Laslo Kenez Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 This thread has taken several confusing turns, including petering out after a few pages. You beat the system guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 TPF seems to be doing well for themselves in foreign affairs these days. I'm still not sure how I feel about them myself though. Congrats to INT though! Those are my [s]homies[/s]comrades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334275498' post='2951679'] Or TPF with the all the DH- United Equestria stuff? [/quote] Meh. I think DH are just looking for someone to have a little fun picking on and UE are convenient. Nothing serious will come of it, DH know they'd get smacked around. Laslo, thread revived. And a note to anyone who doesn't aware, this post is sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well played, Roadie. Not going to expand on it, per my earlier pledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleris Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Congrats to both parties involved Best of wishes to the both of you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 As a former long time member of TPF and current blocmate of INT, I like this. That said I know not everyone is really on board with TPF making friends in this neck of the woods. I think they deserve the shot. I concede I am a bit biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Congrats on the treaty. I'm not sure why people are so surprised given NPO's treaties with C&G alliances. Edited April 13, 2012 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Congrats to our allies in INT in this new treaty. TPF, don't mess with INT, they are good people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1334278911' post='2951702'] Meh. I think DH are just looking for someone to have a little fun picking on and UE are convenient. Nothing serious will come of it, DH know they'd get smacked around. Laslo, thread revived. And a note to anyone who doesn't aware, this post is sarcastic. [/quote] no ue are !@#$-stains and you are too for supporting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334275498' post='2951679'] ...BFF alliances have had run-ins with DH, and DH alliances have shown their disdain for NEW. Can you balance your commitments to NEW with DH's dislike of them?[/quote] I recognize that among our strategic adversaries there exists a widely held belief that INT is an MK pawn, but I can assure you that we are independent of Doomhouse and intend to pursue our own selfish foreign policy objectives. The International has no treaty obligations with the Mushroom Kingdom or any other DH alliance. We have no intelligence-sharing arrangement. We don't even have a PIAT. There is absolutely no requirement for us to consider their objectives while we pursue our own. That's not to say that I don't have immense respect for DH and the work that they have done. Overall, it's a great organization (if it even is an organization at all) filled with great people who have done great things. I am a fan of their work. As for our treaties, LSF and R&R are ancient treaties. Both treaties are much older than INT itself, and there has been no change in the relationship that would cause us to reevaluate it. Our bond with the LSF transcends strategy and even friendship. It represents class solidarity. And, of course, the R&R connection is almost a family bond -- born of our entry in the brotherhood that was LEO, and battle-tested during the opening salvos of the Karma War. They have been dependable and loyal. I'll concede the obvious point: we've been on different paths recently, but even through this our friendship has been unquestionable. Lastly, the treaty web is already a cluster-hump. We didn't invent the damn thing and it ain't even in our power to unilaterally "fix" it. Every alliance faces tension between its friends at some point. It's a fact of life, and it's why we have diplomats. We are not unusual in this regard, so absurd to single us out for that. -Craig Edited April 13, 2012 by Comrade Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1334289621' post='2951817'] I recognize that among our strategic adversaries there exists a widely held belief that INT is an MK pawn, but I can assure you that we are independent of Doomhouse and intend to pursue our own selfish foreign policy objectives. The International has no treaty obligations with the Mushroom Kingdom or any other DH alliance. We have no intelligence-sharing arrangement. We don't even have a PIAT. There is absolutely no requirement for us to consider their objectives while we pursue our own.[/quote] In the event of a direct attack on MK, in what sense would you not end up with a treaty obligation to defend them? You are in an MADP bloc with multiple ties to them. For INT to not defend them would either require that one of your members is ignoring an MDP, or you are ignoring an MADP. Which one should people be expecting? [quote]Lastly, the treaty web is already a cluster-hump. We didn't invent the damn thing and it ain't even in our power to unilaterally "fix" it. Every alliance faces tension between its friends at some point. It's a fact of life, and it's why we have diplomats. We are not unusual in this regard, so absurd to single us out for that. -Craig [/quote] You got singled out for having an especially incoherent set of ties. No one can fix the web by themselves, but you have complete control over your own contribution to it, which you're making progressively worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 How am I a strategic adversary outside of your ties to PB/DH? Just curious. If you want me to shut up, don't quote my posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1334291260' post='2951841'] In the event of a direct attack on MK, in what sense would you not end up with a treaty obligation to defend them? You are in an MADP bloc with multiple ties to them. For INT to not defend them would either require that one of your members is ignoring an MDP, or you are ignoring an MADP. Which one should people be expecting?[/quote] This... doesn't really address anything said in the post you quites. [quote]You got singled out for having an especially incoherent set of ties. No one can fix the web by themselves, but you have complete control over your own contribution to it, which you're making progressively worse. [/quote] Again, all of our ties but a few all tie in to the same side of the web, either directly or indirectly. We're not more "over extended" than most other alliances in CN and to imply that we happen to be especially incoherent is absurd at best and flat out dumb at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1334294845' post='2951938'] This... doesn't really address anything said in the post you quites.[/quote] Huh? He's saying INT has no treaty obligations to MK. I'm pointing out that functionally they might as well have. [quote]Again, all of our ties but a few all tie in to the same side of the web, either directly or indirectly. We're not more "over extended" than most other alliances in CN and to imply that we happen to be especially incoherent is absurd at best and flat out dumb at worst.[/quote]Well, I'm sure all of your allies but a few will be glad to know that you're on the same side of them as the next war, but unable to come to their aid. You have ties to about six different groupings. The only alliance I know with a more scattered set of treaties is IRON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovyet Gelibolu Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Damn it, Craig, why'd you have to open your mouth? [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1334291260' post='2951841'] In the event of a direct attack on MK, in what sense would you not end up with a treaty obligation to defend them? You are in an MADP bloc with multiple ties to them. For INT to not defend them would either require that one of your members is ignoring an MDP, or you are ignoring an MADP. Which one should people be expecting?