Krunk the Great

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1320273832' post='2837227'] Godwin'd in the best way possible - by being wrong. Germany declared on the USA. [/quote] But USA committed acts of war by aiding and abetting a [s]close friend[/s] the UK! That means Germany's declaration was defensive!

So legion is going to restore us only for us to destroy them later? Cool.

[quote name='mike717' timestamp='1320263873' post='2837156'] Ahh yes, grammar invalidates ideas, i forgot. [s]Your[/s] [b]You're[/b] an idiot[b].[/b] [/quote] More like, Grammar changes sentences so that it says something completely different. Your idiot says You're an Idiot. There's a difference, learn it. EDIT: If you disagree, I refer you to my signature before you post a reply.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320244771' post='2837033'] he's already said all this posturing about defense and aggression is dumb. [/quote] Only if someone else does it right? We're too busy not being soundly defeated to really care about how you want to spin this.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320242171' post='2837022'] Tetris did not commit an act of war on Legion, when they did, and that as such Legion is the aggressor, which they are not, erego NSO is defending Tetris. [/quote] Convenient spin there, but no. We are quite definitely defending Tetris from an aggressive act from Legion. An act of aggression that was provoked is still aggression all the same (Again, the opposite of aggressive is passive.), NSO is bound to Tetris and would definitely defend a friend even without the Defense treaty. Funny thing about defense treaties, they're kind of a promise that you will come to the defense of an ally when said ally is attacked. There is no provision of "Well, if we agree with the CB we don't have to" They also do not contain a clause requiring you to come to the "defense" of an ally who attacks another alliance and receives a retaliatory declaration. You really don't understand how treaties work, do you?

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1320200583' post='2836859'] Are people seriously arguing that attacking in defense of an ally is not aggression anymore? You guys are really on something. [/quote] I agree. Declaring war is aggressive. Not declaring war is passive, by contrast. However, a *war of aggression* contains two sides: The Aggressors and the Defenders. The aggressors consist of the alliance who originally declared war (Reasons for declaring not withstanding) And her allies. The defenders consist of the alliance who was originally declared upon and any allies who come to this alliances [b]defense[/b]. Bit of term confusion going on here on the OWF, I'll give you that much.

[quote name='Kim Jaym Il' timestamp='1320197840' post='2836838'] I'm pretty sure at this point that this is all just a ploy by NSO so that nobody will ever attack them in the future just to avoid this !@#$ that comes along with it every single time they lose a war. [/quote] Shoot, he figured out our secret plan! I worked on that thing for MONTHS man!

Needs less scy. Grats MCXA.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1320171714' post='2836560'] Again, that has nothing to do with what I actually stated, nor does it refute anything. So far the only thing respectable done by Tetris/NSO is the fact that both are willing to burn for their allies. Other than that, both ya'lls alliances are utterly worthless. [/quote] I seem to remember burning for our smaller allies in a certain war against a certain beer-swilling alliance until they got peace without being asked. Tetris is free to leave. Before you cite a certain war with a certain "cold" alliance, they have actually, you know, put up a good fight.

Does anyone else (who has them turned on) find the notifications a bit....glitchy? At times I can't even click the number to open a menu of notifications. And the popups' HTML is broken after 1/x (X = Number of Notifications) in the popups.

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1320168346' post='2836532'] Global wars start through the chaining in of Military Defense Pacts on [b]both sides.[/b] So if what you said was true then only the alliance that was first attacked can bring in alliances through MDP's and no one else... Which is false, so maybe you dont know what you're on about with all the spinning you're doing. [/quote] Just want to interject here, We didn't come in on a chain. That is all. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1320168762' post='2836538'] Talk about PR.... Even Tetris has stated they have been given terms but won't leave due to NSO, not Legion, but NSO. I repeat, Tetris is staying on the battlefield currently because of NSO and no one else. [/quote] Huh, seems Tetris has the same concept of allies that we do.....interesting.

I admit to mistaking you for the other anime alliance and thinking the NG-SOS war was NG-NsO. Congrats on a year, a noble achievement in this day and age. o/ Cherry Blossoms. Senbonsakura Kageyoshi.

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1320124823' post='2836304'] snip [/quote] All I get from your posts is this: [img]http://www.mobilephonereviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/a-crying-baby.jpg[/img] You should just give up the OWF altogether. You're worse than some people claim I am.

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1320106293' post='2836053'] LMFAO........ So lets get this right, people can now sign a treaty and join in a war that started a month ago ?, this is a crazy new world we live in, wont be long before people sign treaties to have a vaild reason to attack another alliance for a war that happened 4 years ago. Hail TPF for setting the standard. [/quote] Alliances are not restricted by their treaties in deciding who to declare war upon. So yes, People can now (And always could) just join in a war that started however long or short ago. Its not so much a new world such as a revelation of what had already been true. EDIT: Inb4 someone claims I said MD are not binding agreements.

If anything, escalation would give something new and fresh to argue over. Can't say it wouldn't :-p