HeinousOne

I don't have much more to say then simply "What a show". You have most definately left your mark on this world for all time Grub. I am not going to bother with the still to come debates on whether it was for good or bad. I don't really care which it is.

[quote name='MaGneT' date='05 February 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1265350847' post='2160907'] Quite close. First part is correct, but we activated our MA clause with PC, after that I believe you're perfect. Half the reason we did this is because of how hilarious it is, methinks. [/quote] I thought it was pretty funny. Never seen an announcement like that. I kept hearing a certain voice in my head each time I saw yet another announcement after the one I just read and that voice said "And then...." [quote name='MaGneT' date='05 February 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1265351640' post='2160965'] Please prove that we don't hold a treaty with them. Treaties do not need to be written on the OWF, nor do they need to be written at all to carry the same meaning. We do not conform to your standards. [/quote] Damn, you are winning me over here MaGneT.

[quote name='mhawk' date='03 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265235754' post='2157251'] What I'm getting at is if you guys were committed to defending in the event TOP and IRON did this, it sure would have helped to have mentioned it hours before the attack so someone could have stopped it. :/ [/quote] Aww you would have stopped the show for little ole us? I feel the love mhawk but I am having a hard time believing it. Still though, we all saw the quote of her saying just hit Athens and not Mushroom. Mushroom was attacked....I think she made it pretty clear myself.

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='03 February 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1265220276' post='2156813'] I don't recall Stickmen being used at all against STA. [/quote] No, in order to use it against us we probably would have had to have been told about it first off. [quote name='mhawk' date='03 February 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1265235081' post='2157225'] I guess my one question here is if you were intent on doing this, why didn't you state as such when you knew about the attack. Perhaps it would have been useful to the people that were preparing to defend you and your polar allies if you said, "if x is attacked, we will defend them." Instead of "we know about the plan, but we're just going to pretend we didn't." ? [/quote] We all saw what Pez shared. She said we didn't care if Athens is attacked (apology was given) but dont attack our ally MK. That is your problem you have a problem understanding something that simple. I know you don't need everything spelled out letter by letter for you Mhawk.

You know, I hope one of these days you guys and girls in GGA are able to show up and earn some respect in a war. It gets tiring watching everyone fall into the mob mentality more and more. It shows true in every GGA thread as folks think it is time to be cool and see if they can toss the most snide remark your way. Maybe I just like underdogs but they make it very hard for me personally to dislike you guys. Good luck GGA.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='03 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1265207117' post='2156463'] His opinion is his own. It is not indicative of the NSO. [/quote] Fair enough, I shouldn't have taken such liberty with my words. I do have a great respect for NSO's actions towards us.

[quote name='Methrage' date='03 February 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1265206452' post='2156439'] MK seemed to when they were complaining about NpO helping us on our front with GOD. Its a shame you guys would let MK elawyer you onto the other side while we're still fighting CSN, although I realize you guys are doing what you think right. [/quote] As I said, we don't believe in sides. No one E-lawyered anyone into anything. As far as I know a request was made per a treaty agreement that our leaders signed and our leaders make every effort possible to live up to their words of the past when they can. In this instance we can and we seem to be doing such. People will try to add on to that reality with their own little tidbits but personally, it isn't appreciated coming from those who not long ago came running to our aid without a treaty obligation. You make it seem like some of you might have expected us to have to owe you our servitude over our treaty obligations due to that very unselfish act of NSO. We are simply following a treaty obligation, it has nothing to do with right and wrong. That is my take on it anyway.

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='03 February 2010 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1265176852' post='2155606'] STA, you folks have such a good rep that you can end up changing sides in a war and have everyone give you props for it. [/quote] We don't believe in sides. [quote name='Alterego' date='03 February 2010 - 06:25 AM' timestamp='1265178353' post='2155762'] Congratulations STA. You weighed up everything and went with the massively superior side (56m V 118m) in this war to fight against the people who had your back only a a week or so ago for the side you were fighting against. This will never be forgotten and regularly brought up in the future. I cant see it as anything other that picking the larger side, which is sad because I never expected an alliance like STA to do something like that. [/quote] Yeah, this was awesome. Unfortunately I came along too late and this has already been properly torn up. [quote name='cookavich' date='03 February 2010 - 07:19 AM' timestamp='1265181581' post='2155976'] Stay safe, boys. We have your back no matter what... and I do mean no matter what. [/quote] And we have yours, no matter what. Edit: I almost forgot, I wanted to offer a hail to TOP for the respectful and understanding words that I have seen come from you guys here. It is good to see that such power is wielded by respectful and understanding folk.

