watchman

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1296580709' post='2614778'] Likewise, both yourself and Port Royale did well holding everything together, and with MCXA peacing it was always going to end quickly. No ill will there...I think that mdness' ranting just irked a few of our members. [/quote] irked a few of our members, also. [quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1296581279' post='2614787'] There was that other thing too, but at least it got resolved. [/quote] Aye. Sorry about that. You guys were very understanding.

There is way too much to respond to here. So, let me simply say that MCXA and her enemies came to an acceptable agreement for cessation of hostilities. Since we got into the war for the sake of MCXA, it seemed counter-productive to continue. As to the re-entry term, that was certainly a sticking point in talks, but in the end, we really had no legitimate way of re-entering the war, anyway. We checked with our allies and came to a conclusion that this was a redundant clause - 'we won't re-enter a war that we weren't going to re-enter anyway.' If members of the international community want to

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1296413449' post='2611305'] I sure hope UBD allows for the peaceful exchange of dead [/quote] You mean, you don't eat your dead? Why waste the good meat?

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296388784' post='2611029'] The treaty chain here is a bit on the crazy side. To follow it. iFOK declares on NpO; TIO hits iFOK for NpO; SLCB hits TIO for iFOK; TCU hits SLCB for TIO; The International (citing an MADP with others defending SLCB) hits TCU for SLCB; THL hits The International for TCU; NEAT hits THL for The International; UBD hits NEAT for THL. And now this. TCU has already surrendered btw, so there's actually no longer any treaty chain back to the original iFOK war. Oh well. I like you guys, but you wound up on the wrong side here.

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1296366689' post='2610578'] It's pretty clear from what we stated in the DoW that we do not intend by our defense of NEAT to give political cover to either "side." We cannot however allow NEAT to be attacked by an alliance twice its size without any counter. [/quote] UBD certainly does not assume that you are tanking any political stance in this matter. Your CB matches ours - we were requested by an ally. Do I sense an apolitical fight? Refreshing in such times.

Must admit, blitz was pretty good.

Always honorable to live up to treaty obligations as we are doing also.

We look forward to meeting you on the battlefield.

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1296185317' post='2606626'] May your Mudkipz burn. [/quote] Actually, I kind of agree with this.

Bombs away

iFok math is interesting mutual defense = optional defense Yeah, cancellation is clearly better.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1294602096' post='2569916'] the amount of abuse distributed through the last few months of our relationship has hindered with significance our capacity to work together. [/quote] For one, I am astounded that TFD put up with it as long as they did. NADC Gov, listen up: TFD are the best friends you ever had. Treating them in such a way is completely counter-productive.

We gettin' slizzard!

Putting their friends' wellbeing before their own interests has been Europa's consistent stance throughout this situation. o/

I have wine and uranium http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000811