An Announcement from the Emperor

[King MyLife]

Good luck

[sigelopisan]

[quote name='PHD' timestamp='1295415033' post='2582875']

War is as always a grave undertaking and we do not enter it lightly, however regardless of the result we will honour our treaties until our last days.

[/quote]


My friend, treaties were signed for a moment like this.
No need to tell everybody that you will honor your treaty until last day.

A little tips for you, keep your members moral as high as possible.
Don't tell everyone that you are going to lose this war before you even started it.

[Facade]

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1295439539' post='2583720']
and this means what ?, that GR are going to turn there back on IAA ?
[/quote]

Yes, and so will Athens. Are you surprised?

EDIT: Lack of clarity. :S

Edited January 19, 2011 by Facade

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295434213' post='2583648']
I love how stupidly obtuse people are when it comes to the fact that this is not a defensive war for the other side. Sorry man but it's true.
[/quote]

I got no dog in this fight but quite clearly VE and its allies declared war on NpO and this is a result of that declaration. Sure NpO gave VE a very good reason to declare war, but a good reason to declare war is not a war declaration. The only stupid in play here would be if IAA had decided to turn chicken and run. They aren't running anywhere but to the sound of the guns. I applaud them.

[Voytek]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295446534' post='2583822']Sure NpO gave VE a very good reason to declare war, but a good reason to declare war is not a war declaration.[/quote]
Spying has always been considered an act of aggression. Responding to an act of aggression is by its very definition a defensive act - and a counterdeclaration to said defence is in support of the offensive.

[C Mos]

Glad that you're joining us.

o/

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295446996' post='2583827']
Spying has always been considered an act of aggression. Responding to an act of aggression is by its very definition a defensive act - and a counterdeclaration to said defence is in support of the offensive.
[/quote]

It's an invitation to dance, not dancing. As covered yesterday, there are any number of responses to being spied upon, of which military action is a valid one, but not the only one. VE and its allies commenced with military action and NpO and its allies are now responding in kind.

What's the matter, war not going as planned?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Hi Imperial Assaulters. Nice to see you here, now, did you bring the beer or the steaks?

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1295415656' post='2583022']
Piling on the soft targets has been theorized several times as the best way for an underdog to have a fighting chance. Looks like Polar and Co are taking this route. Will be interesting to see how well it works.
[/quote]

NEW used a similar tactic to fairly good affect in BiPolar by focusing on getting the smaller AA's they were at war with out of the way first.


Anyway, good luck IAA.

[Voytek]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295447541' post='2583832']It's an invitation to dance, not dancing. As covered yesterday, there are any number of responses to being spied upon, of which military action is a valid one, but not the only one. VE and its allies commenced with military action and NpO and its allies are now responding in kind.[/quote]
VE's response to being spied on would have been a defensive one regardless of what exactly they chose to do - [i]because they were spied on[/i]. It doesn't magically become an offensive act simply because they chose to pick Option A over Option B.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295447541' post='2583832']What's the matter, war not going as planned? [/quote]
wat

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295448150' post='2583844']
VE's response to being spied on would have been a defensive one regardless of what exactly they chose to do - [i]because they were spied on[/i]. It doesn't magically become an offensive act simply because they chose to pick Option A over Option B.
[/quote]
If VE's nations had spy operations used against them by NpO I would agree on a DoW in response being defensive, but whether what NpO did is spying or not is largely based on opinion, since NpO didn't attack them or try creating any type of spy ring to infiltrate them. VE declared due to what was said between individuals on a personal level in an informal conversation, where there was no real evidence that NpO was trying to cause damage to VE.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Methrage

[bkphysics]

Welcome to the fun my friends!

Let's do this!

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295448150' post='2583844']
VE's response to being spied on would have been a defensive one regardless of what exactly they chose to do - [i]because they were spied on[/i]. It doesn't magically become an offensive act simply because they chose to pick Option A over Option B.[/quote]

The problem with your line of logic is that you are trying to use it to give NpO's allies a legal fig leaf in order to keep them out of the war and set up some sort of case for significant reparations when the war is over, assuming VE and its allies win.

However...

1. VE cannot demonstrate any actual harm from the spying done by a third party, not NpO.
2. There is still an open question as to whether that third party was in fact in contact with VE prior to spying.
3. The implication is that VE had to take military action in response to a threat, when in fact no plausible threat existed.

Once again, VE has justification for taking direct military action and activating treaties as the situation calls for it. So does iFOK, IAA and all the other parties in this conflict so far. But don't sell the "we are only defending ourselves line". It's a load of crap.

[Bert101]

We have big Giant Robot Camels.
You have been warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-1fmTSmHA

Edited January 19, 2011 by Bert101

[Jphillips412]

o/ IAA

We certainly appreciate it

[Voytek]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295450430' post='2583885']The problem with your line of logic is that you are trying to use it to give NpO's allies a legal fig leaf in order to keep them out of the war and set up some sort of case for significant reparations when the war is over, assuming VE and its allies win.[/quote]
You think I want NpO's allies to stay [i]out[/i]? u kidin me bro

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295450430' post='2583885']1. VE cannot demonstrate any actual harm from the spying done by a third party, not NpO.
2. There is still an open question as to whether that third party was in fact in contact with VE prior to spying.
3. The implication is that VE had to take military action in response to a threat, when in fact no plausible threat existed.[/quote]
1. "oh she was only felt up a bit; not even that really"
2. No there isn't, the only reason the question is even in anyone's minds is because NpO and friends are looking for ways to talk SF into coming in on their side and there's nothing like a good bit of evidenceless paranoia (that physically can't be proven wrong) for that kind of thing.
3. That's not the implication here. The assertion is that there was a violation of sovereignty; the actual physical harm caused by that violation is meaningless when we're talking offensiveness or defensiveness.

