Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 May 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1272913104' post='2285181']
Ahh this is where you make the tragic mistake, you assume that Ramirus can be reasoned with. If logic worked on Gramlins the war would be long over. Remember Gre backed out of already accepted tech reps for a chance to let their alliance bleed out. They had already won the war. Gre gave up victory and its place on the Easter Sunday Accords in exchange for its current position. Insane people do insane things, and tend to be immune to logic.
[/quote]


Repeating this does not make it so.
GRE did not back out of any officially offered terms.
What VD said cannot be considered official by anybody's definition.

[shilo]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 May 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1272913104' post='2285181']
More through private channels, you make like the alliances who surrendered to us seeking us out for a renegotiation of their terms if they find them so burdensome? Which, uhh has not happened yet.



You are absolutely right, we are not, you know why? Its not our problem to solve, Did polar just get smacked around for playing world police recently? VE has no treaties binding us to this situation, the only way we are remotely involved is the surrender terms we are enforcing.



You think public condemnation from most of our government is less or more of a political statement than a quiet word in query? I have literally called Ramirus bat !@#$ nuts, two fries short a happy meal, and weapons grade stupid, in public. Like the badge says, I'm the Secretary of State. This is not a random members opinion.



Ahh this is where you make the tragic mistake, you assume that Ramirus can be reasoned with. If logic worked on Gramlins the war would be long over. Remember Gre backed out of already accepted tech reps for a chance to let their alliance bleed out. They had already won the war. Gre gave up victory and its place on the Easter Sunday Accords in exchange for its current position. Insane people do insane things, and tend to be immune to logic.
[/quote]
I do infact believe you. VE's direct influence in the matter is rather limited, however, there are other alliances out there who clearly back gRAMlins, to some you are allied to. I assume if gRAMlins would run out of covert military support, diplomacy might get jumpstarted again. So the question is, will you ask your allies to stop protecting gRAMlins under their military umbrella?

Edited May 3, 2010 by shilo

[ktarthan]

For clarification, because there is far more discussion going on about this situation than I am able to read (and perhaps it has not been said), but does anyone know if any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?

[shilo]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='03 May 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1272918827' post='2285252']
For clarification, because there is far more discussion going on about this situation than I am able to read (and perhaps it has not been said), but does anyone know if any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?
[/quote]
The most interesting thing is some alliances threatening anyone with their military intervention if any outside force goes to help us, thus making the release from terms only a secondary concern.

[Tromp]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='03 May 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1272918827' post='2285252']
For clarification, because there is far more discussion going on about this situation than I am able to read (and perhaps it has not been said), but does anyone know if [b]any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN[/b] have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?
[/quote]
There are none.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='shilo' date='03 May 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1272918036' post='2285246']
I do infact believe you. VE's direct influence in the matter is rather limited, however, there are other alliances out there who clearly back gRAMlins, to some you are allied to. I assume if gRAMlins would run out of covert military support, diplomacy might get jumpstarted again. So the question is, will you ask your allies to stop protecting gRAMlins under their military umbrella?
[/quote]

Our allies are quite aware of our feelings on the matter. Both from private chats and anybody reading the OWF.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='shilo' date='03 May 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1272919624' post='2285270']
The most interesting thing is some alliances threatening anyone with their military intervention if any outside force goes to help us, thus making the release from terms only a secondary concern.
[/quote]
[quote name='Tromp' date='03 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1272920964' post='2285298']
There are none.
[/quote]
If these are both true, then why is this discussion even continuing? The question in the OP seems pretty irrelevant now, and this thread seems to be locked into a death spiral. I don't see preventing people from doing something they don't want to do as a very bad thing.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ktarthan

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tromp' date='03 May 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1272920964' post='2285298']
There are none.
[/quote]
Well, except for the discussion between you and one alliance leader in this thread.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1272930226' post='2285499']
Well, except for the discussion between you and one alliance leader in this thread.
[/quote]
I do believe he explained that here:

[quote name='Tromp' date='30 April 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1272576454' post='2280298']
What was there to negotiate?

