person formulates their own words.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Ejayrazz