Statement from Nusantara Elite Warriors

[Haflinger]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1292787003' post='2544707']
In fairness, Gold and Furs isnt exactly the Exports for great growth
[/quote]
Those are my resources

I had alot more than 2 wonders at 460 days. Also I had nukes then.

[Confusion]

As I see it, ball's on DF's allies' court.


If they feel so strongly about it they should do something about it and stop moaning. Personally, I feel NEW is doing the proper thing.




Confusion.

[RebelBreeze]

Ok everyone.... They are not an Alliance anymore! I believe NEW can raid them but they should have at least waited a day or two to jump on them.

[kerschbs]

[quote name='RebelBreeze' timestamp='1292792937' post='2544831']
Ok everyone.... They are not an Alliance anymore! I believe NEW can raid them but they should have at least waited a day or two to jump on them.
[/quote]

There was a statement of protection, period.

I hope, and expect, DF's allies to react to this. Especially Int, I know Cata very well, and I imagine he is warming up the missles.

[twodivine]

[quote name='RebelBreeze' timestamp='1292792937' post='2544831']
Ok everyone.... They are not an Alliance anymore! I believe NEW can raid them but they should have at least waited a day or two to jump on them.
[/quote]
They would of had to wait a lot longer than a day or 2. Try more like 30 days.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='RebelBreeze' timestamp='1292792937' post='2544831']
Ok everyone.... They are not an Alliance anymore! I believe NEW can raid them but they should have at least waited a day or two to jump on them.
[/quote]

This is a ridiculous view. The concept of the AA of disbanded alliances having the AA protected for a period of time(generally a week, 2 weeks or a month) is not something new. It makes me wish someone would have tried this with FoB.

[RebelBreeze]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1292795488' post='2544917']
This is a ridiculous view. The concept of the AA of disbanded alliances having the AA protected for a period of time(generally a week, 2 weeks or a month) is not something new. It makes me wish someone would have tried this with FoB.
[/quote]

I did not know they were still under protectorate. Poor show NEW!

[Spaarlaamp]

[quote name='kerschbs' timestamp='1292793279' post='2544836']
There was a statement of protection, period.
[/quote]
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it. Any attack from them on NEW is unsanctioned no matter how.

^ Personal opinion, not iFOK's

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1292791698' post='2544816']



As I see it, ball's on DF's allies' court.


If they feel so strongly about it they should do something about it and stop moaning. Personally, I feel NEW is doing the proper thing.
[/quote]

I agree. I'm sure amongst all those complaining and outraged are those who complain about the boredom, no wars, ect. This, like any other controversy, clearly has two very divided sides. It'd be nice to see those with the power to do so stop complaining about the intricacies of raiding a disbanded alliance and whether it is ethical or proper unbunch the undergarments and prove that attacking a friend or ally, regardless of treaty or alliance status, is an act of war and will be dealt with as such.

[Quadrius]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1292787003' post='2544707']
In fairness, Gold and Furs isnt exactly the Exports for great growth
[/quote]
No they aren't; had I known better before passing a decent amount of time I would have rerolled.

EDIT: roll NEW

Edited December 19, 2010 by Quadrius

[Batallion]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1292799815' post='2545027']
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it. Any attack from them on NEW is unsanctioned no matter how.

^ Personal opinion, not iFOK's
[/quote]

That's actually a very good stance, I like it quite a bit

[Alterego]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1292799815' post='2545027']
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it.
[/quote]
If this drags on for another day without a resolution or retaliation INT & TPE will be a laughing stock. Come tomorrow morning INT & TPE or NEW will have to swallow their pride and do a humilating public u-turn on front of the whole world. Its lose lose, do they want to keep their reputation and lose NS or keep their NS and look like a couple of turkeys.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1292799815' post='2545027']
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it. Any attack from them on NEW is unsanctioned no matter how.

^ Personal opinion, not iFOK's
[/quote]
My own feeling is that if a (former) ally wants to step in and help, then they have every right to do so.

While I am a great believer in following a treaty to the letter, the fact is that a lack of formal obligation should not stop an alliance from helping its friends. Ever.

