KingSuck
-
Posts
674 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by KingSuck
-
-
What was said was that when you make a DoW but not launching any wars (or very very few) you usually have another reason for making the DoW. We were honest about ours, TPF wasn't about theirs.
Out of interest what was your reason for DoWing BAPS?
-
sad to see two allies fight
I really am amazed at how many DoWs purple is drawing though, I've never been prouder of our sphere.
o/ Purple!
-
<snip>
A great post. One of the universal truths in CN as far as I'm concerned is that everybody gets rolled eventually.
Just fashionable late to the party...as usual.As for people having complaints and disappointments, I suppose those are justified, mostly.
We have wronged, and we have been wronged. If anyone tried to stop this mess, it was us, if anyone is mad at how this came about, it is us. Our entrance is not fair, not just, not glorious, not honourable, it is the grim work we must do as our efforts to prevent this failed and that which we thought stable collapsed.
There is no reason to gloss over the truth, or rationalize that which is madness.
I sympathize with many of those that complains in this thread, I despise many of those that hails us in this thread.
The Platypus will drink the blood of those we fight, it will rip the flesh from their bones, but it does so out of hunger, of necessity, there is no pleasure from hunting in dark waters. It yearns to feast upon the souls of our true enemies, and it's hunger is great.
Another great post; whilst I'm not going to pretend to be happy about this DoW, I guess time will show your true colours.
-
The entire Coward Coalition is "damned if they do, damned if they don't" really. You lost all credibility the second you even considered leaving NPO to die alone and no amount of PR stunts are going to erase that from people's memories.
TPF making claims about sticking with their allies no matter what and "never leaving a man behind" really are comedic gold. Their own leader left because they didn't want to honour a treaty, what argument can you possibly put up in TPF's defense after that.
I can't speak for the rest of the 'Coward Coalition' but we were always going to be fighting in the war; the treaty cancellation was merely a result of the NPO's actions in the beginning of it. It was poor timing to announce the cancellation and our cancellation obviously got interpreted wrongly be a lot of people (including a few of our allies). However there is absolutely no basis behind the claim that Valhalla were ever going to leave NPO to die and being our MoW I think I'd know that.
-
Protip 1: Never sign a treaty with ODN.
Protip 2: If you didn't follow protip 1 don't expect ODN to honor the treaty if you are in the weaker side.
Protip 3: Don't worry about that because ODN military skills just fail and you will be better without them.
couldn't have said it better myself
-
You will get yours ODN, traitors and cowards always meet their fate on Bob and it will be some of the people hailing you as heroes now, that previously mocked you who will put you down. I bet people will respect your treaties the way you have respected yours after the sides became apparent.
basically this. people are only hailing you because you're making their war easier, I'm sure all of this will become apparent in the coming year though
-
Your nation has been attacked with nuclear weapons by Xavii. You lost 38138 soldiers, 3692 defending tanks, 0 cruise missiles, 434.967 miles of land, 144.989 technology, 434.967 infrastructure, 75% of your aircraft, and 25% of your nuclear vulnerable navy force. In addition to these losses your nation will experience many days of economic devastation.
Welcome again. B)
that report looks oddly familiar
welcome to the fray OMFG!
-
<snip>
Those are the parts of the treaty relevant to your inquiry as far as I can tell. Read them closely, now make a logical conclusion.
Each of those have been covered in depth over the last few pages. Here you are: Logical Conclusion.
Anyways this is between NPO & TOP, not me, so I'm going to leave it there. If you want to continue this conversation feel free to PM me
-
What explanation is needed to achieve your satisfaction? I feel our stance has been explained multiple times, and if you still have questions, you should study the responses given.
I'm just looking for the actual reason. With all due respect, multiple explanations have been put forward, many of them differing. I think the current scenario is best explained by the post right above yours though
-
I think clarification has been provided ample times.
Not really, a few reasons have been put forward by various members but only one holds weight (Titus's) and that's where we're at atm.
To summarise:
-TOP has not honoured their treaty because NPO have not asked them to
-If NPO does ask TOP for aid, TOP are bound to help NPO or the treaty is automatically terminated
-No one knows whether or not NPO have requested aid so we're kinda stuck for now
-
Can you state your goals of this lawyering King Suck, if you would state them from the beginning we may be able to accommodate you more easily.
I like both NPO and TOP and I was thus wondering for clarification as to why TOP is not honouring their treaty with the NPO
-
The cancellation clause only triggers if assistance is requested and it has been stated that it was not. due to the way NPO conducted its foreign affairs in this affair TOP had no obligation to defend Pacifica. Therefore the treaty was neither broken nor canceled.
I can e-Lawyer with the best of them.
I never disputed this. I'm saying that if the NPO has/did request help then TOP would be bound by the treaty to provide help or it would be terminated.
Also I must have missed it, where was it stated no assistance was requested? :S
-
Hm, well, it's covered by various articles. This is only one of them.
Already covered that
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1477052
We're doing what we think is right and that's good enough for me.Unlike other alliances, TOP doesn't break a treaty when war breaks out because we don't want to defend them. When we sign a treaty we intend to live up to it as long as its in effect, including the grace period.so do you guys do what you think is right or do you honour your treaties? :S
Please refer to my post. Thank you.I saw your post however as I'm not NPO/TOP gov I can't really respond to it. Do you honestly need NPO to ask you to honour your treaty though?
-
I think what he is saying is since it was aggressive the MD part was irrelevant and then pointing to the oA part
The aggressive action by NPO may have started the war, however your treaty clearly says:
Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources.I think it's pretty clear that the NPO has been attacked by quite a few powers (e.g. link) and therefore your treaty should come into play.
-
Since this constitues as a warranted act of aggression we are not required to grant the request. Our MDPs do not chain. Should you attack someone for your MDP partner we are not garetneed to enter to your defense.
I'm not really here to E-lawyer treaties, but that's the 'oA' part of the clause, I'm talking about the 'MD' part.
-
So the TOP-NPO MDP is canceled?
edit: KingSuck beat me to it
glad I'm not the only one who spotted it
-
If one party to this pact calls upon the other party to provide assistance in a time of war, and the second party believes that reciprocal defense is not appropriate for the reasons stated in this article, the second party shall notify the first that no assistance shall be forthcoming. This notification will also automatically terminate the pact.
So in that case, the treaty has been terminated?
-
Unlike other alliances, TOP doesn't break a treaty when war breaks out because we don't want to defend them. When we sign a treaty we intend to live up to it as long as its in effect, including the grace period.
In that case, with all due respect, would you mind me asking why TOP has not honoured this part of it's MDoAP with Pacifica:
Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources.I think it's pretty clear that the NPO has been attacked by quite a few powers (e.g. link) and there is no non-chaining clause in the treaty, shouldn't you guys be defending them? (serious question)
-
out of interest have you guys cancelled your treaty with NPO yet?
-
yes, would make nukes a lot more devastating
-
Picking and choosing who to defend in OUT, forgetting about MDoAP's. Yeah you guys are a class act alright.
Purple is pretty popular these days
-
o/ Invicta
make purple proud
-
You know you love us.
well duh, this is the funnest war I've had for ages
-
I like where this is heading
OMFG a DoW
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
I must be missing something
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55655
couldn't you just be helpful and tell me?