Jump to content

Anarquista

Members
  • Posts

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Anarquista

  1. It's a sign of good will and it limits the damage that is going to occur if we're about to peace out anyways. Everyone I spoke to said they were on board. The ceasefire was originally proposed by Comrade Trotsky of CP-CN on his boards under a litany of preterms in order to facilitate peace and Defender seemed to be on board.

    this is a big old mess, and declaring a ceasefire is obviously going to fail
    it's best to talk directly with Defender on the forums,
    I'm not sure he can be on chat,
    but we should have some one in his place for today
  2. Sabcat told me he would post on your forums about it.

    and he did, and the consensus was that a ceasefire is kind of silly, especially considering one side all of a sudden declared it without consulting the other side
    your intentions may be good, but you can see how the other side can see it as a buying time tactic,
    I don't think a ceasefire is necessary for ongoing negotiations
  3. Most nations do. I was in the tiny minority that did not until recently - admin and Walford combined to change my mind. But that's another subject.
     
    The thing is you have every right to take it as an act of war, and retaliate against the raider, but when you start attacking other nations that are not involved (without first giving his alliance any chance to disavow the attack) YOU are no better. The nations on the MInc AA that were hit out of the blue are just as much victims here as the SWF nations that were initially abused are.
     
    IF you had first reached out and failed to get a satisfactory response, THEN started attacking? Ok, harsh but necessary.
     
    IF you had simply limited initial responses to hitting the nations *actually involved* and held off on attacking the rest of the AA until the situation could be clarified, that too would have been defensible.
     
    But why go wreck uninvolved nations without first making any attempt at diplomacy? That's a pretty bloodthirsty response. Trying to prove a point?

    if "uninvolved Monsters, Inc." are victims, it is still a consequence of fellow Monsters, Inc. members' actions
  4. Article one, section one, besides the Doom War showed that they do have autonomy to make their own decisions which makes Article one, section 2 somewhat shaky, especially as Article four section one in that was broken by UCR during and post-war by leaving.
     

     
    Article three section one (as Ayatollah points out) state the following:
     
    1. As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories.
     
    No challenge here from me, and as a result, section two of this article plays out:
     
    2. Any signatory to this treaty has the obligation to inform all other signatories of their intentions to attack another group to the other signatories at least 48 hours before any attack occurs.
     
    Socialist Workers Front was hit 24 hours ago, and I sense that the Libertarian Socialist Federation will be getting involved as a result. True, it says "at least" so they will start in 24 hours at the earliest and whoever knows how long at the latest.
     


    an attack not a defense...
  5. BMTH is new to Monsters inc and isn't even their leader. His job is to convey the leaderships thoughts. Monsters inc as an entity is new and are (trying) to do things differently. That is what they are figuring out/I believe they should be given the opportunity to figure out.
    In light of recent diplomatic efforts, however, I'm going to bow out from this topic.
    I sincerely hope something as this doesn't escalate.

    before you leave you need to admit you were wrong and spreading lies
    or perhaps you simply didn't know the truth
  6. This. the offer BMTH proposed was the best we would have done. Rejecting that with out a counter offer told us they were buying time

    no, not this.
    SWF has always had a counter offer. even your own buddy BMTH has made it clear, if you will check post #40 of this topic
    seems yous guys don't got your facts straight.
    And it is your alliance that has had the benefit of forethought in this event, while SWF has had to react to all the mishaps and misunderstandings, I don't know why yalls not trying harder to fix this sitch
×
×
  • Create New...