This is all kind of a moot point though to be honest; whether or not allies join in on a war rarely has anything to do with whether the relevant clauses in their treaties are mutual or optional.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295450430' post='2583885']Once again, VE has justification for taking direct military action and activating treaties as the situation calls for it. So does iFOK, IAA and all the other parties in this conflict so far. But don't sell the "we are only defending ourselves line". It's a load of crap.[/quote]
There's a whole bucketload of connotation in that line I'm supposedly selling that has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. Sorry.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295436882' post='2583680']
I find it interesting that even after MK left CnG you still seem to speak for the bloc, but in the noCB War I don't think they treated them that way. An outside treaty partner of GR got attacked and all of CnG moved in to assist, as well as NpO if I recall correctly.
[/quote]

It was convenient at the time

[Alexander The Second]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295451010' post='2583901']
You think I want NpO's allies to stay [i]out[/i]? u kidin me bro


1. "oh she was only felt up a bit; not even that really"
2. No there isn't, the only reason the question is even in anyone's minds is because NpO and friends are looking for ways to talk SF into coming in on their side and there's nothing like a good bit of evidenceless paranoia (that physically can't be proven wrong) for that kind of thing.
3. That's not the implication here. The assertion is that there was a violation of sovereignty; the actual physical harm caused by that violation is meaningless when we're talking offensiveness or defensiveness.

This is all kind of a moot point though to be honest; whether or not allies join in on a war rarely has anything to do with whether the relevant clauses in their treaties are mutual or optional.


There's a whole bucketload of connotation in that line I'm supposedly selling that has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. Sorry.
[/quote]



I got a good reason why were on the defense. That CB against Polaris was doctored to be what it is. I mean really? 20 hours between the screen shots that started the war to the war being declared?

all this took place in a 20 hour period is what there CB tells

1 - spy is NpO affiliated and loyal

2 - spy as a player with next to little real experience grabs valuable and sensitive information, send it on a PM on "who's forum"? to his NpO controller

3 - spy changes sides, and hands over all information that would have him damned to ZI under most circumstances, and the declaration is posted hastily with no diplomatic contact.



This isn't just a shady CB, it smells like a whole fish market.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Alexander The Second' timestamp='1295452213' post='2583915']
I got a good reason why were on the defense. That CB against Polaris was doctored to be what it is. I mean really? 20 hours between the screen shots that started the war to the war being declared?

all this took place in a 20 hour period is what there CB tells

1 - spy is NpO affiliated and loyal

2 - spy as a player with next to little real experience grabs valuable and sensitive information, send it on a PM on "who's forum"? to his NpO controller

3 - spy changes sides, and hands over all information that would have him damned to ZI under most circumstances, and the declaration is posted hastily with no diplomatic contact.



This isn't just a shady CB, it smells like a whole fish market.
[/quote]
I don't have the heart to tell you exactly how wrong the things you're saying right now are. I'll have to settle for "you're very wrong".

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295452377' post='2583919']
I don't have the heart to tell you exactly how wrong the things you're saying right now are. I'll have to settle for "you're very wrong".
[/quote]

He may be slightly wrong in a couple parts, but at least he's thinking with his own head.

Of all the years I've known Impero, this was the most thoughtless and quick decision I've ever seen him make. Purely out of desire for war against Polaris. He and I have shared [i]jested discussions[/i] over the past in private of a similar nature (let's say .. ohhh .. Around the Ordo Recolitus days) - should one of us had actually gone ahead with it, would that have made the other guilty?

[Voytek]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1295452833' post='2583928']He may be slightly wrong in a couple parts, but at least he's thinking with his own head.[/quote]
Some people just really shouldn't be doing that.

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1295452833' post='2583928']should one of us had actually gone ahead with it, would that have made the other guilty?[/quote]
Yes? Why is this even a question?

[Alexander The Second]

if you cannot explain in fine detail how all these time frames somehow match up or at least PM me, info regarding why you believe I am incorrect then why are you even stating your point of view in this thread if you wont support it against opposition with anything more then "I'm not gunna tell you how wrong you are". My argument is completely legit from how I understand things given my one time reading the VE DoW, and I still say that the 20 hour time frame is just bogus.

I've been doing some research into VE's past and what not, and I gotta say VE claiming this as a just war, is the pot calling the kettle black in every sense.


@ Rayvon - thanks for the sig, made me look into funny things.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Alexander The Second

[James Wilson]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295452377' post='2583919']
I don't have the heart to tell you exactly how wrong the things you're saying right now are. I'll have to settle for "you're very wrong".
[/quote]
I, however, do have the heart to tell you that you're nothing but a mindless drone.

[Zessa]

Always good to see the Star Destroyers overhead. Thank you, IAA!

[Voytek]

[quote name='James Wilson' timestamp='1295454353' post='2583946']
I, however, do have the heart to tell you that you're nothing but a mindless drone.
[/quote]
You cut me deep man. You cut me real deep just now.