[/quote] The next time someone launches a direct attack on MK, we'll be sure to let you know exactly what we plan to do. We'll even post about it in the OWF. We'll fly our flag, run a not-really-all-that-witty motif through the text, let Craig put his foot in his mouth, and do all the other things the OWF has come to know and loathe about INT announcements. Til then, the discussion's more than a bit moot. No matter what we say, planners in various spheres will plug us into their spreadsheets wherever they please. It's not really our job to make their jobs easier. [quote]You got singled out for having an especially incoherent set of ties. No one can fix the web by themselves, but you have complete control over your own contribution to it, which you're making progressively worse.[/quote] Nor is it our job to make sense of our foreign affairs for you. If you can't see a pattern, I suggest you either look harder or give up and do something more gratifying. Our allies know where we stand. Edited April 13, 2012 by Sovyet Gelibolu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1334295539' post='2951955'] Huh? He's saying INT has no treaty obligations to MK. I'm pointing out that functionally they might as well have.[/quote] His point being though that because of no treaty existing between our two alliances, we have no obligation to take into consideration their objectives and thoughts on the actions we choose to take as an alliance. [quote]Well, I'm sure all of your allies but a few will be glad to know that you're on the same side of them as the next war, but unable to come to their aid. You have ties to about six different groupings. The only alliance I know with a more scattered set of treaties is IRON. [/quote] Yes, the majority of said groupings tying into each other directly and indirectly and all of the others but one not chaining out to anyone who isn't already friendly/treatied to "this side" of the web. To an outside observer it would seem we're over extended I suppose, but we know what we're doing. Treaty conflicts have never been a problem in the past and won't be one in the future, either. Unless of course we're already directly part of some future conflict, nothing about our ties suggest that we'd have problems defending any of our allies. Edited April 13, 2012 by Ayatollah Bromeini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Interesting. This was unexpected. Thread being derailed by Roq, however, expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1334300613' post='2952004'] Interesting. This was unexpected. Thread being derailed by Roq, however, expected. [/quote] If it's a comment on the treaty and other treaties International has, how is it being taken off the tracks? I know people just want hails for their treaties and no criticism. I guess maybe "nice grouping" would be allowed? I already said I had made my points, but I got quoted. Again, I'm not going to get into anything else, but if you call me out specifically, I will respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 If we hold you as a standard, everyone else on the OWF knows when to shut their mouth. The sad thing is that you alienate 90% of the folks (including myself) who would in theory agree with you on most points simply because of your idiotic approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1334303782' post='2952024'] If we hold you as a standard, everyone else on the OWF knows when to shut their mouth. The sad thing is that you alienate 90% of the folks (including myself) who would in theory agree with you on most points simply because of your idiotic approach. [/quote] I don't really know, since someone else made a post agreeing with my points. You are too easily alienated and if you are put off by "approach", so to speak, while there are far worse things that have been done, I'm not sure what to say, because in essence you are saying someone being vocal is somehow worse than forum spying, bullying, etc. Too much focus on "means" and not enough on "ends." You will never find me in agreement with such a ridiculous stance and I surely would not adopt such if I were in your position. I did state an intention to withdraw and you are the one inducing me to respond. By the way, I think people continue to apply the misapprehension that I somehow am crusading on my own with no other real impetus, and assume that me alienating people will somehow wipe out extraneous actions that could/would take place regardless as there is always a conflict that the stage is being set for. If it were the case where it was only one man who would have to deal with xyz while everyone else would be able to carry on with the status quo indefinitely, then you might be right and I'd have no raison d'etre. It would also be a hopeless cause and me alienating people would be immaterial since it would be doomed from the onset. Edited April 13, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 No, I'm saying outwardly being an often dogmatic, unreasonable ass and continuing to argue far beyond anyone else's attention span is counterproductive to your cause/the cause of people who agree with you. But spin it however you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1334308497' post='2952041'] No, I'm saying outwardly being an often dogmatic, unreasonable ass and continuing to argue far beyond anyone else's attention span is counterproductive to your cause/the cause of people who agree with you. But spin it however you want. [/quote] Dogmatic? If I am willing to argue, then it's not dogmatic. I would like solid arguments, though. My proximal end is my entertainment. My greater end is far bigger than I am, and to say your ultimate positions are determined based on how x is being argued for, rather than the the content means you are not solid in any convictions you may or may not have. Giving people the benefit of the doubt in terms of attention spans is another issue altogether. Those who are popular and seek it are the ones who should be viewed with suspicion. In terms of asses, there are far greater and more unreasonable than I am. I would say stubborn is a better word. Again, if you wish to take this subject up with me, I'm willing to talk to anyone, but I do not wish to post more in this thread. Good luck with the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334302872' post='2952020'] If it's a comment on the treaty and other treaties International has, how is it being taken off the tracks? I know people just want hails for their treaties and no criticism. I guess maybe "nice grouping" would be allowed? I already said I had made my points, but I got quoted. Again, I'm not going to get into anything else, but if you call me out specifically, I will respond. [/quote] If it's any consolation, you're providing me with an opportunity to listen to the sound of my own voice, so I'm not complaining. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Congrats to my brothers in TPF! And to you cool folks in INT as well, you just scored a world-class ally [quote name='Unkajo' timestamp='1334276245' post='2951686'] UE can never be considered an alliance, just no [/quote]You are really buttsore that you got kicked out for being an awful member. Edited April 13, 2012 by HeroofTime55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geerland Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Congratulations to my allies in Int. 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.