Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[Sephiroth]

Anyone trying to keep alliances out based on the no re-entry are clause are stretching what can be considered the same conflict to much, I don't think it could be considered a breach if agreement unless someone wants to use it to their advantage. If those holding alliances to surrender terms want to see it that way and use breach of terms as a CB to attack, then I imagine all agreements would be off in regards to reps and both sides would try winning again. If Gremlins allies step in it might mean losing their suspended reps that IRON owes them and another war being fought which could go either way. For IRON it would mean maybe not paying reps if alliances that they owe reps to attack but end up losing this time.

If a global war erupted over people helping IRON and DAWN against Gremlins, they would be in a better starting position than when they got involved.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 April 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469']
what Grämlins are doing to IRON/DAWN – with indirect C&G support (direct if your people follow through with their threats to aid Grämlins) – is worse than anything the Hegemony tried.
[/quote]
Actually, Bob, no it's not worse than anything the old power grouping tried to do. I'd say it's comparable to what noWedge tried to do to BAPS, albeit on a much larger scale; of course he failed, heh.

Then again, C&G posters do have a history of [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?amp;showtopic=79457&view=findpost&p=8259276"]supporting noWedge[/url] [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=79462&view=findpost&p=8259309"]when he was off curbstomping[/url] [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=79466&view=findpost&p=8263849"]at least while he was still aligned with their MADP bloc, UJP.[/url] So they're just getting back to their roots, looks like.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 April 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469']what Grämlins are doing to IRON/DAWN – with indirect C&G support (direct if your people follow through with their threats to aid Grämlins) – is worse than anything the Hegemony tried.
[/quote]
Now, maybe you don't subscribe to this viewpoint Bob, but a lot of people opposed to the Gramlins are saying that they are actually losing to IRON/DAWN, and I've seen some things that could convince me of that point of view. If that's the case, C&G is hardly doing Gramlins any favors by letting them continue a losing war of choice. If C&G stepped in and said that IRON and DAWN must accept unconditional surrender or face renewed hostilities from C&G or something similar, I could understand the calls of foul. But you've lost perspective if you think letting the Gramlins lose this war is worse than what the Hegemony did, nevermind what they tried or desired.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]But you've lost perspective if you think letting the Gramlins lose this war is worse than what the Hegemony did, nevermind what they tried or desired. [/quote]
That's not what I said. I said what Grämlins are doing is worse than that (though noWedge could compare – I had pretty much forgotten about him), not that C&G are worse than that. And yes, I think IRON and DAWN can win this, but it will take a long time and hold their development back for months.

[quote]If C&G stepped in and said that IRON and DAWN must accept unconditional surrender or face renewed hostilities from C&G or something similar, I could understand the calls of foul.[/quote]
What C&G are doing is preventing anyone from assisting IRON and DAWN – and yes, that is obviously not as bad as if they were directly supporting Grämlins' objectives. That's why I used the term 'indirect support' .

[Sephiroth]

C&G can hardly prevent anything with the damage they sustained from the war unless TOP and all their allies interpret this as the same war, when their is even less of a case for that than when C&G claimed the NpO vs \m/ War was separate. I've fought in all of them and would consider this one the most separate from the NpO vs \m/ War.

Unless everyone blindly follows what C&G says as fact, they can't and aren't preventing anyone from doing anything. The only barrier CnG might of put up is a mental barrier for some where they don't understand what they can and can't do.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Methrage

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 April 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1272469614' post='2278527']
What C&G are doing is preventing anyone from assisting IRON and DAWN – and yes, that is obviously not as bad as if they were directly supporting Grämlins' objectives. That's why I used the term 'indirect support' .
[/quote]
With all due respect Bob, C&G are also not taking the lead on this count either. They're keeping TOP out of helping IRON, but TOP did agree to reparations payments, and probably wouldn't want to help IRON while paying reps.

