dejarue

Wow. History repeats itself... Reading things like this from NPO makes me really not want to be allied to them.

I'm pretty sure this is a bug. In the new "Alliance Announcements" feature that came out today/yesterday, in the comments section, if you click on a nation that posts a comment, the nation id doesn't successfully get passed in the URL, resulting in a "no such nation" error.

I'll do a 3/50. Unsure of the length of the arrangement, my alliance is setting up a ring. www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=494587

The Paparazzi scored this photo of NPL once the clock struck midnight. [img]http://geektyrant.com/storage/post-images/BloodyJasonMomoaConan.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1278106256066[/img]

Appreciate the recognition.

I must say, I did enjoy the conduct of the guys I fought with.

Meh, don't really get it, but whatever.

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1340701464' post='2997053'] As if you've had the luxury, there were only two SF alliances that didn't get forced to fight anyway, and one entered before anyone else was in. So... well done GOD? [/quote] We have had the luxury. You know Superfriends have been around for like 4 years, right?

[quote name='Tasuki' timestamp='1340697448' post='2997031'] Please hit NATO [/quote] If this sentiment is true, this war could interesting, fast.

Anyone want to guess what bloc isn't attacking alliances who their allies are treatied to? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Shmuperfriends.

lol At least you're true to your word. Your allies can do what they want, hit whoever they want, for whatever reason (or no reason) they want. And you will back anything. Because you have no humility. Yeah, we got it. No repercussions when people do something wrong. How dare they. I assume that if anyone hits NATO, there will be no backing from NPO.

[quote name='zigbigadorlou' timestamp='1340640899' post='2995927'] Have you ever heard of "tech raid-PM for peace"? This isn't a tech raid by any means, but we thought it commonplace to have a friendly gesture of peace talks if desired. I'm surprised you've never heard of this! I'm guessing YOUR alliance is just rude. [/quote] Wha-huh? I thought the whole grounds for this was to see if SF would "defend" us. If your whole aim was to hit, and then quickly seek peace, how does this serve the ends of hitting and seeing if you could hit hard enough, for long enough, to invoke a defensive move by SF? Can you keep your story straight for even a day?

[quote name='King Death II' timestamp='1340511451' post='2994153'] Oh hey GO, when do you guys plan on defending NPL? [/quote] Dude, the guys you brought in from Int to ghost your AA (when you couldn't pull off a real attack and ended up bent over a barrel within like an hour of declaring) couldn't even handle doing any damage WHILE QUADDING. Why would we want to bring our allies in? That'd be embarrassing.

[quote name='Captain Spock' timestamp='1340476141' post='2993710'] Regardless of what the actual treaty text says, if LSF don't ask or want tR to defend LSF, why in the world should they feel obligated to defend LSF anyway? It just doesn't make sense. [/quote] That kind of explains what I've experienced (on the battlefield) in the last 14 hours.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1340432146' post='2993356'] Except at least Int can point to specific reasons why they stay out of the LSF affairs. You know oA LSF asked them to stay out all that good stuff. SF-XX stays out purely out of cowardice as far as I can tell. [/quote] It doesn't seem like you can tell very far... in general.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340428422' post='2993281'] Not at all. Remove your top tier and NPL has an advantage here, in nukes, tech, mil wonders, war experience, etc. There's no way you could win this one on one, unless NPL are short on warchests. [/quote] From what I've seen (of just the only nation I've counter-declared on), they (tR) might be short on warchests.

Ha. So you declared war on us? Honestly, I've been logging in periodically just to make sure I don't miss anything. I hadn't noticed. I guess I haven't missed anything. Edit: What does this even prove? We're not going to call in any treaties to deal with you...

hahahahaha Well done. Umbrella should thrive when taken in the new direction of Fark's wise leadership.

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1339984617' post='2986941'] [quote]Not that they attacked, but rather the lying about the motivation. [/quote] For Dave! o/ [/quote] Hah. Well said.

Man this really didn't go the way it was intended.

[quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1339710182' post='2984002'] ^^ consider this a learning opportunity. be careful who you sentence to ZI and read your messages. you never know what you're missing. [/quote] lol Back to NPO reasoning.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1339709884' post='2983990'] Yes I can say I don't agree with the CB... oh look I did and shared it openly prior to it going up and in fact talked to Leet directly before I posted my DoI. Yes I can say I will support my ally...oh look I did. And look at you with the dramatics. CSN isn't some innocent alliance akin to the slaughtering of women and children (nor is any of SF or in fact ANY alliance in this game). You don't like that I can indeed do that, then I just feel sorry for you. Why you have this venom is beyond me. I never quite got what you and a few others are all up in arms about and have been for some time /shrugs. Can't say I care either. Since you say I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, care to explain yourself or are you really doing the monkey scream and throw crap on the wall to see what sticks? When haven't I been clear about the NPO, her goals or what we are doing? Meh what JA, continue your tirade it gives you something to do. Tell me what is my long game? Considering I have put it up and talked about it openly you can do the cliff notes and go just quote a previous post, easier to hit the target from there. [/quote] It sounds to me like "Oooooh I want a piece of this! But I don't support their reasoning!"

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1339709931' post='2983994'] Alliances have and retain the right to grant asylum to any member they so desire. Once asylum is thus granted, an attack on such a member becomes a violation of their alliance sovereignty. The granting of asylum in itself may constitute a violation of alliance sovereignty, but that does not compare to violating the interests of an alliance by attacking such a protectorate. If CSN were to have declared on Mushroom Kingdom, claiming that their hosting of Dave93 was an act of war, it would have been a perfectly legitimate reason to declare war on Mushroom Kingdom. Instead, CSN attacked Dave93, [b]despite indications being made that Dave93 was under protection[/b], and since Dave93 was already under the protection of Mushroom Kingdom, this amounts to an undeclared war on Mushroom Kingdom. Hence, Mushroom Kingdom is only defending its interests and is not the aggressor in this case. [/quote] Nope. There weren't "indications". If there were, they haven't been presented here, though there was a vague claim from MK that someone said something to CSN about it. A peace offer is not any "indication". Peace offers don't even get opened when you're attacking a ZI-listed target, and I think most people know this who have been in the game longer than a few months.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1339708811' post='2983962'] Thinking back to the incident that kicked off Karma... there is alot of irony in this statement. Inb4 "that was different because...." We 100% interfered in the judicial process of NPO. And I would do it all over again. [/quote] Uh... no "we" didn't. NPO declared war. Then realized that the treaty chain would demolish them, but it was too late then. "We" tried to stop the chain from being set off. Nobody interfered with NPO's judicial decision on seth, but on the alliance-wide declaration. [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1339709218' post='2983971'] The REALLY funny thing is you act as if (and you probably believe it too) SF was on top, it would not be like that. Innocence, through the eyes of a child. [/quote] SF has been at the top of the food chain. And things were not like that. The objection to this all is that MK didn't even [b]sort of[/b] follow international standards. Or even their own standards. In fact, since you are fond of the Karma references, I guess, even pre-Karma NPO wouldn't have done something like this. Also, funny, the child reference. I've been around a little bit longer than you, it seems.

[quote name='cookavich' timestamp='1339706888' post='2983924'] You keep on thinking whatever helps get you through the Coming Nuclear Armageddon, man. [/quote] There it is again! Keep 'em coming. Next time, throw in a "do something about it" just to round things off.