[quote name='mpol777' date='03 February 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1265175178' post='2155161'] I believe this DoW does not fit under the common standards of the community of Planet Bob and this is why I like it. [/quote] Not making a statement about any of the stated alliances but I must agree. Keep on expressing your Sovereign Right to do as you see fit PC.

[quote name='fallin' date='03 February 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1265171632' post='2154581'] Declaring war on the Gramlins without a similar declaration on MHA would be akin to having a ham sandwich without eating the ham. Its missing the entire point of the exercise. [/quote] It is OG. You are the largest alliance in the world. You do realize how this taunting makes you look? You may think of yourselves and Gramlins as a single unit but you still maintain two alliances so in all actuality you are not. OG declaring war on Gre is still living up to their treaty considering what they are bringing to the table. Why doesn't MHA just go ahead and declare on them if you and Gre are so close? You are the one that has to represent that relationship, not OG.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='03 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1265165674' post='2154385'] In addition to supporting you, TOP declared war on C&G for reasons entirely unrelated to Polar or \m/ - namely their desire to "eliminate a threat". C&G is more of a threat to TOP now than ever before (since TOP has shown their cards), and obviously TOP with this mentality is a huge threat to C&G. Both sides therefore have an extremely good reason to continue the war - self preservation. [/quote] Yeah, I got to admit that your reasoning is sound and logical. Does such make it a different war then? I know we are used to single wars with periods of peace in between but that does not mean it has to always be that way. Are these now two back to back Wars due to reasoning for the current war being exactly as you state? The fight isn't even over the Polar and \m/ conflict anymore. It is about a much bigger face off. The current conflict is of much greater magnitude and importance to the world as a whole.

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='03 February 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1265159000' post='2154223'] I've got to echo this. It sucks having allies on both sides and all, but this is definitely the most exciting CN's been in a long, long time. [/quote] I think that which "sucks" has actually given this period some of it's excitement. We are seeing a Treaty Web possibly thicker then ever and we are seeing exactly what that leads to and what it will continue to lead to in the future. Most of the wars of the past were all overplanned conflicts that went right as planned. This Period of War is different and continues to throw people for a loop. Whether they respond to it negatively or positively it has brought about a very large response and to think, we have only just begun.

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='03 February 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1265159532' post='2154234'] uhh.. I never said what you quoted me as saying. [/quote] I already claimed that which he quoted. I am not sure why he quoted it to you rather then to me. [quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='03 February 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1265159804' post='2154241'] I wonder if Polar would ever allow GOD to dictate its own foreign policy. The allies of my ally are NOT my ally, they are his. This whole nonsense is exactly that. Hoo is completely within his rights to cancel the treaty, it makes me sad, but I am not allowing you, \m/ or any other member of SF to dictate what I can and can not do. I no longer have a treaty with your bloc, so be it. If I no longer have links to all the other !@#$%* blocs that consider their treaties with each other superior to all others, then that is fine too. No bloc will ever dictate the way we do things, unless it is our own and we are not interested in forming another one. Your pack mentality politics is what allowed previous situations to exist and what will allow them to continue. [/quote] Now these are words I can get behind. I am not big on Crusades but if anything is worth it in my opinion then protecting the Sovereign Rights of alliances from the growing mob mentality is one of those important enough issues.

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='03 February 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1265159288' post='2154228'] All treaties that contain compulsive clauses hand over the Sovereign Rights (lol, we're capitalizing it now?) of the signatories. [/quote] For clarity, that was my quote not AJ's and yes I am capitalizing it. It is important to me. Thank you for pointing out what you just pointed out. Guess we can put it on the list.

[quote name='Tautology' date='03 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1265156360' post='2154167'] You are wrong. Alfred von Tirpitz resigned from Ragnarok government on January 16th. Emperor Grub made his declaration on \m/ on January 21st. I'm glad Alfred's back in RoK. [/quote] I do not mind being wrong about such.