It's more alliances like you guys' ally FOK who are keeping alliances who don't owe any reps out of the war, unable to help IRON if they so choose.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 April 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1272469614' post='2278527']
That's not what I said. I said what Grämlins are doing is worse than that (though noWedge could compare – I had pretty much forgotten about him), not that C&G are worse than that. And yes, I think IRON and DAWN can win this, but it will take a long time and hold their development back for months.[/quote]
If only the Hegemony in its prime had done the horrible thing of losing a war. I mean, I'm not a fan of what the Gramlins are trying to do (though it's ridiculous to say it's worse than say VietFAN since the current war has only gone on for what, a month?) but [i]they're losing[/i]. IRON and DAWN get to look like the good guys to the cheap seats while defeating one of their enemies. Most of the Hegemony's victims could've only dreamt of such an outcome.

[quote]What C&G are doing is preventing anyone from assisting IRON and DAWN – and yes, that is obviously not as bad as if they were directly supporting Grämlins' objectives. That's why I used the term 'indirect support' .[/quote]
At this point I really have no idea who is preventing whom from doing what, and I'm disinclined to look it up (which would involve investigations beyond taking someone's word for it off the OWF).

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='28 April 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1272471510' post='2278556']
If only the Hegemony in its prime had done the horrible thing of losing a war. I mean, I'm not a fan of what the Gramlins are trying to do (though it's ridiculous to say it's worse than say VietFAN since the current war has only gone on for what, a month?) but [i]they're losing[/i]. IRON and DAWN get to look like the good guys to the cheap seats while defeating one of their enemies. Most of the Hegemony's victims could've only dreamt of such an outcome.
[/quote]
BAPS beat noWedge, and to this day get vilified for it by C&G.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='28 April 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1272471915' post='2278563']
BAPS beat noWedge, and to this day get vilified for it by C&G.
[/quote]
"To this day"???

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='28 April 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1272407931' post='2277720']You voided that refund by declaring on a bloc uninvolved in an ongoing war.

You were honestly expecting ZERO consequences in this better world of ours?[/quote]This post will not make me popular among those who support our cause now, but I still feel the need to say it.
No, I don't want zero consequences and if you really want me to be frank, then while I don't think that you were totally innocent victims in the last war (in the sense that you could prevent it and later end it quickly and with much smaller damages for everybody), yes, by attacking you we made a mistake not only strategically, but also because it was morally questionable, at best, and provided you a valid justification for what you did later ("you" does not include what Gramlins is doing now).
Also, no, I don't think that the karma war did not change a thing. Like I said, I am proud of fighting for the right side in the Karma war and it did make the world better in some ways. Yet, here again we have a hegemonic bloc bullying others. You backing Athens' asshatry TWICE is probably the purest example, but not the only one. You use the same poor excuses used by the old hegemony. Being treatied to a criminal does not make you less a criminal when you back him and practically support his actions. You know it. Some of you surely feel uncomfortable about it. Yet, you prefer crappy realpolitik over doing what many of you understand is right.
Now, I could expect those who supported Karma on "ideological" basis (let's face it, many who fought "for Karma" share responsibility to many crimes of the old hegemony), to take a stand against an alliance requiring unconditional surrender. Instead, you use incredibly unconvincing excuses to justify your support of them.
Nobody requires you to feed Gramlins to the dogs. You could easily force their hands and push some reason into their hands without having them being curbstomped, for example, by informing, first Gramlins and if this does not work, the rest of the world, that if peace is not reached within a specific time frame, you would not defend them. You are surely aware of this option, but you pretend you don't. Why? because you cannot resist the temptation of seeing the hated IRON taking more damage. Instead, you are acting as if the only options are abandoning Gramlins completely in a war they entered to help you, or supporting them, which is what you do.
You also say that we can defeat Gramlins without support, and therefore you prevent others from joining us. Yes, we will defeat them eventually, but you obviously understand that support could make it shorter and less costly for us. A short time after threatening those who sent aid to our side, tech deals or whatever, on the ground that this is an act of war, you either do the same or support it.
So, please, stop the pretense and the preaching. Either say honestly that you are happy with what Gramlins is doing (which I believe is the case) or stop backing them. I am not asking you to do anything to stop them, just let others do it. As long as you support them, you share the moral responsibility for their actions.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Alterego]

