King Louis the II

Dontbhave any idea what this is. but who, cares, I would be supporting you Fark!

[quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1322844775' post='2859431'] Rok didn't ask you once to defend us, In fact we told you not too. I personally told Hyperion and Unholy that Rok was going in on the side of polar. Yet when we declared your gov came running and screaming that we didn't tell you and we were idiots. I said I told Hyperion and unholy and Hyperion lied right to my face and said I never told him, and then he said he would try to get our treaty cancelled. We weren't going to call the treaty, but I guess even the thought of losing your infra curdles your stomach and enrages your government. [/quote] I don't know what you are talking about and Hyperion deleted, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What I know is Ragnarok was respected and liked by Sparta during and after the war. I personally talked to Bob when you were thinking about revising your treaties and actually asked if you guys needed help in rebuilding. If you really think "the thought of losing your infra curdles your stomach and enrages your government" as the reason for us not staying on your side, well them your nick suits you well.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1322837519' post='2859372'] You'll call them using a non-chaining treaty to not chain? Or will you continue to not know how treaties work? I've explained it a few times. [/quote] I guess you were too lazy to read the post. Read it again, He is referring to Sparta not defending Ragnarok in BP. If he is saying that the same would apply to Rok-fark in the current war.

[quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1322803441' post='2859014'] For everyone calling RIA cowards, you're clearly retarded. There are many reasons for people to single out and hate SF, but that's just because you most likely jumped on the bandwagon. RIA is an alliance, about 8 months ago who attacked both sides of a war to help us out in Rok when we came in for Polar. I can never call them a coward because they sacrificed so we could make our stand. Every other one of our 22 treaties said no. In fact, Sparta lied to all of our gov when confronted about it. Well that was Hyperion, and he was a coward. I hold no love for most of SF, i'll admit that, but if people want them so bad go and hit them. But don't call them cowards because you're too afraid to start your own war. RIA is some of the best allies you can have and I'll never forget what they did for Rok, but if you can sit here and think that not entering this war is RIA's decision alone, you're crazy. [/quote] You got to be f^*% kidding We had a non chaining MDoAP, you chose to defend Polar, which AT THAT TIME was one of the most hated alliances in our lands. ALMOST ALL of our allies were at the other side of the war and you say we were cowards? good to know, I know now what I will call you (not your alliance since I, and I can say most Spartans, genuinely like) if Fark joins the current war and you dont defend them.

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322779094' post='2858532'] Second, let me clear this up right away: with regards to you guys, I actually am of the opinion that the CB which TOP+IRON have used is a fair one. I'm just not seeing why I should support either 'side' here. (Those 'sides' defined as Polar and TOP+IRON.) It isn't our war, and we've been very vocal about that, leading to us not giving any of the sides guarantees. Additionally, we made clear to those close to us that we would have liked to see no conflict at all, or perhaps at maximum a limited one (like there is now). (...) What I'm having more trouble with, personally speaking, is how some people who profited most from Grub's action, have turned their backs on others out of sheer opportunism. (...) That kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, let alone be rewarded. [/quote] [b]QFT[/b] kudos for you Sir.

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1322778364' post='2858517'] Us old farts struggle sometimes to keep up so pardon me if I ask, is this TOP's war or MK's war? [/quote] Very good question. It looks like it is TOP's war but people want to use it to make their own war possible.

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322766863' post='2858364'] I'm sure many people are. Me? Prior to the signing of this treaty, it seemed fairly likely that the war would stay localized; that part of it isn't really the problem, much though I'd enjoy a war. It's the maddening fact that I have no earthly clue as to why these two parties have done this; I've been waiting for an "aha!" moment, when the grand strategy is revealed and everything made sense, but that apparently isn't coming. [/quote] I couldn't agree more.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322766364' post='2858358'] This is a bad thing? [/quote] No "it" is not. I agree with you 100% I even think that baiting RIA in to a war is valid. However, to keep insisting in making a moral case about it is ridiculous

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322765730' post='2858343'] According to both STA and TPF, they have had an understanding from day one that TPF would not be expected to burn for Polar. Here, RIA and NpO signed a treaty seemingly in response to a threat against the latter, both parties had a grand couple of days waxing about the lack of testicular fortitude shown by a third party (that was never declaring on that date anyway) while making statements about their commitment to facing threats together...and less than a week later, proceeded to e-lawyer the hell out of the document. You don't see a difference there? Even if Polar has asked RIA to stay out of it, this whole situation makes absolutely no sense. Why rush through the treaty in response to a potential event, burning a bridge elsewhere in the process, if they weren't going to use it when that event unfolded? Why match the treaty with a ~*CaLlOuT*~ if that was even a possibility? Why call in other allies, but not RIA? The only [i]logical[/i] explanation is that RIA and NpO fully intended for the treaty to be invoked, but another party or parties have put on the brakes, at least temporarily. However, you guys are starting to convince me that it is indeed simply one of the most illogical series of decisions I've seen made in this world. Which is unfortunate, because I don't really hold RIA in poor esteem. [/quote] I cant answer the real reasons behind this. and I sincerely dont care. In fact, I think TOP and Polar should have fought to solve their differences even earlier. The truth is that people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda. I think frankly speaking, nobody is naive enough to think that the calling for RIA to join the war is really based on moral outrage. Are you? added: I am not referring to TOP or PF when I say "people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda"