[quote name='Caustic' date='02 February 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1265154925' post='2154137'] For the record my friend, he didn't leave to "fight polar" He joined \m/ to fight alongside those of us who have given more than a little to defend RoK whenever they called us. [/quote] [quote name='Earogema' date='02 February 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1265154959' post='2154139'] As I understood, it wasn't to fight against Polar, but to defend his friends. You'd have to ask Alfred though. [/quote] I know Alfred is a stand up guy as I have had conversation with him before. I find the explanation given believable. I was just curious about the timing.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='02 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1265154228' post='2154106'] Umm, what was it again that Grub wanted from \m/ that brought this war upon us? [/quote] I think that has already been stated. What does that have to do with the treaty web being further corrupted with the suggested idea that I commented upon? [quote name='Earogema' date='02 February 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1265154409' post='2154111'] Alfred came to \m/ to fight. He left before this was canceled. \m/ is done fighting. Polar attacked an SF member- a treaty partner of Rok's before Polar ever was. Alfred just before his departure was second in command of Rok. Come on. [/quote] It was a simple statement without any assumption being made. Alfred went to \m/ to fight Polar and in that comment I spoke of he said all kind of nice words that really do not speak to the fact that he as a Gov member left to fight Polar and now that RoK is free of Polar has returned. I simply question why the nice words.

Yes, we all saw this coming although the fact that you decided to serve it before the war wraps up does make me wonder. [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='02 February 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1265138544' post='2153640'] We sure did give it one hell of a try. Ragnarok and Polaris, started off on a very, very, very bad ground with each other, when Ragnarok was formed. From that inauspicious beginning to being friends to being allied to them by way of an MDoAP, was something that spoke volumes for the good that is Polaris that very few were willing to believe in, but which Ragnarok saw and knew first hand due to the many government and member level friendships between the two. Ties that last even today. As i said earlier, this is a sad day. Don't be a stranger Polaris. [/quote] I see now that as soon as this goes through you are back in RoK. [quote name='KaitlinK' date='02 February 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1265143662' post='2153792'] While Polar's (Grub's) recent actions have made this necessary, I echo SpiderJ and Jericoholic's sentiments. I have to say Polar has some pretty damn fine members. I wish you well in the future. [/quote] Quite a different tone today. [quote name='Penkala' date='02 February 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1265148298' post='2153917'] If you ever re-sign this do me a favor and put a clause into it about attacking each others' treaty partners, Hoo. In fact, I'd recommend everyone do that with Polaris to be honest. >_> [/quote] Oh just what we need, treaties that hand over more Sovereign Rights of an alliance to other alliances. Are you and the others that might agree with you really that big of control freaks or just misguided?

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1265130710' post='2153367'] Common sense would tell me that NpO would not be OK with their allies being attacked unprovoked, so I guess common sense is out the window when dealing with the actions of your alliance. [/quote] Common sense would tell me that if an alliance has a plethora of its members come out openly and publically to denounce you then that in itself would go against the wording of the treaty that you seem to hold as an end all contract. So once a term of the contract has been broken, it becomes a much less rigid document and to try and use it in any lawyering defense at this time is a hypocritical and faulted approach. Then again, I do notice that you are an honorary member of GOD and you back winning by any means necessary so perhaps I should not pay quite so much attention to your words in this matter.

[quote name='Tick1' date='02 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265130234' post='2153351'] NPO's plot to turn everyone against each other is working! My hats of to you guys indeed. Karma was all apart of your plan wasn't it. Seeing as the arguments within this thread can neither come to an end or be won I'll end my statement with best of luck to the New Pacific Order. Your very smart indeed! [/quote] Was only a matter of time till this would come up. It is true that NPO has been very closemouthed about all this but I really can't blame them. After being the center of the universe for so long and always being the bad guy, certainly they are finding some enjoyment in sitting back and watching the festivities. The thing is though NPO has not had to orchestrate anything. There are plenty of others who wish their time in the light to be the conductors of this worldly symphony.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1265129293' post='2153329'] Should they need to? Does an MDP not obligate Polaris to defend? Could you point me to the wording in the treaty between NpO and MK or NpO and GR where it states that the defense clause is only activated if the defending party explicitly requests assistance? [/quote] You are correct in such but where you fail to make a complete statement is that this world is not one in which leaders do not talk over situations and realize at certain times there are circumstances which do not allow for certain things to happen as to how the treaties are worded. In those situations there might be talks between leaders that you and I are not privy to. So while you and I might read the treaty and some folks like yourself might expect it to be followed to the word, it is not a treaty in which you are party to so thus the final decision is neither yours nor mine. Polaris was still involved in a war that did cause a bit of damage and MK seems to have PLENTY of friends to come to their aid so why would they have to call upon friends that are still having to deal with their own issues? You can go ahead and lawyer up in order to condemn Polar once again but due to the way MK has so publically lambasted Polar you certainly cannot expect Polar to want to Pony up all on their own to rush to the aid of an alliance that showed no friendship through the past days.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1265128588' post='2153309'] But they will leave the allies that were attacked unprovoked behind. Gotcha. [/quote] Has MK requested such help? Do they not already have a much larger coalition against TOP and friends?