If Gramlins did something that could be considered a new act of war it would render the terms null and void because people wouldnt be re-entering the last war. Lets say what they are doing to IRON & DAWN now, that is pretty low and not related to the last war. When Gramlins rejected the terms everyone else agreed on this became something separate from the last war. The war was over and terms were agreed. Gramlins then decided to victimise IRON & DAWN in a separate action that came after the war.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='28 April 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1272471510' post='2278556']
If only the Hegemony in its prime had done the horrible thing of losing a war. I mean, I'm not a fan of what the Gramlins are trying to do (though it's ridiculous to say it's worse than say VietFAN since the current war has only gone on for what, a month?) but [i]they're losing[/i].
[/quote]
The war is going over 4 months now.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 April 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1272474255' post='2278595']
The war is going over 4 months now.
[/quote]
By the measure of the "new war" argument, the Gramlins and IRON/DAWN have only been at war for less than a month.

But even if it was 4 months, counted from when IRON and DAWN aggressively attacked CnG, that's more than a year shorter than VietFAN II.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 April 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1272474255' post='2278595']
If Gramlins did something that could be considered a new act of war it would render the terms null and void because people wouldnt be re-entering the last war. Lets say what they are doing to IRON & DAWN now, that is pretty low and not related to the last war. When Gramlins rejected the terms everyone else agreed on this became something separate from the last war. The war was over and terms were agreed. Gramlins then decided to victimise IRON & DAWN in a separate action that came after the war.

The war is going over 4 months now.
[/quote]
Did you not just contradict your first paragraph with that last sentence?

I don't think that the intent of the combatants has any bearing on whether it is considered the same "war". I simply see that there are several nations that were part of the original conflict still fighting, so it's hard for me to accept that it could be a "separate action" that came "after the war". The fighting between the remaining combatants never ceased. If it were C&G, or even just MK left fighting TOP/IRON instead of Gramlins vs. IRON/DAWN, I don't think anyone would begin to doubt whether or not it was the same war.

Edit: run-on sentence

Edited April 28, 2010 by ktarthan

[Alterego]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='28 April 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1272475033' post='2278601']
By the measure of the "new war" argument, the Gramlins and IRON/DAWN have only been at war for less than a month.

But even if it was 4 months, counted from when IRON and DAWN aggressively attacked CnG, that's more than a year shorter than VietFAN II.
[/quote]
The one argument that keeps being made to support or play down these kinds of things be they banning 1 guy from government, keeping people in a permanent state of war or imposing mega reps after a war is that its just not as bad as what happened before so its acceptable. Not that its not very bad just something happened in the past that was a little worse so we can accept it now. How long must this go on before you would consider it going too far, another year? If you think that you must think FAN deserved it too.

The viceroy argument that keeps being brought all over the place up too is pointless because the practiced has been officially outlawed and cant be done, otherwise Im sure it would have been done by now.

[Alterego]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='28 April 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1272475542' post='2278605']
Did you not just contradict your first paragraph with that last sentence?

I don't think that the intent of the combatants has any bearing on whether it is considered the same "war". I simply see that there are several nations that were part of the original conflict still fighting, so it's hard for me to accept that it could be a "separate action" that came "after the war". The fighting between the remaining combatants never ceased. If it were C&G, or even just MK left fighting TOP/IRON instead of Gramlins vs. IRON/DAWN, I don't think anyone would begin to doubt whether or not it was the same war.

