Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 April 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1272434385' post='2278267']
The OWF suited you guys just fine in the run up to the Karma war when the FAN & GATO threads were in full flow. If it was good enough for you then its good enough for us now.
[/quote]
Thing is though, it's not good enough now. Just about nothing has been accomplished. The point VE and FOK and others are trying to make is that if you genuinely care and genuinely desire change here a concerted, diplomatic effort would perhaps be more productive than the influx of transparent, combative threads.

[quote name='shilo' date='28 April 2010 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1272454214' post='2278413']
Oh my, you make me want to cry Seriously, the last conflict simply doesn't serve as yet another example on how you guys were poor victims.

That said, no, in my naive hopes, I expected more than just a name change.
[/quote]
So you don't have any justification either? Got it.

I never did say this is “yet another example on how” we “were poor victims” (course facts aren’t all that important, are they, when you can make baseless claims?). Just that this [i]is[/i] an example where [i]you[/i] and you alone (you being TIFDTT) are 100% to blame for the attacks [i]you[/i] carried out. Unless the jibes our sides traded leading up to the war were really that powerful.

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='28 April 2010 - 12:31 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).
[/quote]
Other than every single one of us hitting Peace Mode there was just about nothing we could have done to prevent you from attacking once you decided on your course of action.

Glad you can see things a bit objectively though, and a bit more objectively than some of your contemporaries. Even if only on some matters.

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='28 April 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1272472258' post='2278570']
-snip-
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]
I’ll stop if and when you do.

In the meantime, I share no responsibility, moral or otherwise, for their actions, no matter how much you and yours opine it. If we supported the continuation of this war we would’ve remained on the battlefield or flooded their AA (a la RnR) after exiting, we would be freely aiding them, and/or we would be entirely unreceptive to diplomatic overtures to help end the conflict.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='28 April 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1272478770' post='2278642']
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.
[/quote]
Get use to it.

This thread started after all when Alterego conveniently, novelly misinterpreted my words and ran with it.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Alterego' date='29 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1272576547' post='2280301']
Get used to it this will continue for months or years if needs be, our willpower will out last your political ties. When the time comes and either C&G or SF makes their move peoples opinion will suddenly change and people like yourself or your alliance will be trying to rerwrite history and white wash your behaviour during this debacle.
[/quote]

What you mean our hideous precedent of telling already surrendered alliances that we'd be willing to discuss possible changes to their terms if only they'd come and actually talk to us, yes such terrible people we are.

[quote]
I know the feeling, I keep hearing people say how they hate whats happening but absolutely wont do a thing to stop it.

Duh...its bad...duh Im still backing militarily this thing I am pretending to hate but in reality love it so much I will take my alliance to war to make sure no one or nothing interferes with Gramlins ability to keep the stale mate going. You were saying about being thick?
[/quote]

I'm in this position here where I'm happy with the status quo, somebody who's !@#$% nuts is beating on and getting beat on by one of my traditional political opponents. Its hard to know who to cheer for. I can't lose. A loose cannon is killing it self on one of my opponents. No matter who wins, I win. Even if they both lose, I win.

You, who I have come to think of as the 'Bawww Brigade' are sitting here whining about the injustice of it all, oh the humanity. You want things to change but appear unwilling to pull your heads out your @#$% long enough to clue in that to get change you have to ask for it. Nobody and I mean nobody has bothered to send over a member of government or even a diplomat to address concerns about their surrender terms with us. Consdering VE accepted the surrender of a fair number of alliances I find that simply shocking in light of the volume of complaints coming from the Bawww Brigade here.

You see, while I might personally object to the weapons grade stupid that is the idea of unconditional surrender, its also not my issue. One of the reasons people like VE is we mind our own business until you make something our business. Since VE is not allied to Gre, indeed we aren't even allied to anyone allied to Gre, addressing their actions directly is not our concern unless they reflect directly upon us. So no, I'm not going to do you any favors, as much as I find Gre's behavior distasteful you are still the enemy, the is painfully obvious because I'm sitting here enforcing surrender terms upon you. However I'm not unreasonable either. Its clear we've run across some unforseen circumstances here, and I and the rest of my government are open to discussion, but and heres the important part.