[quote name='Lusitan' date='02 February 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1265126785' post='2153242'] One http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Foreign_Article_5 Two http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Harmlins [/quote] Well done, you have shown that such exists in the world but what you havn't done is shown how it is relevant to the situation at hand. Here we have two examples of such so that anyone could pick it up and follow it with their own alliance relationships but that is not the case here. In fact it goes even farther, some of the affected alliances in this have relationships like those you list above with other alliances and thus show that they list their allies in a pseudo-hierarchy of importance just like how those in the two above agreements would also have to do due to the fact that none of their other relations state such a closeness. So just like how the above parties in the two agreements cannot expect their other allies to treat them in the same way as the other signatory to such a pact of brotherhood then neither can a bloc put the expectations on an alliance lower in their pyramid treaty structure that they would put on an alliance near the top of their pyramid treaty structure. It will only lead to continued disappointment to put equal expectations on alliances that you do not give equal respect and value as per the wording of the individual treaties. Now I realize you were just trying to one up me with that knowledge and you did indeed do such. This was just an expansion on that as to show that the existance of such shows that such does not exist between the alliances relevant to this situation.

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='02 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1265124444' post='2153192'] We are not here to form a new hegemony nor do we try to control the actions other alliances take. We offer advise but thats as far as it goes. MK/GR advised Polar not to attack \m/. Polar chose not to take it. Understandable since the decision to go to war against \m/ was Polar's and Polar's alone. Yes, we have a lot of treaties. We just have a lot of friends is all. It is expected that some of them would be at odds with one another at some point in time and this would be the point where we would advocate diplomacy over war. We just expect that our allies back us up when we attacked for no reason as we would do the same thing for them, instantly. I'm 150% certain that if Polaris was in CnG's shoes, that MK and GR would of backed them up, no matter what, and the rest of CnG would of been there with them. [/quote] You make some good points and I respect that but at the same time we have seen alot of condemnation of Polar simply for attacking the ally of an ally. I understand someone wanting to condemn them for possibly being too aggressive with these two wars but when the condemnation is focused solely on the fact that they attacked the ally of an ally then that truly is an attempt to control the behavior of an alliance. I have yet to see a treaty worded that calls for an alliance to respect and not attack any allies of the other signatory of the treaty unless it is a bloc treaty possibly.

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='02 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1265121518' post='2153142'] This is all very amusing. I believe this to be the best war ever. Despite the !@#$%* situations you keep putting your allies in. For months now, I have seen nothing but praises and good words about Polaris from my allies in MK and GR. One could not help but believe them and feel happy for them that they found a good friend and a great ally. Your relationship has recently gone through some extraordinary trials.From Polaris threatening war against not one, but two CnG members to the current situation which has split our side of the web in two and caused massive treaty conflicts within CnG. I for one hope your relationship can withstand the current test it is going through and be properly restored to what it once was. Good Luck. [/quote] Well, to be honest it would be pretty hard for someone to not step on the toes of one of the many allies of CnG at some point. Any idea how many alliances total are allied to atleast one CnG signatory? If you guys are going to align yourselves with nearly the entire world then you have to expect at times that some of your allies at times are not going to get along with each other. That is the responsibility you bear for the choices you guys make in holding all these treaties. You guys cant get angry at anyone and everyone because they are not falling in line with your way of thinking. It is really beginning to feel like some folks who were extremely anti-Hegemony have no problem forming up their own version of it. You cannot control everyone's actions by getting them to sign a treaty with a CnG signatory. [quote name='Roadie' date='02 February 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1265121931' post='2153152'] And what of the STA? Seeing as they were the ones who leaked the plans to CnG - a move which directly leads to the debacle Polar finds itself in today - will STA come to Polars defense? [/quote] I am not Gov therefore I am not privy to such. I prefer it that way so that I can come here and make the statements I do such as the one you quoted. If anywhere in that piece I led you to believe I would make a statement about what STA was going to do then I apologize but I am pretty sure I made no such allusion. All I said in regards to STA is that Polaris would do for us what they did for NSO thus how could I condemn their actions despite the fact that I personally do not like where I see all this heading. So I am sorry but if you think you are going to receive such privilaged information about future STA actions in this format then you are sadly mistaken. Quite honestly I am amused that you would have even asked such because this type of answer is about the best you could have expected.