IRON Notice

[Elephant Keeper]

[quote]I know we screwed up in Karma,with coalition of cowards, but we quickly admitted it an moved on. We do work hard to honor our treaties, have good communications with our allies, and I am proud of the job my alliance did in the last war of sticking up for our treaty partners. We did sacrifice over half our NS. I'd like to think we really took it to MHA as well. [/quote]
Oh, I was thinking earlier than (and up to) that, MCXA.

Glad to hear you finally stood up for your allies in the last war when you had soo much to lose, I was unfortunately on vacation.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Elephant Keeper

[hilowe]

[quote name='Drai' date='18 July 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1279512405' post='2378337']
That's the point he's making. The action being that IRON would go in paperless for one of those alliances, the same action they !@#$%*ed about Gre doing.
[/quote]

What I remember IRON complaining about is not that Gre entered via a paperless route, but that they entered paperless saying it was a defensive war, wanting reps and "unconditional surrender".

Maybe I'm wrong...(OOC, I've been on vacation for the last 2 weeks, and CN has not been on my mind, so I may not remember things correctly.)

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1279550683' post='2378825']
Why do you see this kind of thing as a quality burn? Everyone was always going to have some kind of reaction to an FA shift on such a large scale; clearly not all of those opinions were going to be positive or supportive ones.
[/quote]
Why do you and your alliance mates seem to think anyone wants to know your reaction to this announcement which doesn't concern you? If IRON cancelling some treaties is going to send you into a nerd rage then by all means, froth at the mouth. Just don't expect anyone to care or pay attention to you.

[Xiphosis]

Hope you're happy with how this plays out for you IRON, sincerely.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

A few notes, since I'm too lazy to type a complete text:

[i]-NATO:[/i] It's nice to see so many of you speak up. It's been a while since we've seen your alliance so well represented in these halls.

[i]-Former IRON allies:[/i] I wish you luck. However, to those who say that IRON is showing a lack of class for dropping allies who have fought for her, I'd like to point out that it's been four months since the end of the last war. When is the proper time to cancel, assuming one wants to cancel? Sit and wait isn't exactly the best option. "Fighting for" was also a two way street, let's not forget about it.

[i]-Those who think this isn't a major FA move or a new path:[/i] Please? I could be wrong but, outside of surrender terms, I don't think an alliance has ever cancelled so many treaties at once. By all definitions, it is a major FA move. When Virida cancelled a few treaties, in late 08 or early 09, it was an important and bold FA move. This is similar. IRONers have decided to take their ship somewhere else.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Voytek]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='20 July 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1279554231' post='2378883']Why do you and your alliance mates seem to think anyone wants to know your reaction to this announcement which doesn't concern you?[/quote]
If IRON doesn't want its affairs being commented on it shouldn't announce them in public.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='20 July 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1279554231' post='2378883']If IRON cancelling some treaties is going to send you into a nerd rage then by all means, froth at the mouth. [b]Just don't expect anyone to care or pay attention to you.[/b][/quote]
Why not? You are.

[Sardonic]

Congratulations IRON, you're just two or three cancellations away from being diplomatically approachable.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1279554795' post='2378892']
Why not? You are.
[/quote]

That was way to easy.

Now that you have our attention, could you explain to me why some people in MK seem upset by this move. I dont understand the logic behind that response.

[Merrie Melodies]

Bold moves Iron, much respect, I love it when an alliance can stir the world through a single announcement.

[Neo Uruk]

Now you aren't absolutely terrible due to treaties, congrats!

[Duncan King]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1279511108' post='2378299']
And I've responded ad nauseum that how "close" you feel to each other doesn't matter one bit if you're still going to clump together in every major war.

Although I'll certainly that this announcement is a step in the opposite direction. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm not sold that this will make much different given the level treaty redundancy that remains.
[/quote]
Your alliance and its cronies have been on the same side since at least Karma and some before that. You've been "clumping" together in every major war for at least a year and a half and some have been "clumping" together for over two years. And your alliance and its cronies definitely have more than their share of "treaty redundancy" as well.

I know it's easier for you to point to the "other side" as the dreaded Hegemony, but in reality, most of the alliances that you label as such were never actually a part of it. Sure, The Continuum alliances and One Vision were but many of the others fought on that side in Karma because of treaty ties with alliances that were a part of these blocs. They didn't fight on that side because they were hegemons, they did it because they were good allies.

Since both of those blocs stopped existing around the time of Karma, the "Hegemony," if it ever existed, probably died around that time too. Some of the constituent alliances of those blocs had treaties to each other that remained into the time of TOP/CNG but those were too sparse to really be a concrete group. People ended up where they did because they defended their allies, it wasn't part of any hegemonic group think.

