FOK Declaration of War

[arentak]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1266964688' post='2199833']
Your own statement that you haven't been defeated or are winning means that you should be offering peace terms to us, right!

[/quote]
TOP did offer peace to all alliances and nations without terms. I'm sorry your memory is defective.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='23 February 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1266959013' post='2199556']
Attention everyone: If TOP really did aid alliances at war with FOK then you effectively already declared war on them so talk of this horrible betrayal is both hypocritical and misguided. You also should have considered FOK before declaring on MK if you really cared about that friendship. Seriously, get over yourselves.
[/quote]
Can someone from TOP address this? More specifically the aiding their wartime combatants part. Since apparently its been ignored by everyone but Saber who decided to ignore it and just make an entirely unrelated comment.

[Jan Doedel]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1266955833' post='2199424']
I'm sorry to see this happen. Now I'm even up in the air about whether a paperless route is the route to go. I thought friendships could exist even without, and maybe this is notice that we have no friendship amongst us, I do not know honestly. I for one would of protested any declaration of TOP hitting FOK in any arena and will continue to do my best to see both parties regain our friendship? I'm just kind of speechless on this one. To me this is the same as Umbrella, Argent, or Gremlins hitting us. Something I never, thought possible. I suppose I'm naive though.
[/quote]
It is amazing how short a memory some people have (and like to twist facts and intentions), and how easy it is to say "But we don't have a treaty woth them". I think FOK made the wrong decision this time (after [i]quite [/i]a bit of discussion).
[quote]That being said, I wish FOK the best of luck and I suppose I'm still sacrificing my pixels for people I hold in the highest regard, even if they are being sacrificed towards those people. Again words escape me, and I must say the only thing appropriate here is, I'm sorry. Both as a TOP member that has allowed our friendship to degrade to this point, and as the person who proposed a pre-emp attack on your treaty partners. I truly am sorry that you are in the position you are in, due in large part to my own actions.[/quote]
I think TOP's attack was a wrong choice. I think FOK's attack is the wrong choice. We still seem to have a lot in common.

Good luck to both sides.

Regards, Jan Doedel.

Edit:
[quote]Can someone from TOP address this? More specifically the aiding their wartime combatants part. Since apparently its been ignored by everyone but Saber who decided to ignore it and just make an entirely unrelated comment.[/quote]
I've counted about 20 aid packets the last week. While I can understand that the opposite side is short on cash and TOP is one of the few places to get it, it did hit a sore spot with a few of us.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Jan Doedel

[Italgria]

I wonder is it really that MK needs all this help to attack TOP and TSO. I mean for two worthless alliances as we are I think its quite pathetic for the mighty MK not to be able to finish us.

[arentak]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1266964978' post='2199849']
The faux sense of contrition is what's appalling here. Isn't it just better to declare war and tell your former friend something like "die in a fire"? That's the way we used to do things back in the day. It's more honest and it saves us a lot of tears.
[/quote]
I save my sentiments like that for our private forums. Try adding "nuclear" to the "die in a fire" comment though.

[Saber]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266964688' post='2199833']
It's great to see you giving up, but attempting to claim otherwise. A+++.[/quote]
I'm not giving up. You have 22 alliances, refocus 21 of them on TOP, and put FOK only on 5 remaining and voila. Problem solved.

Or just try ending this war instead of piling more and more people while we wait for your "consultations".

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266964688' post='2199833']
Your own statement that you haven't been defeated or are winning means that you should be offering peace terms to us, right!

In terms of how this could have been solved? You not preemptively attacking alliances, and after doing it not acknowledging it was a mistake until it failed miserably all around you.
[/quote]
We are not offering terms as the reason for war ended long time ago, and now it's just MK utilizing it's superior position to take us down a notch as possible future threat. Only issue here is that most of TOP does not see MK as a real threat, and would have been happy to go about their own way (and trust me, we'd put safeties in place so that we can't end up in this situation again), but keeping us in war only to destroy our nations will not help with keeping that image.

[Bob]

[quote name='Italgria' date='23 February 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1266965274' post='2199861']
I wonder is it really that MK needs all this help to attack TOP and TSO. I mean for two worthless alliances as we are I think its quite pathetic for the mighty MK not to be able to finish us.
[/quote]
Its not like TOP started out at least twice the size of MK or around there, right?

I think MK has said several times that TOP is quite solid at nationbuilding and have built nations that are difficult to destroy. I don't think we consider them a worthless alliance, or ever have.

