An annoucment from USN

[Londo Mollari]

Well boys time to spend your warchests on infra. If this is the competition I doubt we'll need them, we can live off the cash we raid.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322785160' post='2858653']
Congratz to both alliances
o/ USN
o/ RIA

BTW, a MDP doesn't means that if party A is attacked, party B must inmediatley declare on their agressors. It means that if party A is attacked [u]AND[/u] he requests party B to counter, party B must comply. Notice the fact that, since no one at NpO complaints about RIA, NpO is likely to NOT have asked RIA to enter the conflict, yet.

Of course, do not let facts stop your trolling. The OWF would be a very boring place if you do so.
[/quote]

Actually, it depends on the way the treaty was written.

I believe that was the conclusion of the 6m war when NSO asked their allies to stay out and SF cried foul saying "no, you can't do that!". Some treaties use the words "as requested", others say that they have to defend them and make no mention on if its requested or not. I haven't read this treaty or the RIA-NpO treaty enough to know how they are written, but thought I'd point out the obvious flaw in your logic before I forget about it.

Edited December 2, 2011 by memoryproblems

[Drai]

The tides have turned, !@#$.

[Varianz]

Hahahahahahahaha

Seriously? You don't even honor the treaties you have.

[porksaber]

An alliance I don't like treaties some alliance I've never heard of. Boring.

somebody should start a war or something.

[Ivan V]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322785160' post='2858653']
BTW, a MDP doesn't means that if party A is attacked, party B must inmediatley declare on their agressors. It means that if party A is attacked [u]AND[/u] he requests party B to counter, party B must comply. Notice the fact that, since no one at NpO complaints about RIA, NpO is likely to NOT have asked RIA to enter the conflict, yet.
[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you e-Lawyering at its finest.

[Buds The Man]

Are you !@#$@#$ kidding me. USN really, RIA why not just go sign a !@#$@#$ treaty with UPN. I could give two !@#$% about the current situation this treaty makes me sick. I know RIA is an honorable alliance and they must have a damn good reason but why stoop to this. Hell why not just let them back in to CA.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Buds The Man

[AugustHeimmsmeyer]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1322783020' post='2858613']
So you guys both know how to [b]sign[/b] treaties, to bad the knowledge of how to [b]honor[/b] treaties is lacking.
[/quote]

this man sums up my thought exactly

[rsoxbronco1]

At least you didn't do a fake DoW.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1322798458' post='2858902']
Are you !@#$@#$ kidding me. USN really why not just go sign a !@#$@#$ treaty with UPN. I could give two !@#$% about the current situation this treaty makes me sick. I know RIA is an honorable alliance and they must have a damn good reason but why stoop to this. Hell why not just let them back in to CA.
[/quote]

They already have a treaty with UPN. Two in fact!

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28624 (UPN - USN MDoAP)

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102361 (Sentinel - MDoAP Bloc with UPN, USN, Menotah, GDA)

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1322799820' post='2858940']
They already have a treaty with UPN. Two in fact!

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28624 (UPN - USN MDoAP)

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102361 (Sentinel - MDoAP Bloc with UPN, USN, Menotah, GDA)
[/quote]
was talking about RIA so i edited it. I knew about USN UPN

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1322801976' post='2858986']
was talking about RIA so i edited it. I knew about USN UPN
[/quote]

Really, it's about the only way their ally list could get any worse than it is now.

[Dcrews]

Why would anyone sign a treaty with RIA its like monopoly money

[Steve Buscemi]

Wow, awful timing and just a huge fail coming from Polar's side.

[Shockz]

USN, I commend you for signing this ODP. Its not like you expected RIA to honor any MDP+ you would have signed.

[603Redneck]

i like how in the title he states "not a DoW" like we didnt know that already........

[King Brandon]

This belongs in a museum.

[Emphix]

This treaty here is like an unfunny joke.

[Locke]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322785424' post='2858657']
Ladies and gentlemen, CSN. I'm saving this one.

Edit: IC
[/quote]
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867"]Why, precisely?[/url]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1322786628' post='2858675']
Wouldn't it just be easier to bump them up to Chestnut Accords?
[/quote]
I'm assuming you know their history and how silly that just made you sound. Were you serious, or am I missing something?

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1322818947' post='2859262']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867"]Why, precisely?[/url][/quote]

Oh, MK and double standards! really?


Now, if NpO had [b]complained at all[/b] about RIA, I'd understand the spamming against RIA. But NpO has shown to be perfectly comfortable with RIA. If MK doesn't like it, too bad. RIA signed with NpO, not with MK, and will enter the war when requested by NpO, not when requested by MK.

[Beauty]

Dis so sexeh.

o/ USN
o/ RIA

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1322818947' post='2859262']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867"]Why, precisely?[/url]
[/quote]

Because, let me point out exactly how it was explained by Krashnaia:

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322785160' post='2858653']
BTW, a MDP
[/quote]

This was to imply that all MDP's function this way, when I can assure you many of the MDP's I know of do not have any sort of silly request clause. We try to completely avoid the Polaris RDoAP.

Edit: Yes, I'm aware there treaty [i]does[/i] have the request clause. However, in a line two previous to the request clause, the treaty also says that if attacked it is to be considered a valid CB, and action [i]must[/i] be taken. This contradiction of terminology has yet to be sufficiently addressed by either government.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Leet Guy

[Proxian Empire]

Very nice treaty.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322825066' post='2859303']
Oh, MK and double standards! really?


Now, if NpO had [b]complained at all[/b] about RIA, I'd understand the spamming against RIA. But NpO has shown to be perfectly comfortable with RIA. If MK doesn't like it, too bad. RIA signed with NpO, not with MK, and will enter the war when requested by NpO, not when requested by MK.
[/quote]

What a cowardly bunch both must be, to hide their fear of failure behind clauses and catches. They may well enter the war when and if requested by NpO, but it will be without any dignity or self-respect at this rate, having made a mockery of the words "mutual defense".

Edited December 2, 2011 by Laslo Kenez

[USMC123]

Of course NpO isn't going to complain about RIA, at least not on here. It is bad form, cannot be good for FA, and will pretty much eliminate any remaining chance of RIA entering the war on NpO's behalf. Don't be silly.