I don't want to repeat myself here, but I asked for an explanation of why we should allow such a thing. It was never provided, thus I maintained the position I have taken. Which is, for the record, that I feel we have listened to the complaints enough by leaving Gre alone on the field.
[/quote]

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='03 May 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1272939310' post='2285785']
I do believe he explained that here:
[/quote]
He claimed that there was no discussion at all. It's pretty evident if you read the thread that there was in fact a discussion of precisely the topic he was claiming there was no discussion of.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1272940864' post='2285849']
He claimed that there was no discussion at all. It's pretty evident if you read the thread that there was in fact a discussion of precisely the topic he was claiming there was no discussion of.
[/quote]
No, that's not what Tromp said. He stated that there have been zero surrendered alliances that have approached FOK (and the same goes for VE, MK, and every other victorious party) and attempted to regnotiate their surrender terms in order to attack Gremlins. What Tromp stated is fact. Nor, as far as I know, have there been any parties not restricted by no-reentry terms approaching FOK, VE, C&G, etc. and stating their desire to attack Gremlins.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Denial' date='03 May 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1272942595' post='2285903']
No, that's not what Tromp said. He stated that there have been zero surrendered alliances that have approached FOK (and the same goes for VE, MK, and every other victorious party) and attempted to regnotiate their surrender terms in order to attack Gremlins. What Tromp stated is fact. Nor, as far as I know, have there been any parties not restricted by no-reentry terms approaching FOK, VE, C&G, etc. and stating their desire to attack Gremlins.
[/quote]
His precise quote is "There are none." Everything else there is fabricated.

Really, I'm not quite sure why you're arguing something which is visible in public.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1272944244' post='2285963']
His precise quote is "There are none." Everything else there is fabricated.

Really, I'm not quite sure why you're arguing something which is visible in public.
[/quote]
Um, yeah, that was his reply to "... but does anyone know if any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?" You know, that thing he quoted and bolded. Then directly replied to.

He said "there are none" because there have not been any surrendered alliances approaching the appropriate parties, in a diplomatic manner, in order to renegotiate their surrender terms.

Goddamn, Haflinger, I really wonder about you sometimes.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Denial' date='03 May 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1272945346' post='2285999']
Um, yeah, that was his reply to "... but does anyone know if any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?" You know, that thing he quoted and bolded. Then directly replied to.

He said "there are none" because there have not been any surrendered alliances approaching the appropriate parties, in a diplomatic manner, in order to renegotiate their surrender terms.

Goddamn, Haflinger, I really wonder about you sometimes.
[/quote]
These forums aren't diplomatic?

No. What you mean is they didn't talk to FOK on IRC. But it's just straight up not true to say that no approach has been made, and it's really plainly evident considering the approach was made in public.

Then again, considering I'm quoting one of your other lies in my signature at the moment, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1272945695' post='2286008']
These forums aren't diplomatic?

No. What you mean is they didn't talk to FOK on IRC. But it's just straight up not true to say that no approach has been made, and it's really plainly evident considering the approach was made in public.

Then again, considering I'm quoting one of your other lies in my signature at the moment, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
[/quote]
If you consider a smear campaign that is nothing more than a piss-poor attempt at milking some PR points to be diplomatic, then it explains why Invicta is so frequently surrendering. As Tromp, Impero, Typo, myself, and others have stated, all that it would take for many alliances to hear out the apparent plight of surrendered parties is for them to drop the rhetoric and baseless accusations, and to actually conduct themselves in a somewhat diplomatic and professional manner. The forums have never been a place for negotiating or renegotiating surrender terms, or discussing sensitive issues, both due to the fact that entirely uninvolved parties can derail the process, and simply because other venues are far more practical.

As for your comment regarding your signature, what I stated there is incontrovertible fact. The New Pacific Order has been able to sign treaties throughout its time spent under surrender terms; it is not my fault that, on the very few occasions they have sought permission to sign treaties (the fact that they have been able to seek permission to sign treaties is concrete proof that they are capable of signing them), there has been a minority of parties exercising their veto.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Denial

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Denial' date='03 May 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1272946435' post='2286032']
As for your comment regarding your signature, what I stated there is incontrovertible fact. The New Pacific Order has been able to sign treaties throughout its time spent under surrender terms; it is not my fault that, on the very few occasions they have sought permission to sign treaties (the fact that they have been able to seek permission to sign treaties is concrete proof that they are capable of signing them), there has been a minority of parties exercising their veto.
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is they are only capable of signing treaties should they get a unanimous vote from several alliances? that is not exactly being capable of signing treaties since there is a huge stipulation involved in their ability to actually sign treaties. Sure in spirit, they are more than able to sign treaties but in reality, it is severely limited and thus far that capability has been denied to NPO due to the fact that other alliances have veto power over their sovereignty to sign treaties.

[Denial]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='04 May 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1272947548' post='2286071']
So, what you are saying is they are only capable of signing treaties should they get a unanimous vote from several alliances?
[/quote]
That's what the surrender terms say, yes.