You..well I don't think MK really cares on a government level, but I'm damn happy to see you going down, why not have more people on it >_>

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1266965371' post='2199865']
[b](and trust me, we'd put safeties in place so that we can't end up in this situation again)[/b]
[/quote]

It's nice to hear that you have listened to me and have banned Crymson from ever getting into a gov position again. I have some more advices for you guys though, but it will cost you

[Bob Janova]

[quote]FOK is doing their job hoping to bring this war to an end sooner than later.[/quote]
This was posted while I was typing last time. The war is continuing because of C&G, not TOP – as Arentak says, TOP have offered a guaranteed termless peace, and have also said that they are willing to start negotiating. So if you want to end the war sooner, you should apply pressure to the other side, not add extra pain to TOP.

Re the aiding issue: in my opinion, aiding coalition allies once you're all in the war is fair game. In Karma, we had aid sent all over the coalition, across fronts etc. FOK and MHA both chose to enter the war on the side that they did, and had to expect coalition aid to reach their targets.

[Micheal Malone]

[quote name='Coursca' date='23 February 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1266964350' post='2199820']
I hope FOK isn't thinking of asking for reps at the end of this, considering the $1bn TOP sent them about five months ago.

"Friends"...meh.
[/quote]
Because FOK has shown a history of asking for reps, right?

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1266964021' post='2199805']
You should read better. Few TOP members were upset about it (and still are) but fact that it was MK that deliberately asked for the treaty to be activated against our 6 alliances (including TOP) is beneficial factor for FOK. Main argument I posted was that FOK should probably be more upset about MK asking them to do this, then TOP should be upset about FOK actually doing this. (FOK can be upset about us doing this in first place too, one does not exclude the other).
[/quote]
Why would FOK need to be more upset at MK asking them to fulfill their treaty against an enemy. Sure, you were a friend when you declared on their ally, and might possibly still be after this war. But the moment you aided their direct enemies, you become an enemy. You could attempt to spin and dance around the subject all you want, but fact is fact.

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1266964978' post='2199849']
The faux sense of contrition is what's appalling here. Isn't it just better to declare war and tell your former friend something like "die in a fire"? That's the way we used to do things back in the day. It's more honest and it saves us a lot of tears.
[/quote]
If there is one thing you should know by now, FOK is loyal, and they wear their heart on their sleeve. I have no doubt that it was a very hard decision for FOK, and that the membership is likely highly split on this matter. Perhaps TOP took your advice by declaring on direct allies of their 'friends' and then sending aid to direct enemies of their 'friend'. If there is any faux sense here, it's the faux common sense displayed by TOP. After all is said and done, I am sure there will be many members of FOK who will still look favorably on TOP, as long as the war is honorable and TOP's attempts at smearing FOK's honor and name quiet down. Cause right now, it is definitely not helping their cause.

[duke81]

[quote name='Coursca' date='23 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1266964350' post='2199820']
I hope FOK isn't thinking of asking for reps at the end of this,
[/quote]We won't ask any reps.

[Bob]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1266965371' post='2199865']
I'm not giving up. You have 22 alliances, refocus 21 of them on TOP, and put FOK only on 5 remaining and voila. Problem solved.

Or just try ending this war instead of piling more and more people while we wait for your "consultations".[/quote]
Note I am a general member. How should I know what the hell you mean by consultations? I have no idea. I assume we have to confer and figure out what we want to offer. I'm not sure we were prepared for it, as the statement had been white peace or nothing for so long.

I have 20 alliances currently listed. Does TOP have a list somewhere I could use, I'm trying D:
MK, ODN, Athens, =LOST=, Vanguard, GR, FoB, Aloha, Aircastle, TJO, Dark Fist, PPF, Brigade, Sparta, STA, NpO, AoAB, tR, FAIL, and FOK.

Two are jokes: FAIL and AoAB, two are extremely small: Aloha and PPF. Sparta is engaged with TOOL quite a bit and is pretty busy there, as well as their top nations not being the best. All of CnG has seen our top ranks destroyed, so throw us out. Brigade has just gotten out of war with Legion, and is already helping bring down your top two. Aircastle has no upper ranks (sorry guys, love you!), Dark Fist is quite engaged on TOP, as is STA. NpO is currently a bit busy, so the amount of help they can offer is limited, although quite appreciated. TJO is not big. Resistance is already pretty engaged on you. FOK is just entering.

I think I covered everyone, probably forgot some very obvious people as im not good at lists :<
[quote]
We are not offering terms as the reason for war ended long time ago, and now it's just MK utilizing it's superior position to take us down a notch as possible future threat. Only issue here is that most of TOP does not see MK as a real threat, and would have been happy to go about their own way (and trust me, we'd put safeties in place so that we can't end up in this situation again), but keeping us in war only to destroy our nations will not help with keeping that image.
[/quote]
ok good to know

Edited February 23, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[jerdge]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010' post='2199865']<SNIP>
Only issue here is that most of TOP does not see MK as a real threat, and would have been happy to go about their own way (and trust me, we'd put safeties in place so that we can't end up in this situation again), but [b]keeping us in war only to destroy our nations will not help with keeping that image.[/b][/quote]
I agree. Keeping you in war is only going to help a lot of people to develop more grievances. One would think that what happened to Pacifica, also largely due to what they had done to many people that now are in CnG, should enlighten those same people about the stupidity to go on a similar[sup][1][/sup] path... But what do I know?