Edit: run-on sentence
[/quote]
Good to know, not only have we been forced into long term neutrality but Gramlins can do as they please and if anyone attacks them for [b][u]any [/u][/b]reason at any point in the future (assuming this is still going)it will be considered part of the last war and SG will crush everyone involved.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Alterego

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 April 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1272476049' post='2278610']
Good to know, not only have we been forced into long term neutrality but Gramlins can do as they please and if anyone attacks them for [b][u]any [/u][/b]reason at any point in the future (assuming this is still going)it will be considered part of the last war and SG will crush everyone involved.
[/quote]
I-- I am at a loss. I am really unsure how to rebut something that is so wildly off base from the point I was actually trying to make.

I was simply offering my opinion on the case of "Same War vs. Old War" - that is all. I'm really not sure how you divined the rest of what you think I said.

[shilo]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='28 April 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1272472258' post='2278570']
This post will not make me popular among those who support our cause now, but I still feel the need to say it.
No, I don't want zero consequences and if you really want me to be frank, then while I don't think that you were totally innocent victims in the last war (in the sense that you could prevent it and later end it quickly and with much smaller damages for everybody), yes, by attacking you we made a mistake not only strategically, but also because it was morally questionable, at best, and provided you a valid justification for what you did later ("you" does not include what Gramlins is doing now).
Also, no, I don't think that the karma war did not change a thing. Like I said, I am proud of fighting for the right side in the Karma war and it did make the world better in some ways. Yet, here again we have a hegemonic bloc bullying others. You backing Athens' asshatry TWICE is probably the purest example, but not the only one. You use the same poor excuses used by the old hegemony. Being treatied to a criminal does not make you less a criminal when you back him and practically support his actions. You know it. Some of you surely feel uncomfortable about it. Yet, you prefer crappy realpolitik over doing what many of you understand is right.
Now, I could expect those who supported Karma on "ideological" basis (let's face it, many who fought "for Karma" share responsibility to many crimes of the old hegemony), to take a stand against an alliance requiring unconditional surrender. Instead, you use incredibly unconvincing excuses to justify your support of them.
Nobody requires you to feed Gramlins to the dogs. You could easily force their hands and push some reason into their hands without having them being curbstomped, for example, by informing, first Gramlins and if this does not work, the rest of the world, that if peace is not reached within a specific time frame, you would not defend them. You are surely aware of this option, but you pretend you don't. Why? because you cannot resist the temptation of seeing the hated IRON taking more damage. Instead, you are acting as if the only options are abandoning Gramlins completely in a war they entered to help you, or supporting them, which is what you do.
You also say that we can defeat Gramlins without support, and therefore you prevent others from joining us. Yes, we will defeat them eventually, but you obviously understand that support could make it shorter and less costly for us. A short time after threatening those who sent aid to our side, tech deals or whatever, on the ground that this is an act of war, you either do the same or support it.
So, please, stop the pretense and the preaching. Either say honestly that you are happy with what Gramlins is doing (which I believe is the case) or stop backing them. I am not asking you to do anything to stop them, just let others do it. As long as you support them, you share the moral responsibility for their actions.
[/quote]
Indeed, very well spoken my friend.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 April 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1272475854' post='2278608']
The one argument that keeps being made to support or play down these kinds of things be they banning 1 guy from government, keeping people in a permanent state of war or imposing mega reps after a war is that its just not as bad as what happened before so its acceptable. Not that its not very bad just something happened in the past that was a little worse so we can accept it now. How long must this go on before you would consider it going too far, another year? If you think that you must think FAN deserved it too.

The viceroy argument that keeps being brought all over the place up too is pointless because the practiced has been officially outlawed and cant be done, otherwise Im sure it would have been done by now.
[/quote]
I'm not arguing that the Gramlins behavior is "acceptable", I'm arguing that it's not as bad as what the hegemony did by clear, measurable benchmarks. And it isn't. So people can stop saying it. Please, continue saying what the Gramlins are doing is bad and they should be stopped; I don't really care. I do care that people are attempting to trivialize the past crimes of the Pacifican Hegemony, either due to faulty memory or in an attempt to rehabilitate those past actions.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='28 April 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1272496155' post='2278961']
I'm not arguing that the Gramlins behavior is "acceptable", I'm arguing that it's not as bad as what the hegemony did by clear, measurable benchmarks. And it isn't. So people can stop saying it. Please, continue saying what the Gramlins are doing is bad and they should be stopped; I don't really care. I do care that people are attempting to trivialize the past crimes of the Pacifican Hegemony, either due to faulty memory or in an attempt to rehabilitate those past actions.
[/quote]