The capacity has been there for the New Pacific Order to sign treaties. While I was still serving in government roles, there was only one occasion where the New Pacific Order applied for permission to sign a treaty. It was denied due to a small handful of parties exercising their veto power. I imagine the lack of desire on behalf of Pacifica to sign meaningful, defence-related treaties has been due to the fact that throwing themselves in to defend idiocy while they are under surrender terms (meaning they cannot attack those they have surrendered to), demilitarised, low on technology, paying reparations, and focusing on reconstruction, would be entirely counterproductive. Pacifica is a lot of things, but they are not irrational (most of the time). Even if they were entirely free to sign treaties over the past few months, I doubt they would be too willing to do so, get involved in a ridiculous war, and set themselves back another six months.

[Tromp]

Haf, you do realize that BAPS isn't a treaty partner of IRON, and thus would not be seen as an alliance directly involved in this conflict? I have explained my position, yet nobody bothered to make a counter argument (BAPS didn't either), so where's this discussion you speak of. Perhaps you'd like to discuss terms, or are you going to keep posting without actually doing anything like all others in this thread?

There have simply been no allies of IRON that asked any of the victorious parties if they could be released from terms, so the point still stands that there have not been any official talks regarding this whatsoever.

[Il Impero Romano]

For the record, none have approached us either.

Perhaps you guys should get on some of the people on your own side. If VE and FOK, who had a very large number of alliances surrender to them, haven't been approached, I really doubt they have approached anyone. That means a lot of people who you have been arguing on behalf of just plain don't care as much as you or even me.

If you actually felt strongly about the justice of the situation, you would quit alteregoing, put politics by the wayside, and go ask your allies to get the ball rolling.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[D34th]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 04:10 AM' timestamp='1272953431' post='2286175']
If you actually felt strongly about the justice of the situation, you would quit alteregoing, put politics by the wayside, and go ask your allies to get the ball rolling.
[/quote]

Translating: [b]DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT![/b]

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='D34th' date='04 May 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1272953691' post='2286177']
Translating: [b]DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT![/b]
[/quote]

Yes, but in a good way lol

(i.e. come ask to be released from terms)

[Arthur Blair]

So in this thread it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that [b]not a single alliance[/b] wants to help IRON/DAWN.

It has also been established that these heinous crimes committed by C&G are complete falsehoods concocted by foreign powers in an attempt to ruin our good reputation. Very cute.


And frankly I think that's all this "discussion" will ever amount to.

[shilo]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='04 May 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1272924565' post='2285384']
If these are both true, then why is this discussion even continuing? The question in the OP seems pretty irrelevant now, and this thread seems to be locked into a death spiral. I don't see preventing people from doing something they don't want to do as a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Alliances won't bother asking for the release of terms to help us out when they know they would get crushed by some of those who released them from the terms in the first place. The discussion is thus continuing on the relevant issue, which solution than can lead back to the question originally asked in the OP.
So for any honest and real discussion of the OP, the conditions for release of terms with the goal of helping us out first have to be met, among which is something as simple as not getting curbstomped by gRAMlins unofficial and one remaining official allies.

[Bob Janova]

To break it down into the really simple: You want to know the answer to the question "Will my alliance get rolled if we help IRON/DAWN?"

If your alliance is under surrender terms that prohibit re-entry: yes you will, for breaking terms. Come and talk to the alliances to whom you surrendered if you would like to re-negotiate terms based on a changed situation since they were signed.

If your alliance is not under terms, or after you have got your terms changed: we still need a statement from C&G and MHA on whether they would attack you (as previously mentioned they are maintaining a deliberate policy of ambiguity to deter you), but you would have the legal defensive position against C&G at least, so some of you larger alliances of blocs could call their bluff and see.

Since none of you have gone as far as step 1, and few alliances with an interest (R&R being about the only one) can help without going through step 1 first, it appears that no-one wants to help. One can forgive TOOL and TOP for that since they're paying reps and paying reps at war is difficult, but if your only term is re-entry, go and talk to the alliances who are holding you to that term instead of complaining here.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='04 May 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1272965180' post='2286258']
So in this thread it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that [b]not a single alliance[/b] wants to help IRON/DAWN.

It has also been established that these heinous crimes committed by C&G are complete falsehoods concocted by foreign powers in an attempt to ruin our good reputation. Very cute.


And frankly I think that's all this "discussion" will ever amount to.
[/quote]

A number of alliances are helping IRON and DAWN very quietly behind the scenes. Sorry you didn't get a briefing paper.

C&G and its allies know how to end the war. They are simply unwilling to do it. If that makes them guilty of a crime, then so be it.