[Jesper]

Stupidity encouraging military retort... and I thought Santa wouldn't bring presents this year

Now let's just hope DF's old friends don't !@#$% out of eradicating these morons

[Vol Navy]

From what I know of NEW I'd be shocked to see them back down over something they see as right. I guess it's just according to how much pressure they are willing to take from their Pandora's Box allies to avoid a possible PB sphere vs SF sphere conflict.

[Twizzler]

gantanX, I'm amazed at you. Seriously. If I were to go back and read only the first page of the DF disbandment announcement, not only is the protection mentioned, but you yourself quoted it, asked about it, and had it personally explained to you. I'm at a loss for words.

Now to respond to something said much earlier: Schatt - [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93355&st=0"]Clearly ODN canceled on UPN[/url]

EDIT: Forgot the link

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twizzler

[Banksy]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1292799815' post='2545027']
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it. Any attack from them on NEW is unsanctioned no matter how.

^ Personal opinion, not iFOK's
[/quote]
Yes, the real world doesn't really work like that.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292743787' post='2544158']You seem to be acting under the false belief that a treaty is the final word, and no one can act without one. Unilateral declarations have existed for years, and both INT and TPE clearly stated that they were protecting DF from raiders. They plainly and explicitly said "if you attack them, we attack you" and you try and talk your way out of that.[/quote]
As a member of an alliance with an ample abundance of tech in its coffers and only unilateral protection to its name I look forward to NEW expanding this new diplomatic stance of theirs to our shores so we can come to a more intimate understanding over acceptable raiding targets.

[Utracia]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1292801448' post='2545061']
I agree. I'm sure amongst all those complaining and outraged are those who complain about the boredom, no wars, ect. This, like any other controversy, clearly has two very divided sides. It'd be nice to see those with the power to do so stop complaining about the intricacies of raiding a disbanded alliance and whether it is ethical or proper unbunch the undergarments and prove that attacking a friend or ally, regardless of treaty or alliance status, is an act of war and will be dealt with as such.
[/quote]

Where is the controversy? DF was under protection and NEW attacked anyway. I fail to see how there can be differing viewpoints to this. There is only what happened and NEW and a few others refusing to admit fault. NEW certainly can be stubborn if they wish but the consequences of that may be dire methinks.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Spaarlaamp' timestamp='1292799815' post='2545027']
Only from INT and TPE, every other ex-ally should stay out of it. Any attack from them on NEW is unsanctioned no matter how.

^ Personal opinion, not iFOK's
[/quote]

Unsanctioned is a poor choice of words. Optional Aggression treaties exist for a reason. Anyone holding oA with TPE or INT... have exactly what the treaty says, the option to fight alongside of them, if they feel the need to teach NEW a lesson is important enough. As for any former allies of DF, it is up to them, as individuals to determine whether they still defend the AA.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Rush Sykes

[R3nowned]

INT, TPE. Don't weasel your way out of this. I better see declarations of war by tomorrow update latest

[SupremePrince]

Good luck to both parties but I think this was a poor choice of decision from NEW. Regardless, happy holidays everyone.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='SupremePrince' timestamp='1292806746' post='2545191']
Regardless, happy holidays everyone.
[/quote]


I'm dreaming of a green Christmas

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292784633' post='2544655']
I think you may be the first person ever to actually buy that line.
[/quote]
Which line am i buying now? A formal declaration (read: seperate and clearly representative of government position) would have been recognised, subsequently avoiding the current headache. I have no issue with the protection as it stands, rather an opinion on the nature of this sort of protection and how it can best be made to work.
[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1292767232' post='2544388']
Well that depends on the character and members of the disbanding alliance, I don't think Dark Fist saw it as a insult but each to their own I guess.
[/quote]
Granted. However, I'd doubt an alliance that abruptly disbands without external pressure could find much insulting. Well, other than this attack on their clearly valued ex-members obviously.

[Locke]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1292809237' post='2545227']
Which line am i buying now? A formal declaration (read: seperate and clearly representative of government position) would have been recognised, subsequently avoiding the current headache. I have no issue with the protection as it stands, rather an opinion on the nature of this sort of protection and how it can best be made to work.
[/quote]
The line is "it needs to be a separate announcement to be official." And as has been mentioned already, NEW was perfectly aware of the protection and even inquired about it in the original thread. It was already quite explicit and known, NEW knows this, everyone knows this, NEW just came up with it because they literally don't have anything better as a defense.