[1] [i]Hey, I am using "similar" in a very broad sense! Try to think of it before shooting the standard "itsnotanhegemonisticact" when that's not what I am talking of.[/i]

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='Micheal Malone' date='23 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1266965553' post='2199872']
Because FOK has shown a history of asking for reps, right?


Why would FOK need to be more upset at MK asking them to fulfill their treaty against an enemy. Sure, you were a friend when you declared on their ally, and might possibly still be after this war. But the moment you aided their direct enemies, you become an enemy. You could attempt to spin and dance around the subject all you want, but fact is fact.


If there is one thing you should know by now, FOK is loyal, and they wear their heart on their sleeve. I have no doubt that it was a very hard decision for FOK, and that the membership is likely highly split on this matter. Perhaps TOP took your advice by declaring on direct allies of their 'friends' and then sending aid to direct enemies of their 'friend'. If there is any faux sense here, it's the faux common sense displayed by TOP. After all is said and done, I am sure there will be many members of FOK who will still look favorably on TOP, as long as the war is honorable and TOP's attempts at smearing FOK's honor and name quiet down. Cause right now, it is definitely not helping their cause.
[/quote]

Hard decision yes, blah blah. They're pointing their guns at them. Might as well just be honest and say "we like MK better, screw you", which is what they're [i]doing[/i]. I'm not even saying that what they're doing is wrong. I mean, TOP's screwed up pretty badly. Take your cues from the NPO. They never felt any contrition when they were picking A over B. Sometimes they picked right (NpO over GOONS) and sometimes wrong (Q over NpO), but they were sincere and concrete.

If ODN's fallout with IRON teaches us anything, is that the scorned party will not take it well. Here they are, fighting a war again. In fact, I can't think of any example of a situation like this reversing itself.

[Micheal Malone]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1266966297' post='2199900']
Hard decision yes, blah blah. They're pointing their guns at them. Might as well just be honest and say "we like MK better, screw you", which is what they're [i]doing[/i]. I'm not even saying that what they're doing is wrong. I mean, TOP's screwed up pretty badly. Take your cues from the NPO. They never felt any contrition when they were picking A over B. Sometimes they picked right (NpO over GOONS) and sometimes wrong (Q over NpO), but they were sincere and concrete.

If ODN's fallout with IRON teaches us anything, is that the scorned party will not take it well. Here they are, fighting a war again. In fact, I can't think of any example of a situation like this reversing itself.
[/quote]
Why do they need to say "We like MK better, screw you" if that's not how they feel? Why can't the say "We really didn't want to do this, but you left us no other choice."? Which is what has been said time and again throughout this thread (for the most part).

Edit: Off to work now, but when I get home late tonight/early morning I'll dig through and read your response. I'm actually curious to what it will be.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Micheal Malone

[Mussolandia]

But that is how they feel, they just declared war on them.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1266966653' post='2199913']
But that is how they feel, they just declared war on them.
[/quote]

You don't always have to hate someone to declare war on them. I'm sure if iFOK needed to declare on NEW or vice versa we would both fight with a smile on our face. I mean, not every declaration of war is one of hate or discontent.

[ROMMELHSQ]

hmm...I guess I need to change my title to "Emperor of #22"
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='24 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266964965' post='2199847']
We (yes I was in FOK at the time) didn't want your dirty money for this sole reason. It was MrCyber who accepted the money, who is now (ironically) in TOP. Also, [b]FOK has sent out thousands of tech to you[/b], which you are now using to destroy their allies. We both can play this game.
[/quote]
We paid for your tech, smart guy. We actually paid for it at a higher rate than what was the standard price because you were our friends at the time (we paid 3m/100, while it was going for 3m/150). (Unless you sent us some free tech, which I never remember you doing).
Heck, after the UjW I would do 3m/50 tech deals for FOK nations only to help them. So please don't compare the two.

[quote name='duke81' date='24 February 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1266965675' post='2199877']
We won't ask any reps.
[/quote]
Oh believe me....if somehow I would accept paying reps to the alliances #1-#21. The alliance #22 will be the last one that I would accept paying reps to.



Anyway, I'll look forward to get my money back, in a year or two...