other than viceroys (which as has been stated, has been outlawed by the almighty admin as an unacceptable practice for his followers to do) what exactly has Pacifica done that was worse? now i get the vietFAN argument though iirc Pacifica did offer known terms whereas Gremlins have not. to me, this is at least equal to vietFAN minus DAWN/IRON going all spymasters on Gremlins and anyone enabling them. thus,you are wrong in that the Heg has done worse since one of the worst actions undertaken by Pacifica (again other than viceroys) is vietFAN. this is not trivializing in the least. it is many amongst your side that continues to trivialize anything ya'll and your allies do.

[Kim Jaym Il]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 April 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1272500570' post='2279088']
other than viceroys (which as has been stated, has been outlawed by the almighty admin as an unacceptable practice for his followers to do) what exactly has Pacifica done that was worse? now i get the vietFAN argument though iirc Pacifica did offer known terms whereas Gremlins have not. to me, this is at least equal to vietFAN minus DAWN/IRON going all spymasters on Gremlins and anyone enabling them. thus,you are wrong in that the Heg has done worse since one of the worst actions undertaken by Pacifica (again other than viceroys) is vietFAN. this is not trivializing in the least. it is many amongst your side that continues to trivialize anything ya'll and your allies do.
[/quote]

Actually, I believe the FAN terms were similar, in that it was "Come out of peace mode and fight, and then we'll talk peace".

That said, at this point I'm just tired of hearing about all of this, so I won't debate either position. Carry on folks.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Tourists visiting Soviet Canuckistan can view the massive statue of comrade noWedge in downtown Kronstadt.

[Denial]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 April 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1272460916' post='2278454']
<snip>
[/quote]
Congratulations, you quoted a long line of conflicts where Mushroom Kingdom acted defensively, honouring treaty agreements, or participated in 'aggressive' wars with a limited and specified duration, ending with very lenient terms. So, pretty much exactly what fits into the criteria I originally listed, thus only proving my point.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469']
You might want to check which thread you're in there. (The second bolded part is referring to the rumours of what Grämlins mean by 'demilitarise', no-one's officially confirmed or denied that it includes military wonders that I've seen.)[/quote]
Firstly, if Gremlins were actually winning the conflict, you might have some semblance of a point. What is happening here is an ongoing conflict where IRON & DAWN have obtained the upper hand. If you are to keep any consistency, I expect to see you valiantly supporting Gremlins a week from now, as it becomes clear that IRON & DAWN will be the victors. After all, the moment C&G turned the tide of battle and began defending ourselves effectively against TOP & co was the instant we became the focus of every Bob Janova Conspiracy Theory for the Occupation of Innocents (who initiate wars and then lose them). Secondly, have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469']
It's still not true, it won't be true if you keep saying it from now until 2020. You have quite enough rhetorical ammunition without resorting to that untruth. The pre-emptive attack was a bad decision, not sufficiently justified in my opinion, but it was certainly not 'without provocation'.[/quote]
And you saying that C&G in any way provoked TOP will not be true no matter how many deluded attempts you make to argue that point. The only 'provocation' they could point to is criticism on the forums. Gee, attacking alliances for criticising them on the forums. Sounds awfully Hegemony-like, Bob!

