Jump to content

Batallion

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    762

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Batallion

  5. Peace Out

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296452506' post='2612349']
    I think SLCB may be still fighting some others. So that's probably why. Don't hold me to that though, because I could be wrong.
    [/quote]

    Actually yeah this is true, I just checked their earliest wars against UINE, TIO, etc.

  8. Standing athwart the absurdity of treaties

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1296450480' post='2612126']
    As we said when we issued our DTOM doctrine, we'll fight when someone tries to deny a neutral alliance its right to be neutral, a green alliance its right to be Green, or a conservative alliance its right to be Conservative. Since our inception, no one has declared on a neutral alliance just because it's neutral. No one's declared on a self-proclaimed conservative alliance just because it's conservative. And no one's tried to push any green alliance off our sphere (though we've had debates with other alliances in our sphere about the wisdom of supporting certain green alliances' inclusion into the UJA). If we'd been around during the War on Peace, we most certainly would have jumped into the fray (and been butchered, but still would have gone).

    With regard to the current war, we've been watching closely looking to see if any of our spheres of interest were coming under unwarranted attack. They haven't yet. Specifically, we were watching to see if INT was going to prolong their hostilities with TCU simply because the INT is chalked full of commies and TCU is, obviously, conservative. But INT peaced out with all of TCU's other attackers. They were also careful, in their DoW, to say that they were going to war because of their treaty obligations - not because of ideological motivations. So, we had no role in that conflict.

    MK's declaration on the CCC also raised some eyebrows, but Christianity is not tantamount to conservatism. What's more, despite the fiery rhetoric in that MK DoW, they still said they were declaring because of a treaty obligation - making the nature of the DoW relative to CN politics. But had someone posted a similar DoW on TCU or CPAC or maybe even NoR without the justification of doing it to honor a treaty, it would likely make us want to get involved.

    We're also diligently watching out for anyone who might take the opportunity in this mayhem to start picking on any neutral alliances. Should someone decide now would be the perfect time to hit the Grey council, for example, we'd be all over that - defending neutrality's right to exist.

    Similarly, by way of example, if VE surrendered (which I know won't happen) and NpO tried to make one of the terms "you must join the Blue sphere," we'd involve ourselves at that point.

    In short, we don't meddle in the political affairs of other alliances. We think treaties are arbitrary, and that an alliance (as evidenced by Doomhouse) has the capacity to declare war (or not) for whatever reason it wants. You don't need a treaty to go to war, or to bring friends with you.

    We do, however, keep a watchful eye over the Green Old Party's spheres of interests. In the event that someone decides to make life rough for neutrality, conservatism or the Green sphere - we'll be all over that like white on rice. But we're simply not interested in being chained down by the politics of other people. Treaties are too easily dropped or picked up and the leadership and membership of any given alliance is too amorphous to base a sound foreign policy upon them.

    Suffice it to say, we're defensive in nature. We only go to war to defend ourselves or our way of life (our spheres of interest).

    That's our approach any way. It's been working thus far. Our not having gone to war in two years, in our minds, is evidence of a successful foreign policy.
    [/quote]

    I suppose you have a point, and have answered my question completely. I'll be waiting for the day when you guys come in out of nowhere and roll someone though, it will be epic :smug:

  14. Sparta - DoW

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Facade' timestamp='1295761625' post='2593119']
    This war simply shows all of the cowards in CN who are too terrified to honor the treaties they signed with alliances they once considered "allies".
    [/quote]

    Yeah honestly, right now only RIA is the one to even consider signing a treaty with in the near future.

  15. Sparta - DoW

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1295761293' post='2593058']
    If you really think that Valhalla is going to chain into a conflict to fight for Polaris, then your brain has likely stopped functioning correctly.
    [/quote]

    Then the treaty should never have been signed in the first place, you coward.

  25. FAN Announcement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295032446' post='2575267']
    When an attack is launched on your homeland, you don't just sit there waiting to talk to their diplomats. You take action. They are protecting their sovereignty, MFO must pay for their crimes.

    ("What if it was a random member launching the attack and it wasn't condoned by their gov?" you may ask. It matters not, alliances should be held responsible for what members they allow in the alliance.)
    [/quote]

    Wow... Really Kev?... Just, wow...

×
×
  • Create New...