Sarmatian Empire Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1324510185' post='2883565'] Glad to see a high quality post from you! Sarm makes a good point, you reply with a attack on his character. I forgot what that's called, can you remind me? [/quote] Hey now, be happy he got his hand free long enough to get a good solid post in there. [img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/003/619/Untitled-1.jpg?1288903617[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1324503211' post='2883483'] You declared war on Neb X...you stepped aside [/quote] It's been a long day so would it be too much to ask what exactly do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1324526972' post='2883815'] It's been a long day so would it be too much to ask what exactly do you mean? [/quote] You claimed to defend GOD. You said you didn't allow your ally to be ripped apart, when that's precisely what you did. Regardless of any argument that they didn't ask for your help, you allowed them to be ripped apart. He replied that declaring war on Neb-X did absolutely nothing to stop that, which is the truth. You stepped aside and let it happen. Now, I don't personally judge you for that beyond my personal beliefs about MADP's, but you cannot say you didn't allow your ally to be ripped apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 To be honest, VE has had a long and complicated foreign policy history. They've always got a link to any major side of the action, and that allows them to call a lot of shots. They can't call all of the shots, but they can call a lot of them. And, although that puts VE in a number of awkward contortions politically, it means VE survives and remains a major political player year in, year out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Those giving VE a hard time about not defending GOD truly don't understand the close and historical nature of the VE-NG-TLR-GATO treaty chain relationship and should be ashamed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Auctor' timestamp='1324569455' post='2884086'] Those giving VE a hard time about not defending GOD truly don't understand the close and historical nature of the VE-NG-TLR-GATO treaty chain relationship and should be ashamed. [/quote] The thing is if GOD itself is not giving VE a hard time about it, what does it matter? I think VE said the treaty was non-chaining on multiple occasions and they did do something about who would hit GOD. TPF's not countering you or any of your allies for the some reason. Edited December 22, 2011 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Lightyear Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Auctor' timestamp='1324569455' post='2884086'] Those giving VE a hard time about not defending GOD truly don't understand the close and historical nature of the VE-NG-TLR-GATO treaty chain relationship and should be ashamed. [/quote] Uh what? What are getting at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 The VE-NG-TLR-GATO treaty chain does seem kind of meh when TLR decided to trash VE anyway. GATO seems appreciative, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1324569991' post='2884091'] Uh what? What are getting at? [/quote] I think that was sarcasm, as there is no historical treaty chain relationship like there was with the GOD-VE MDAP relathionship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1324570685' post='2884094'] The VE-NG-TLR-GATO treaty chain does seem kind of meh when TLR decided to trash VE anyway. GATO seems appreciative, though. [/quote] Yeah, it was a nice favour, cheers VE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordiga Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Having read this thread in its entirety, I have deduced that the only just end to this conflict is to force CSN to keep Mesteut a member of their alliance in perpetuity. Perhaps that is too cruel. Good luck DT. You should hop by the Sandwich Confederation forums sometime! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1324569950' post='2884090'] The thing is if GOD itself is not giving VE a hard time about it, what does it matter? I think VE said the treaty was non-chaining on multiple occasions and they did do something about who would hit GOD. TPF's not countering you or any of your allies for the some reason. [/quote] I only care when the claim is made that they are defending said ally. Edited December 22, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1324585587' post='2884195'] I only care when the claim is made that they are defending said ally. [/quote] There are more ways to defend an ally than simply rushing unto the battlefield ignoring the rest of our treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1324585680' post='2884197'] There are more ways to defend an ally than simply rushing unto the battlefield ignoring the rest of our treaties. [/quote] No, there aren't. That is what defense is. The fact that you handpicked who would attack them is meaningless in the discussion of if you defended them or not. You didn't. I don't fault you for your decision but you can't go around saying you defended them when the clear truth to anyone watching is you didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1324585680' post='2884197'] There are more ways to defend an ally than simply rushing unto the battlefield ignoring the rest of our treaties. [/quote] Not when it's an MDAP, especially one with a supremacy clause. Edited December 23, 2011 by Joe Stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Every treaty is an OAODP these days... With that in mind, DT would like to announce that we're signing an OAODP with every alliance in the world, whether they like it or not and - hold on, my Triumvirate is on the phone... this won't be but a second... Um, OK, so cancel that involuntary OAODP with every alliance. I was overstepping my authority there, it would seem. Even so, I remember that VE couldn't be militarily involved on NV and AZTEC's behalf during the NoCB War, but did work on their behalf to mitigate postwar reparations. There *are* other ways to honor a treaty. Even if one doesn't accept that, VE plays by that rule and I can understand that. ANYWAYS... this thread is all about blowing up CSN. 'Sup, CSN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1324603281' post='2884377'] No, there aren't. That is what defense is. The fact that you handpicked who would attack them is meaningless in the discussion of if you defended them or not. You didn't. I don't fault you for your decision but you can't go around saying you defended them when the clear truth to anyone watching is you didn't. [/quote] Funny, I don't feel handpicked, and I doubt anyone in BN or Valhalla does either. SC and NEAT were handpicked... by BN. Dammit, zzzptm, cancelling your involuntary OAODP with us already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1324652067' post='2884850'] Dammit, zzzptm, cancelling your involuntary OAODP with us already? [/quote] Lines being drawn, baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1324603281' post='2884377'] No, there aren't. That is what defense is. The fact that you handpicked who would attack them is meaningless in the discussion of if you defended them or not. You didn't. I don't fault you for your decision but you can't go around saying you defended them when the clear truth to anyone watching is you didn't. [/quote] [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1324604070' post='2884389'] Not when it's an MDAP, especially one with a supremacy clause. [/quote] You guys really do need to actually read our treaty, it was discussed several times in our DoW threads. If you wish to discuss that then feel free to go post there, this topic isn't about VE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1324705779' post='2885434'] You guys really do need to actually read our treaty, it was discussed several times in our DoW threads. If you wish to discuss that then feel free to go post there, this topic isn't about VE. [/quote] You do realize I'm not arguing for you to come in? I'm arguing that you didn't defend them, which is the truth. Your treaty wording is not relevant there. Edited December 24, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1324707259' post='2885454'] You do realize I'm not arguing for you to come in? I'm arguing that you didn't defend them, which is the truth. Your treaty wording is not relevant there. [/quote] There are other ways to defend an ally. On that we'll just have to agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1324707318' post='2885455'] There are other ways to defend an ally. On that we'll just have to agree to disagree. [/quote] WC is partially correct Bob, VE has stopped a full on dogpile on GOD, but in the end it didnt matter much as all slots have been taken so any more alliances on GOD wouldnt have been a good use of resources anyhow. The only thing more alliances on GOD would have done is limit and spread out some of the damage they are giving out.....which we all KNOW VE doesnt want. So in the end VE and GOD are happy that they feel strategy wise they did the best they collectivelly could in this instance to protect GOD and also allow GOD to do more damage to those they and VE dislike. So tbh from how they went about it, m fully expecting VE and PB(whom have basicly dodged dmg in this conflict and are relatively whole) to try and set up MJ and collaterally DR(Though it will be interestng to see how they do it with the IRON>TOP>VE chains). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 25, 2011 Report Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1324759242' post='2885778'] WC is partially correct Bob, VE has stopped a full on dogpile on GOD, but in the end it didnt matter much as all slots have been taken so any more alliances on GOD wouldnt have been a good use of resources anyhow. The only thing more alliances on GOD would have done is limit and spread out some of the damage they are giving out.....which we all KNOW VE doesnt want.[/quote] I wouldn't call that defense. That's where my opinion differs from his. Edited December 25, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.