Sovyet Gelibolu

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1335384106' post='2959111'] unexpected, but good luck. [/quote] Are you kidding? I knew about this months ago.

Forward the revolution!

HaiLSF! Mindlessly no less!

Someone please remind me why I shouldn't forget this whole war ever happened?

[quote name='Chaoshawk' timestamp='1334877791' post='2955936'] Alas, the beginning of the great purge. [/quote] There are some rulers out there so inimicably opposed to the triumph of the global proletariat that even the re-education spas were unable to sway them. Their liquidation is sad, but necessary.

Hey, I recognize all five of those names. That means this is a good Central Committee.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334660100' post='2954789'] No, it's not because the direction of the bloc is guided by external influences with internal collaboration. As a result ties certain signatories may have end up not mattering because those who have the initiative determine what C&G does. I already went into depth about how Sparta and R&R were handled.[/quote] Do you mean RIA?

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334653550' post='2954763']Well, that's why you're in C&G to begin with right? The treaty is between two fairly high NS alliances. TPF at 5m and whatever NS Int actually has. Of course, it's going to be relevant.[/quote] AFAIK INT's actual total is somewhere around 3.7 million. It comes as somewhat of a surprise that a treaty regrouping a little less than nine million NS is considered relevant these days, but what can you do? As for why we're in C&G, I was on a years-long hiatus when that decision was made, and both INT and C&G have moved forums since then. So I wish I could rehash all the arguments for you, but that information simply isn't available to me

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1334653093' post='2954760'] NEVER! Long live OWF. Congrats guys! Sorry to see your treaty announcement Roq'ed....but hey, it'll give you another target to add to your annoying, needs to be rolled list, right? [/quote] Eh, it's not problem, it keeps the thread at or near the top of the page. Like Pwnage said, it's good to feel relevant.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334637062' post='2954681'] I have a response for you since this thread has been bumped regardless: Don't be in a !@#$%* bloc if you don't want criticism and hell, even MK thinks it's stupid to have it as an MADP. "Open world forum." That is all.[/quote] It's "Open World RP" now, and has been for some time. Also, VL, I've talked to you about gratuitous rudeness before, and it's getting a bit tiresome. Please cut it out. OOC: yeah, Roq, I figured outside motivations would predominate. Particularly as nothing you've said IC is a [i]reason[/i] you give a crap about us, rather than just a restatement of the fact that you give a crap about us.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334579242' post='2954231'] I am using logical arguments. Nothing wrong with wanting more than what is required. I mean,being excess strength certainly didn't discourage people from joining against SF/XX. I could take a page out of the MK playbook and actively lie and overestimate the opposition to guilt people, but that's not my style.[/quote] The quality of the arguments is not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning the motivation that drives the making of these arguments. The logical thing to do, if an alliance's decisions don't matter to one's desired overall outcome, is to spend no energy talking about or to that alliance, so that energy can be spent baiting one's enemies into making a mistake or courting people who do matter to the position they're needed. [quote]I've made my own hypotheticals and they already show an excess of strength, but I do not want to see Int rolled necessarily.[/quote] This is exactly what I have a problem understanding. I cannot think of a logical reason why you should give a crap about us. It should not matter to you whether we get rolled unnecessarily or not. For some reason it does. Why?

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334551533' post='2954099'] No, I'm saying in the current political dynamic, MK occupies the dominant position. You are free to change things up at any time. In fact, I encourage it. [/quote] You have made it clear on numerous occasions that INT's decisions, no matter what they are, are not relevant to the outcome of any future global conflict. The most memorable of these quotes, to me at this moment, is that we are "not needed for Fungicide." That is, a coalition capable of taking down the MK-hegemony, such as it is, can be formed without our participation, and that our intervention in opposition to such a coalition, were we to intervene in such a manner, would not impede its progress. If this is true, and since you have better access to the spreadsheets of the anti-MK crowd than I do I have no reason to doubt it, I am baffled by your continued need to produce a running commentary on our foreign affairs. I can only conclude that it is the product of either an irrational obsession with us or an emotional drive to safeguard our welfare. Being stalked and being mothered are both flattering in their own way, but neither contributes to the reign of logic rather than emotion in politics.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334350739' post='2952417']Because C&G is inextricably tied to DH. See: Prodigal Moon's post. I mean, your opinions on individual C&G alliances are one thing, but the fact stands. The alternative would be a removal of TLR and to a lesser extent, ODN... I mean I used to like ODN, but ODN has shown where its loyalties are: MK.[/quote] Don't make me laugh. INT's treaty with ODN predates INT itself (well, it was an MDP back then rather than an MDoAP, but that hardly matters). You're scholar enough of CN history that I don't need to list all the times ODN's gone to bat for us. I know it's easy to call out such sentiments with cries of "the Ordinance of the Orders will never be cancelled", but if you think INT's going to be spitting on nearly four years of friendship and mutually profitable strategic partnership any time soon, you've got another think coming. We didn't drop them when R&R did, and we're not about to do so now. TLR can go, though. They suck EDIT: Kzoppistan has it right. EDIT EDIT: Didn't see the blog post. If anybody cares enough they can copy and paste this there. I'm not sure I do.