[TheThirdMark]

[quote name='sha the merciless' date='23 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266955506' post='2199405']
Oh hey TOP! Thanks for all your help. Yeah, i've been meaning to call, but we've been too busy $#@*% ! on you every chance we get. So like we was saying, thanks for all the help over the past couple years, we'd like to repay it with a DoW. It's the least we can do. Your friends at FOK.
[/quote]

How sweet

We [b]both[/b] take another FA route. No one to blame, happens and nothing really bad with that.
TOP declares a war on a direct partner of FOK, without reason, hoping FOK would a: Dishonor a treaty b: honor a treaty.
You can pick a and b, dont care, the outcome is the same. [b]YOU[/b] started hostilities.
Then to make sure the !@#$ would hit the proverbial fan you, in all your wisdom, decide its smart to directly aid a Stated Enemy of FOK. There you go. [b]YOU[/b] gave your started hostilities some fuel.

No hard feelings for the rest, but when no other choise is left, what to do?

Edited February 23, 2010 by TheThirdMark

[Lord Curzon]

We're glad to host our Orange brothers in our war slots. While you're there please pick up some beer, we'll try to be good hosts .

I for one sympathize with your situation guys. Its nothing personal its just business.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Why do they need to say "We like MK better, screw you" if that's not how they feel? Why can't the say "We really didn't want to do this, but [b]MK[/b] left us no other choice."? Which is what has been said time and again throughout this thread (for the most part).[/quote]
Fixed that for you. FOK have been put in an impossible position (like Polar) by MK, who could easily have asked for FOK's assistance on other fronts which weren't FOK's long time allies, but chose not to do so.

[Bob]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266967610' post='2199961']
Fixed that for you. FOK have been put in an impossible position (like Polar) by MK, who could easily have asked for FOK's assistance on other fronts which weren't FOK's long time allies, but chose not to do so.
[/quote]
So, we shouldn't request assistance on the target we need the most help with? And as per the third mark's explanation, I hope you read that and understand their mindset.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1266967610' post='2199961']
Fixed that for you. FOK have been put in an impossible position (like Polar) by MK, who could easily have asked for FOK's assistance on other fronts which weren't FOK's long time allies, but chose not to do so.
[/quote]

It's a quite easy situation to grasp really.

1) FOK is allied to MK
2) FOK is not allied to TOP
3) TOP attacked MK w/o a CB
4) FOK is defending MK

If TOP didn't treat FOK as dirt the last couple of months, FOK and TOP would still be allies which would lead to 2,3 and 4 not taking place (probably, hopefully).

[ajaxpenny]

For one, I recognize this DoW as what it is. While we at TOP should be surprised at this declaration by a former friend, times change and it is only honorable for an alliance to follow up on it's treaty obligations. While one can be disgruntled by the way TOP and FOK moved apart, there should be no malice towards this action by FOK.

MK does need FOK to bring down some of our upper tiers. That is a statistical fact. And the fact is, FOK is allied to MK, not TOP. Treaty obligations are important still for most alliances.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='23 February 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1266965233' post='2199858']
Can someone from TOP address this? More specifically the aiding their wartime combatants part. Since apparently its been ignored by everyone but Saber who decided to ignore it and just make an entirely unrelated comment.
[/quote]

I'll attempt to tackle this somewhat as it hasn't been addressed. We've taken this war in many ways as a coalition war, and as such, have aimed to provide assistance to all those fighting on our side of the conflict to the best of our ability. This is only right, considering the way in which such alliances have come into this conflict to begin with.

Along the way we have probably lost track of which exact alliances we have aided which could be considered aiding a combatant not directly linked to our theatre of the conflict. However, with regard to Invicta, I do believe they are fighting a common enemy, The Resistance, which has declared war on both of us, which justifies our aid to them.

I haven't seen a FOK Government member contact us regarding this issue. If they had, we could probably have discussed this and come to an understanding on this issue, at the very least.

[deathcat]

[quote name='ajaxpenny' date='23 February 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1266968320' post='2199985']
For one, I recognize this DoW as what it is. While we at TOP should be surprised at this declaration by a former friend, times change and it is only honorable for an alliance to follow up on it's treaty obligations. While one can be disgruntled by the way TOP and FOK moved apart, there should be no malice towards this action by FOK.

MK does need FOK to bring down some of our upper tiers. That is a statistical fact. And the fact is, FOK is allied to MK, not TOP. Treaty obligations are important still for most alliances.



I'll attempt to tackle this somewhat as it hasn't been addressed. We've taken this war in many ways as a coalition war, and as such, have aimed to provide assistance to all those fighting on our side of the conflict to the best of our ability. This is only right, considering the way in which such alliances have come into this conflict to begin with.

Along the way we have probably lost track of which exact alliances we have aided which could be considered aiding a combatant not directly linked to our theatre of the conflict. However, with regard to Invicta, I do believe they are fighting a common enemy, The Resistance, which has declared war on both of us, which justifies our aid to them.

I haven't seen a FOK Government member contact us regarding this issue. If they had, we could probably have discussed this and come to an understanding on this issue, at the very least.
[/quote]

Very good job of explaining my friend. I am glad to see your level headed postings again

oo/ AP

Best of luck my friend!