[size="5"]Not On The OWF.[/size]

If one of the governments who we are currently enforcing terms on would like to come to our forums or IRC to discuss matters with us we are of course open to that, however if you'd prefer to restrict your efforts to the Bawww Brigade and the OWF then we are also open to simply publicly mocking you as well.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='30 April 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1272579375' post='2280361']In the meantime, I share no responsibility, moral or otherwise, for their actions, no matter how much you and yours opine it. If we supported the continuation of this war we would’ve remained on the battlefield or flooded their AA (a la RnR) after exiting, we would be freely aiding them, and/or we would be entirely unreceptive to diplomatic overtures to help end the conflict.[/quote]You cannot wash your hands from Gramlins' actions while standing on the sidelines, doing nothing to stop Gramlins yourself (which is, for itself, perfectly understandable) and let everybody know/think (this does not make any real difference. You deliberately keep your position unclear) that you will defend Gramlins if anyone enters the war on our side.
You wanted to end YOUR part of the war and it's very convenient for you that Gramlins are holding us from rebuilding.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='29 April 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1272580844' post='2280390']
You cannot wash your hands from Gramlins' actions while standing on the sidelines, doing nothing to stop Gramlins yourself (which is, for itself, perfectly understandable) and let everybody know/think (this does not make any real difference. You deliberately keep your position unclear) that you will defend Gramlins if anyone enters the war on our side.
You wanted to end YOUR part of the war and it's very convenient for you that Gramlins are holding us from rebuilding.
[/quote]


You suggesting that GRE is keeping DAWN from rebuilding is pretty amusing given your cash on hand. Salmento? sure.

When IRON says that, people can be more receptive.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1272580999' post='2280397']Somebody from DAWN suggesting that GRE is keeping them from rebuilding is pretty amusing.
When IRON says that people can be more receptive.[/quote]Us = DAWN and IRON, Einstein. We are together in this.
I will not make you go to your master and ask for the reason for why "Somebody from DAWN suggesting that GRE is keeping them from rebuilding is pretty amusing."

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='29 April 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1272581224' post='2280405']
Us = DAWN and IRON, Einstein. We are together in this.
I will not make you go to your master and ask for the reason for why "Somebody from DAWN suggesting that GRE is keeping them from rebuilding is pretty amusing."
[/quote]

Have you all appropriately thanked Dochartaigh for what he's doing for you?

[Tromp]

[quote name='shilo' date='29 April 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1272578099' post='2280340']
It has been mentioned very constructively that any alliance, even if not bound by terms, trying to help us, will get destroyed by CnG+the rest. That is very clear, very simple.
[/quote]
In order to back up your accusation of "hypocrisy", would you like to point out where I have said such a thing?

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1272581462' post='2280412']
Have you all appropriately thanked Dochartaigh for what he's doing for you?[/quote]I have to say that I am impressed by the frankness and relevance of your post to the post you quoted.
To answer your question, no, we haven't. Do you think we should?

[Tromp]

[quote name='Alterego' date='30 April 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1272578587' post='2280347']
You have said you are against Gramlins actions.
If they are attacked by someone who surrendered in the last war will you defend Gramlins if no one else does or as part as a group?
[/quote]
You can expect me to if it is an alliance that surrendered to FOK, I have said so earlier in this thread.
[quote]
If they are attacked by someone who didnt surrender or fight in the last war will you defend Gramlins if no one else does or as part as a group?
[/quote]No.
[quote]
Do you think any alliance who interviens and helps Gramlins should anyone try to help IRON & DAWN isnt supporting this action by Gramlins?
[/quote]
I'm sorry, I'm Dutch and this sentence is constructed in such a way I do not understand what you're asking of me.