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469']
I imagine he's referring to what Grämlins are doing, and the C&G front is not related to that. The consequences for that – near-record reps but no other 'harsh terms' – can be used as political points for either side of the 'the world is better now' argument, but what Grämlins are doing to IRON/DAWN – with indirect C&G support (direct if your people follow through with their threats to aid Grämlins) – is worse than anything the Hegemony tried.
[/quote]
You do realise C&G are not signatories to any of the peace agreements that contain the no-entry clauses that people are complaining about, right? As has been mentioned, the only alliances we are demanding neutrality in the current conflict from are those that directly surrendered to us (TOP & co). Your own alliance has more control over which alliances could potentially renegotiate their surrender terms than the entirety of our bloc does. This is not a hit against VE - the Viridian government have handled themselves well - but a mere statement of the facts. But no, everything is C&G's fault.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='29 April 2010 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1272470311' post='2278538']
With all due respect Bob, C&G are also not taking the lead on this count either. They're keeping TOP out of helping IRON, but TOP did agree to reparations payments, and probably wouldn't want to help IRON while paying reps.

It's more alliances like you guys' ally FOK who are keeping alliances who don't owe any reps out of the war, unable to help IRON if they so choose.
[/quote]
It's an amusing scenario when even Haflinger has to say something in support of C&G against Janova's conspiracy theories.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Denial' date='28 April 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1272505081' post='2279160']
Your own alliance has more control over which alliances could potentially renegotiate their surrender terms than the entirety of our bloc does. This is not a hit against VE - the Viridian government have handled themselves well - but a mere statement of the facts.
[/quote]

Speaking of which, despite all the whining here, no one has yet to actually approach us seeking re-negotiation of their terms.

Just thought I'd throw that out there to put some of the outrage into perspective.

(boot note; God dammit, I can't make that sentence sound right, it is just really awkward to begin with or do I just fail at grammar?)

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 April 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1272500570' post='2279088']
other than viceroys (which as has been stated, has been outlawed by the almighty admin as an unacceptable practice for his followers to do) what exactly has Pacifica done that was worse? now i get the vietFAN argument though iirc Pacifica did offer known terms whereas Gremlins have not. to me, this is at least equal to vietFAN minus DAWN/IRON going all spymasters on Gremlins and anyone enabling them. thus,you are wrong in that the Heg has done worse since one of the worst actions undertaken by Pacifica (again other than viceroys) is vietFAN. this is not trivializing in the least. it is many amongst your side that continues to trivialize anything ya'll and your allies do.
[/quote]
Two of the big differences that jump out at me was Pacifica wasn't losing that conflict, and that it went on for 15 months longer than this war. And I'm not sure vietFAN [i]was[/i] the worst thing the Pacifican hegemony did. And finally, what's this "your side" business? I've got no dog in this fight. I'm just pointing out that the "you're as bad as the hegemony!" argument is wrong and stupid. I don't know why I bother though.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 April 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1272500570' post='2279088']
other than viceroys (which as has been stated, has been outlawed by the almighty admin as an unacceptable practice for his followers to do) what exactly has Pacifica done that was worse? now i get the vietFAN argument though iirc Pacifica did offer known terms whereas Gremlins have not. to me, this is at least equal to vietFAN minus DAWN/IRON going all spymasters on Gremlins and anyone enabling them. thus,you are wrong in that the Heg has done worse since one of the worst actions undertaken by Pacifica (again other than viceroys) is vietFAN. this is not trivializing in the least. it is many amongst your side that continues to trivialize anything ya'll and your allies do.
[/quote]

Viceroys are still allowed. [OOC]You simply can't demand increased forum access.[/OOC]

Forced decommission of wonder is definitely up there on the list. Decommission of factories was perhaps one of the cruelest as well. Forcing an alliance to change its charter is also pretty bad.

I'm not sure how an alliance with a slight advantage over another keeping the weaker party in a state of war for 24 days (unless you want to go with 3 months, in which case you have to drop the separate war business as the two accusations are totally incompatible) is equal to an alliance with a total and absolute advantage over another keeping it in a state of war for over a year, but ok then.

To be quite honest though, who the hell cares how this current situation compares to the Pacifican Hegemony? It is not as bad, but that does not make it good or right. The whole "JUST AS BAD AS..." vs "AT LEAST BETTER THAN..." thing is starting to get old. Can we not base our arguments on the present?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Lord Brendan