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1322765162' post='2858327'] It would only make you vomit if you are unaware of how treaties work. RIA-NpO treaty being non-chaining is completely immaterial to the discussion. Chaining only comes into play if it were a different ally of RIA or NpO that were attacked. When RIA or NpO are attacked directly, chaining does not matter in the slightest to those 2 parties. Had STA been attacked like NpO was, I would bet tech that TPF would have been involved quickly. Therein lies the difference. [/quote] This difference is irrelevant if you really value your ally. Both are being stomped. If you are talking about morals, and bravery and cowardice than the fine prints don't matter. ADDED: If YOU in Argent, wants to criticize RIA, I might not agree but I would respect your point of view. However, TPF calling RIA cowards because of this is just not coherent.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322714023' post='2857628'] Why is it that your debating tactics so closely resemble a game of three card monte? "I don't like your criticism of X, so I'm going to criticize you of the same thing, which de facto recognizing that it is bad, while failing to tell you why your original criticism was wrong." Not to mention that the situations aren't at all comparable. [/quote] Not comparable? Can you be more hypocritical? TPF- "our treat is non-chaining" RIA- "Our treaty say that they need to request (and is non-chaining as well)" I am not saying that both are right or wrong, but you cant have double standards.

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1322717789' post='2857697'] Oh, why is it always the !@#$%* alliances that don't know how to follow a treaty? [/quote] Not the point. I am not discussing whether alliance A or B are good or not, even if they follow their treaties or not. My point is if you think RIA must support Polar the same is valid for TPF-STA. If you say that "TPF dont need to support STA because is not chaining" you can not say that is wrong for RIA to say their treaty was only valid "if requested" (and by the way I still think the RIA-Polar treaty is non chaining but this is a matter of discussion). to read someone in TPF posting a long text on how immoral and coward RIA is for not jumping in the war, and at the same time "oh but our treaty is non chaining" makes me vomit.

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1322709805' post='2857537'] For the 46159235'th time in this thread, the STA-TPF treaty is non chaining. [/quote] And what part of "as requested" you dont understand? And who said that RIA and Polar treaty is chaining?

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322708366' post='2857513'] Excuses are an awful lot like ass holes. TOP has enough of a distribution in NS that RIA could do something. Might not be alot, but something nonetheless. The point of entering a war is to do what you can and to take as much heat as you can off your allies. You enter because thats what you signed your name to. If thats all this is about, perhaps RIA should look at taking a page out of the book of TFD and NATO and how they acted during the PB-NpO war. (....) If you've got a NAP with somebody who attacks your direct MDoAP partner, I'd think perhaps you ought to look at why you've got a NAP with them. I can't think of many NAPs that read along the lines of saying that you can't cancel it, wait the waiting period and then attack them for something they did prior to the NAP being canceled. Most NAPS aren't written to that effect, so I imagine that would be an option on the table for RIA if they really wanted an option to live up to their agreements. I'm not saying that RIA should do that, I understand it's a stretch, however if they are serious about backing up the people who they have made a serious pledge to (as a MDoAP is), it is an option on the table. Then again, it is rather convenient for RIA to hide behind the NAP, and who knows, perhaps RIA doesn't take treaties seriously enough to only sign MDoAPs with alliances for whom they are willing to go the extra mile. [/quote] But for TPF to not backup STA is fine? when your treaty was canceled?

[quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1322701584' post='2857407'] TOP and IRON have already clearly stated that their quarrel lay with Polaris' actions from many years ago. And as such, this should remain a conflict between them. Prior to AZTEC's intervention in this war, many of you should be pleased to know that this was statistically a relatively fair fight, or at least fairer than now. But of course, as certain Polar allies failed to take the bait and as Polar held against the relentless attacks, more peons were sent in to tip the scales and almost guilt RIA into war. Then there are threads such as this. But I ask why, when we have/had a chance to actually witness a statistically even fight, between parties who respectfully needed to settle their differences, must we ruin it by turning it into a potential curbstomp? Those of you who may have your quarrels with SuperFriends should take your quarrel somewhere else and let these warriors fight on their own stage. Do not disgrace yourselves and the rest of us due to your lack of a plausible or righteous casus belli. For there is no honor in having others do the work for you. [size="1"]Disclaimer: The opinion in the post above does not reflect that of NPO, so please don't try to be all cute and point out the alliance affiliation. It gets old[/size] [/quote] best post of the year. Hands down. And no, I am not being sarcastic.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1322636755' post='2856720'] RIA's MDoAP partner was attacked aggressively, no justification or fancy language to make it a defensive attack or whatever, it was flat out IRON and TOP bumrushing Polar and beating them on the head. This is super cut and dry and denying RIA's obligation to defend Polar is like claiming smoking a pack a day.... [/quote] You are right my good friend. However, I imagine that you agree that sometimes not declaring (specially when is exactly what your enemy wants you to do) is much more damaging. There is a good moment for everything. Added: this is particularly true when your help would not actually make any difference. If you really want to retribute, you can do when the time is right. Added 2: This reflects my opinion and not necessarily from my alliance.

Alexandros and Hime have more tech together than an entire alliance.

I like Iron very much, but due to the circustances I have to say good luck to STA. Shall the gods of war be with you on the battlefield

Very happy to see this. OBR is the classiest alliance in BOB. Very proud to be your friend!

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1322323316' post='2852534'] [img]http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa347/eaglesfan101/Polar-TOP.png[/img] Simple and sort of unbiased. [/quote] me likes it...

My best wishes to both of you. An understandable move.

One of the classiest alliances one can ask and certainly one of the nicest communities. long life to our loved orange brothers!

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1321137593' post='2843893'] This is what all that 11.11.11 stuff was about? Fail. [/quote] Nah, that was planned way before, 20 and something years ago to be more precise! You are also invited to the party. God save the King!

CongRRats to ouRR gRReat allies ! Love, SpaRRta

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1320973451' post='2842938'] DH isn't a bloc. [/quote] Are you sure ? Shouldnt we discuss this further? If people start arguing about this again I think I will vomit on my keayboard!