Now, now, VL, there's no reason to be rude. The only on-topic criticism of this treaty so far has been that it doesn't seem to line up particularly well with INT's existing FA strategy at first glance. TPF has been spared this criticism, and for that I suppose they should feel lucky. Now, apart from the argument Trotsky's made, that the treaty isn't really so far out of our way as it might appear to some people, there are two objections to be raised. First: apart from INT's existing treaties, public comments made by our members, and possible espionage, there is only a small basis for an outside observer to know what INT's actual FA strategy is. We're not important enough to spy on, and you can't take anything our members say in public as absolute gospel truth, the same as you can't take anyone else's public statements as absolute gospel truth. As I pointed out above, we're under no obligation to enlighten anybody, except our allies, as to our FA plans. Second: The last treaty we signed was subject to vociferous criticism from these same folks, the basis of which was that TLR was too close to Doomhouse. Now we're being lambasted for signing a treaty with an alliance that has no outstanding ties to Doomhouse, because, apparently, our FA should line up with Doomhouse's (or, in their words, we should 'be more consistent'). What, exactly, is it that is wanted from us? Given that our critics seem to be either indulging their hate no matter what we do to incense it, should we care?

Damn it, Craig, why'd you have to open your mouth? [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1334291260' post='2951841'] In the event of a direct attack on MK, in what sense would you not end up with a treaty obligation to defend them? You are in an MADP bloc with multiple ties to them. For INT to not defend them would either require that one of your members is ignoring an MDP, or you are ignoring an MADP. Which one should people be expecting?[/quote] The next time someone launches a direct attack on MK, we'll be sure to let you know exactly what we plan to do. We'll even post about it in the OWF. We'll fly our flag, run a not-really-all-that-witty motif through the text, let Craig put his foot in his mouth, and do all the other things the OWF has come to know and loathe about INT announcements. Til then, the discussion's more than a bit moot. No matter what we say, planners in various spheres will plug us into their spreadsheets wherever they please. It's not really our job to make their jobs easier. [quote]You got singled out for having an especially incoherent set of ties. No one can fix the web by themselves, but you have complete control over your own contribution to it, which you're making progressively worse.[/quote] Nor is it our job to make sense of our foreign affairs for you. If you can't see a pattern, I suggest you either look harder or give up and do something more gratifying. Our allies know where we stand.

Does it bother anyone else that the OP is badly out of date?

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1334267233' post='2951616'] This idea lacks BAPS... just sayin. [/quote] BAPS would be nice to have...if they ever considered signing another treaty again. Til then, we can but move forward.

The heck is this?

What's NoV?

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1333686022' post='2948893'] Let it not be said that GATO did not sacrifice for the revolution. [/quote] Whoever would have dreamed of saying such a thing?

/me bows demurely.

Nothing ruins a tradition like shamelessly overdoing it, Ironfist.

Meet the new gov, same as the old gov. Well, MF replaced Q, and Ronjoy replaced Jackred, but who cares about those people?

Jeez, is LSF on a treaty binge or what? Regardless, it's nice to see our allies getting closer.

[quote name='knightedseagul' timestamp='1333340763' post='2947164'] Is this for real or not? [/quote] Why not take a look at the alliance stats and decide for yourself? You should know better than to ask a bunch of commies for a straight answer.