Chocolate Cookies

Today, it is with regret that I must announce NATO's cancellation of [i]The Mostly Harmless North Atlantic Amity Agreement[/i] in accordance with Article III of our [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63739"]dual membership treaty[/url] with The Foreign Division. [quote name='Foreign Article 5'] [b]Article III - We look after each other[/b] In the event either alliance is attacked by a treaty partner of the other alliance, that alliance is required to provide notice of cancellation of the other treaty and fulfill this Treaty as soon as the Cancellation period is over. [/quote] The cancellation period of our treaty with MHA has passed and the treaty calls for an additional three days of non-aggression, two of which have already passed, in accordance to Article 4: [quote name='The Mostly Harmless North Atlantic Amity Agreement'] [b]Article 4[/b] Should either party, or both parties, come to feel that their differences hold more weight than their shared history, then they may withdraw from this treaty after providing seventy-two hours advance notice of their intent to withdraw. After they have withdrawn from the treaty, neither signatory may then initiate aggressive action, as defined in Article 1, for another period of seventy-two hours. [/quote] NATO takes no pleasure in this action, as we have held a treatied relationship with Mostly Harmless Alliance in some form or another for over four years consecutively. Though we are allied no longer, MHA will always hold a special place in our hearts and we wish those hoopy froods the best luck in the future.

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1296286224' post='2609182'] Well, I was, and your alliance-mate was speaking as if he was, hence my reply. If y'all don't know what you're talking about, let us both save a lot of e-trees and stop going around in circles. The treaty was the downgrade from the MDP. We still wanted relations, I've always wanted my NATO brothers back. But I see where two years of opposing views have done to us, now NATO comes into our threads to attack us. The onus for starting this public spitting match is on NATO. [/quote] If you mean Jace, then he was speaking as if he was in NATO then, because he indeed was in NATO then.

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1296285444' post='2609144'] LOL no such ultimatum ever occurred. Like I said to GATO, I know you want to tread party lines and will try to say literally [i]anything[/i] to make some kind of e-victory, but let's keep discourse intelligent, shall we? What my post demonstrated was an on-going attempt to stop NATO from being in opposition to the MHA. A goal that was hampered by NATO's own choices to help push us out of Q, to continually follow NPO when ourselves and others were moving away, to blindly follow the war NPO and TPF were pushing for, to not attempt to rectify our relations in the two years since, and by moving away from Aqua (yes, this is a minor point to some, but we used to [i]share[/i] this !@#$@#$ sphere mate, you moving away was a nail in this friendship's coffin). You cannot say that MHA simply abandoned NATO, I will compromise by saying that at the very least we gave up on [i]each other[/i] so your alliance-mate's post trying to make this all MHA's fault is as incorrect as it is insulting. [/quote] I wasn't in NATO during that time, nor was I following CN politcs. I don't claim to be right, that's just what your post seemed to imply. As far as attempts at relations, considering that a treaty was signed after Bi-Polar, it's hardly true that attempts have not been made.

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1296284937' post='2609124'] If that's what you got from my post, then there truly is no point in trying to argue with you. [/quote] What I get out your post is that you gave NATO an ultimatum, to choose between you and NPO & co, and that you're angry that we didn't choose you.

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1296284634' post='2609115'] Yeah, we tried to unhook NATO from the inner-sanctum of Pacifica's teat but you [i]would not come[/i]. It would have been nice if you listened to [i]us[/i] instead of NPO, but you made your choice. You had your secret meetings with the rest of Q and all of the other childish nonsense that turned everyone who left away from you. And when we were leaving, when we warned you not to join the war TPF and NPO were rushing into, you simply resigned yourself to your fate. It would have been nice if you showed humility afterwards, come to MHA and admit they hey, you should have listened to us. It would have been nice if you made some real attempts to rectify our relations, if you had made some kind of effort to join in with Aqua instead of running away to Blue to die of stagnation and irrelevancy. One of the fun times I remember is when NATO and MHA competed to be the biggest on Aqua, you were ahead of us at one point. Look at you now. Coming into our declaration to lament the fact that your alliance made the wrong choice, listened to the wrong people, and somehow blame it on us. Cheers to the MHA-NATO of the past. For it truly has passed. [/quote] So, abandon allies to win?

I've alwasy wanted to be decelrated.

[quote name='Cesar Julian' timestamp='1295934370' post='2598949'] [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2732/4106889236_b69e6d7670.jpg[/img] [color="#FF0000"][b]Returned for lack of postage[/b][/color] [/quote] Nice

According to my diplomat staff, NATO has an ambassador that has visited within the past month.

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295676045' post='2591272'] [img]http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt218/Flyer332/Lolz/This-thread-is-now-diamonds-This-thread-is-NOW-DIAMONDS.jpg[/img] back to your knitting, people, [/quote] If only every thread was diamonds.

[img]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj138/Om3ga73/VEslipsPolar.png[/img]

Congrats to all TFDers in gov! Except SP

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1295050786' post='2575524'] Stop complaining and start recruiting, why don't you go make a topic like Archon! [/quote] Maybe you could donate your members to them. In other news, NATO is getting closer to joining the race again.

[quote name='Asa Phillips' timestamp='1294530802' post='2569015'] Nope, we tried and got shot down a few months ago before creating the second AA. [/quote] I guess that leaves Plan B then

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1294462980' post='2568191'] I've long since been actively protesting the 200 member threashold. It's outdated to say the least. It's a shame because it means WTF would have to be sanctioned against their will but let's face it, sanction status shouldn't be limited to having a high membership count. I would hope not! This race is far too exciting. [/quote] Well, I think if WTF asked, they could stay unsanctioned. We really don't know since no one has ever wanted to be unsanctioned before. That or they could just move enough members over to their other AA to keep them in 13th at all times.

Happens in Opera 11 as well.