[shilo]

[quote name='Tromp' date='30 April 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1272582165' post='2280435']
In order to back up your accusation of "hypocrisy", would you like to point out where I have said such a thing?
[/quote]
I don't know what your stance on this whole issue is, my post was not in reference to yours.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1272582365' post='2280441']

I'm sorry, I'm Dutch and this sentence is constructed in such a way I do not understand what you're asking of me.
[/quote]

His position is that we're all basically supporting gramlins because we are enforcing no reentry terms on those who might intervene.

Its a classic 'part of the problem or part of the solution' dichotomy.

[Tromp]

[quote name='shilo' date='30 April 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1272583042' post='2280457']
I don't know what your stance on this whole issue is, my post was not in reference to yours.
[/quote]
You could as well have said: "I made an accusation and had nothing to back it up".

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84896&view=findpost&p=2280326]I responded[/url] to your reply to Alterego, who was responding to me. So yeah, seems obvious that was directed towards me, hence why I called you on it.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='30 April 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1272583282' post='2280467']
His position is that we're all basically supporting gramlins because we are enforcing no reentry terms on those who might intervene.

Its a classic 'part of the problem or part of the solution' dichotomy.
[/quote]
Well I can see that, but I simply didn't understand what he was saying there because of how he asked the question.
Now I have read the question a few times over, and my answer is that it depends on the situation. And that is exactly why you (Alterego&co) should talk to those you surrendered to. Which hasn't happened still!

Edited April 29, 2010 by Tromp

[Duncan King]

I actually regard the war as still ongoing at least in one part of the world. Consequentially, I won't aid or tech deal with anyone in Gremlins, IRON, or DAWN, because I don't believe in tech dealing during war.

In terms of whether or not my alliance's agreement to remain neutral is eternal, I can say that that really hasn't mattered to me either way. I have no desire to go back onto the field as my alliance has already paid very dearly for this war.

[shilo]

[quote name='Tromp' date='30 April 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1272583427' post='2280470']
You could as well have said: "I made an accusation and had nothing to back it up".

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84896&view=findpost&p=2280326]I responded[/url] to your reply to Alterego, who was responding to me. So yeah, seems obvious that was directed towards me, hence why I called you on it.

[/quote]
It was unfortunate you misunderstood, however, I made a general statement to the hypocrisy in this thread, not a response to yours. FOKs policy as you clarified above doens't make you guys hypocrites.

[Lusitan]

Personally, I'd think that if IRON's treaty partners wanted (in the case of RnR) or had the capacity (in the case of all the others) to do anything about it, talks would have been initiated already. As it seems they haven't, I suggest we let the issue rest for now and then come back in 2 weeks. Right now it's just getting exhaustive.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1272581462' post='2280412']
Have you all appropriately thanked Dochartaigh for what he's doing for you?
[/quote]

what exactly do i have to do with the post you quoted?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='29 April 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1272598955' post='2280905']
what exactly do i have to do with the post you quoted?
[/quote]
I was going to make a post about how nearly nobody in DAWN was at war with GRE, offensively or defensively and I noticed you had switched AA's to declare.

[Il Impero Romano]

Do you people ever stop and ask yourselves what the hell your even talking about anymore? lol

The whole "if you don't release alliances who surrendered your supporting Gre" argument is really, really stupid. It just looks reaching and petty. I mean honestly, think of something better, I can think of a few better arguments just off the cuff.

As for release, when such an interval of time has passed where a reasonable person could no longer draw anything but the loosest of connections between the conflict which spawned the surrender and any future that conflict which those surrenderee's may be involved in, then the risk of setting a bad precedent is gone and a release will be appropriate. At least for Virida, that is. If any of the alliances who signed their name with us under a covenant not to reenter should wish to know more, come knock on my door and we can have a talk.