In contrast to this, I would argue that around the time of Karma and certainly by the time of TOP/CNG, CNG and SF and their immediate allies did begin to act as a semi concrete unit. Plus, after Karma and certainly after TOP/CNG they were bigger than anyone else around. "[url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony"]Hegemony[/url]" means

[quote]Main Entry: he·ge·mo·ny
Pronunciation: \hi-ˈje-mə-nē, -ˈge-; ˈhe-jə-ˌmō-nē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek hēgemonia, from hēgemōn leader, from hēgeisthai to lead — more at seek
Date: 1567

1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : domination <battled for hegemony in Asia>
2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group <extend their own hegemony over American culture as a whole — Mary K. Cayton>

— heg·e·mon·ic \ˌhe-jə-ˈmä-nik, ˌhe-gə-\ adjective [/quote]

and by that definition, once SuperComplaints became bigger than any possible opposition, they became the hegemony by virtue of their size. I know it's easier to mock your defeated enemies, but in your case, it looks more like denial.

As for IRON, they'll back their (now greatly reduced number of) allies. If their allies are opposed to SuperComplaints, then they will back them. If they're on the side of SuperComplaints, then they'll still back them. Although your little bet is amusing (for you), it is based on the incorrect assumption that the "Hegemony" that may have existed around the time of Karma still exists. IRON won't act because of any "ex-hegemonic" tendencies, it will act because it supports its allies. I understand that recognizing this means that you lose your boogeyman, but not doing so just makes you look foolish.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Duncan King

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1279554795' post='2378892']
If IRON doesn't want its affairs being commented on it shouldn't announce them in public.

Why not? You are.
[/quote]
How clever.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='19 July 2010 - 03:29 AM' timestamp='1279524556' post='2378638']
the more i think of this shameful and poorly implemented abandonment, the more I wonder what existing and new allies will think should another war happpen. Will they too be rewarded with a clumsy realignment move, should IRON see it fit?

This week should be called Clumsy Diplomacy Week.
[/quote]

You forget the war was nearly 6 months ago. Dropping treaties before, during, or immediately after a war is one thing. In 6 months, almost anything can occur from changes in relationships, diplomacy and communication.



[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 July 2010 - 08:32 AM' timestamp='1279542705' post='2378757']
There's a lot of people making fairly transparent attempts to prepare IRON and whatever they do next as the next 'big enemy', even though with this set of cancellations (and the way in which they've gone about it, really losing friends) IRON have pretty much destroyed what remained of the ex-Hegemony power cluster. We really are in a monopolar world right now and I guess members of Supergrievances aren't really liking the implications of that.
[/quote]

I agree entirely.

[mrcalkin]

To be honest, I am happy with any alliance taking out the trash, but as some of the IRON members have stated, its not like they aren't still indirectly connected to many of the alliances they canceled on. I have no idea if they'll start following no-chaining clauses (assuming they have them) and actually doing things differently but it's a step in the right direction to cancel on the Legions and NATO's of the world.

[andrew734]

[quote name='Drai' date='19 July 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1279545867' post='2378782']
Yes let me search back a few months to please your obviously pretentious denial (or maybe it's real in which case lol).
[/quote]

wait so let me try this logic

did you remember that IRON and MK signed a treaty a couple months ago. Well they did but im too lazy to find a quote to prove it.

[Haquertal]

[quote name='andrew734' date='19 July 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1279557769' post='2378956']
wait so let me try this logic

did you remember that IRON and MK signed a treaty a couple months ago. Well they did but im too lazy to find a quote to prove it.
[/quote]

"Yeah, I have proof, but I don't care enough to show it."

How clever.

Also, good luck, IRON.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='andrew734' date='19 July 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1279557769' post='2378956']
wait so let me try this logic

did you remember that IRON and MK signed a treaty a couple months ago. Well they did but im too lazy to find a quote to prove it.
[/quote]
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83752]You're right, we did[/url]

[Voytek]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='20 July 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1279556033' post='2378915']That was way to easy. [/quote]
I know right? I was hoping he'd pull that one out of the bag and he didn't disappoint.

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='20 July 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1279556033' post='2378915']Now that you have our attention, could you explain to me why some people in MK seem upset by this move. I dont understand the logic behind that response.[/quote]
Who's upset? I don't see anyone upset by this; I think you're confusing "upset" and "amused".

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='20 July 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1279556971' post='2378945']How clever. [/quote]
Not my fault you made a post so badly begging for the obvious response. Hate the game not the player.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='19 July 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1279556033' post='2378915']
That was way to easy.

Now that you have our attention, could you explain to me why some people in MK seem upset by this move. I dont understand the logic behind that response.
[/quote]
From a purely personal standpoint, my line of logic is that while I don't like any of the alliances mentioned in the OP -- truly -- I criticize this method of cancellation not because of my AA, but because of the realpolitik tripe. You'll notice that the vast majority of Shrooms in this thread have applauded the cancellations. I've never liked realpolitik, and I never will. At this point, I'm getting to be a broken record.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Duncan King' date='19 July 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1279556892' post='2378943']
Your alliance and its cronies have been on the same side since at least Karma and some before that. You've been "clumping" together in every major war for at least a year and a half and some have been "clumping" together for over two years. And your alliance and its cronies definitely have more than their share of "treaty redundancy" as well.