[shilo]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='30 April 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1272604485' post='2281086']
Do you people ever stop and ask yourselves what the hell your even talking about anymore? lol

The whole "if you don't release alliances who surrendered your supporting Gre" argument is really, really stupid. It just looks reaching and petty. I mean honestly, think of something better, I can think of a few better arguments just off the cuff.

As for release, when such an interval of time has passed where a reasonable person could no longer draw anything but the loosest of connections between the conflict which spawned the surrender and any future that conflict which those surrenderee's may be involved in, then the risk of setting a bad precedent is gone and a release will be appropriate. At least for Virida, that is. If any of the alliances who signed their name with us under a covenant not to reenter should wish to know more, come knock on my door and we can have a talk.
[/quote]
Alright, there is a big difference in saying that you intend to uphold a no reentry clause you agreed with with another alliance, at least when the last conflict isn't over that long, and maybe reconsider the change once the time has moved on a bit, or waiting until alliances have payed off there reps, and generally saying you will attack any alliance coming to our help, even if they aren't under any terms whatsoever.
Like FOK, this might not really concern you guys directly, I note how your opinion isn't so far away from how you intend to do things, there are others however who say they think what gRAMlins do is bad, and at the same time threaten anyone with military intervention when they want to do something about the gRAMlins. That is pure hypocrisy at its best.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='shilo' date='30 April 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1272610126' post='2281156']
Alright, there is a big difference in saying that you intend to uphold a no reentry clause you agreed with with another alliance, at least when the last conflict isn't over that long, and maybe reconsider the change once the time has moved on a bit, or waiting until alliances have payed off there reps, and generally saying you will attack any alliance coming to our help, even if they aren't under any terms whatsoever.
Like FOK, this might not really concern you guys directly, I note how your opinion isn't so far away from how you intend to do things, there are others however who say they think what gRAMlins do is bad, and at the same time threaten anyone with military intervention when they want to do something about the gRAMlins. That is pure hypocrisy at its best.
[/quote]

Who said they will be attacking anyone who hits Gre? (I'm genuinely curious but I don't feel like sifting through all this garbage lol)

[Bob Janova]

Impero, C&G and MHA are both maintaining a policy of ambiguity (i.e. they won't tell anyone if they will attack or not, in order to deter anyone from doing so without being able to be directly called out on their policy.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1272639157' post='2281354']
Impero, C&G and MHA are both maintaining a policy of ambiguity (i.e. they won't tell anyone if they will attack or not, in order to deter anyone from doing so without being able to be directly called out on their policy.
[/quote]

They have to start somewhere right? If they would contact FOK and VE privately, and got the no-entry term gone, it is at least a start. Now I'm not saying FOK or VE would waive the term right away but it isn't even tried by the parties screaming and kicking here. Instead they ridicule those parties, which does nothing for their cause.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1272639157' post='2281354']
Impero, C&G and MHA are both maintaining a policy of ambiguity (i.e. they won't tell anyone if they will attack or not, in order to deter anyone from doing so without being able to be directly called out on their policy.
[/quote]

MHA clearly is, but the CnG thing just looks like people wishfully making their own ammo for mudslinging. I don't see saying saying they will attack someone in defense of Gre.

[Bob Janova]

That's exactly the point, they aren't saying that but they are [i]also[/i] not saying that they will not attack in support of Grämlins. There were some comments that implied they would in another thread but they weren't unambiguous or from government, so I'm not reading back through 200 pages to find it. But they won't make a statement either way which keeps anyone who is thinking of it from doing so. (Though C&G do claim IRON and DAWN know their stance on that ... I guess with the proviso that they don't air it in public? because they haven't said anything about it either.)

Arexes, I'm primarily talking about alliances who aren't bound by any no-reentry term. Most of the people who are making that point in this thread (maybe all of them actually) didn't surrender to VE in the first place so our opinion on whether they should be released isn't relevant to them.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='30 April 2010 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1272641130' post='2281374']
I don't see saying saying they will attack someone in defense of Gre.
[/quote]

They certaintly haven't been in a hurry to say the contrary either.