I know it's easier for you to point to the "other side" as the dreaded Hegemony, but in reality, most of the alliances that you label as such were never actually a part of it. Sure, The Continuum alliances and One Vision were but many of the others fought on that side in Karma because of treaty ties with alliances that were a part of these blocs. They didn't fight on that side because they were hegemons, they did it because they were good allies.

Since both of those blocs stopped existing around the time of Karma, the "Hegemony," if it ever existed, probably died around that time too. Some of the constituent alliances of those blocs had treaties to each other that remained into the time of TOP/CNG but those were too sparse to really be a concrete group. People ended up where they did because they defended their allies, it wasn't part of any hegemonic group think.

In contrast to this, I would argue that around the time of Karma and certainly by the time of TOP/CNG, CNG and SF and their immediate allies did begin to act as a semi concrete unit. Plus, after Karma and certainly after TOP/CNG they were bigger than anyone else around. "[url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony"]Hegemony[/url]" means

and by that definition, once SuperComplaints became bigger than any possible opposition, they became the hegemony by virtue of their size. I know it's easier to mock your defeated enemies, but in your case, it looks more like denial.

As for IRON, they'll back their (now greatly reduced number of) allies. If their allies are opposed to SuperComplaints, then they will back them. If they're on the side of SuperComplaints, then they'll still back them. Although your little bet is amusing (for you), it is based on the incorrect assumption that the "Hegemony" that may have existed around the time of Karma still exists. IRON won't act because of any "ex-hegemonic" tendencies, it will act because it supports its allies. I understand that recognizing this means that you lose your boogeyman, but not doing so just makes you look foolish.
[/quote]

Your first paragraph is obviously true. I'm not sure what your point is, I'm not denying that SuperFriends is a power cluster (that seems fairly obvious), or that together with C&G and LEO we form a sort of "mega cluster" that currently has a loose dominance (yes, a hegemony) over the world. I am well aware that there is treaty redundancy within SF (it is a bloc after all), and I have no idea why you felt the need to point this out.

I'll admit it's a little confusing referring to a group that isn't hegemonic as Hegemony (or even ex-Hegemony), but I didn't name them and it's the only universally recognized term, so I use it. I'll start calling you Duck Curtain if you like that better.

I have never suggested that you have remained together out of some kind of desire to reform a hegemony. I haven't really addressed the [i]reasons[/i] for it at all. The fact is though, you did remain together, and you fought an almost-war and a real war together 8 months after Karma. You actually got together, thought of a name for yourselves and appointed LiquidMercury your spokesperson/leader. It wasn't just an unfortunate bunch of allies getting dragged in, it was a fairly well-organized (well, the announcements were well organized, the war declarations were... lacking) offensive.

I won't deny that "SuperGrievances" forms a loose hegemony at present. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant to the existence or no of an "ex-Hegemony" cluster though. I am not seeking a "bogeyman", I have no fear of the ex-Hegemony cluster. I am well aware of the fact that we are vastly superior than them. What does that have to do with whether they exist or not?

[nikko]

Sometimes you have to burn the bridges behind you in order to be able to move forward.
Best of luck on your new path IRON.

o/ IRON

[Mick Jones]

Later IRON, I had fun losing half my NS strength to defend you in the last war.

By the way, I have a couple of aid slots open, I'm sure you intend on compensating all of your "still friends" for all the reps we got to pay for a war that we defended you in. A war, I might add, that NATO lost over a third of its NS strength in.

[Delta1212]

Wow, the arguments in this thread are [I]weird[/I]. Anyway, good luck to IRON with whatever it is they are doing.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='19 July 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1279554706' post='2378890']
[i]-Those who think this isn't a major FA move or a new path:[/i] Please? I could be wrong but, outside of surrender terms, I don't think an alliance has ever cancelled so many treaties at once. By all definitions, it is a major FA move. When Virida cancelled a few treaties, in late 08 or early 09, it was an important and bold FA move. This is similar. IRONers have decided to take their ship somewhere else.
[/quote]

GGA actually canceled everything but two treaties (Brig and somebody I can't remember) shortly after the JB coup. It opened some doors for them, but the opportunity was largely squandered in the end. Hopefully IRON has the ability to seize the opportunities they have opened.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='19 July 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1279559200' post='2378980']
From a purely personal standpoint, my line of logic is that while I don't like any of the alliances mentioned in the OP -- truly -- I criticize this method of cancellation not because of my AA, but because of the realpolitik tripe. You'll notice that the vast majority of Shrooms in this thread have applauded the cancellations. I've never liked realpolitik, and I never will. At this point, I'm getting to be a broken record.
[/quote]


First, thank you for answering my question.

But I am not sure why you think this is realpolitik tripe. IRON has bled a lot for its allies in the last couple wars. Indeed a strong argument that if it were not for IRON's commitment to its treaties, it would not have bled at all - or at the very least would have had suffered substantially less damage. To me that does not speak to an alliance engaged in realpolitik.

One thing you can never accuse IRON of is not standing by its treaty obligations. Very few of us out there can the same claim. I see this as IRON making sure that it can continue to live up to that reputation. They have done so openly and transparently. To me that is the direct opposite of the realpolitik we have seen from some others.