A Note of Concern and Assistance

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='TRON IX' timestamp='1340213655' post='2990225']
I am here to tell you that you are wrong. I do not agree with ChairmanHal's statement and it is downright hysterical to watch people claim to be omnicient of Valhalla gov's views. A quick check of my post count vs the fact that I've been high gov in Valhalla for over 5 years indicates that I am not very forthcoming with my views. This is by design. It's quite entertaining and a very advantageous that I don't spew forth how I think to the belligerent idiots here. It gives me the advantage of being underestimated. I like it that way. I think I'll keep it that way.

You go right ahead and keep pretending that you know me. It's apparent that you have enough ignorant friends who will believe you. The cold hard truth is.. You are wrong.


-Tron(geddit?)ix
[/quote]
Who said anything about OWF posts? I do appreciate the effort you put into your deflection though. However, it's frankly hilarious that you think that spinning some pretty words and acting all mysterious is going to convince anyone. The fact that you think you're underestimated just led you to overplay your hand. Anyway, like I said before, it really doesn't matter what I or you or anyone else says about it now, the people who matter, know. The truth is out there. :>

-World(getanewgimmick)Conqueror

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1340214002' post='2990241']
The difference is that The International has specifically stated that they are "dishonoring" their treaty and that is has nothing to do with the e-lawyering that C&G has been spouting in their defense, and that contrary to some people's impression, LSF did actually ask for and expect International to honor the treaty, while Liz has explicitly stated on my radio show that they would be holding off on activating treaties, and as far as I know, no on ein SF has told Liz to go piss off the way International has done.

The situations really aren't at all the same.
[/quote]

Oh.. so since GOD and NPL sit on the sidelines.. and are saying nothing... they are somehow less troll fodder. Ive never been a fan of prodding allies who have to make decisions about whether to defend allies, but the pre-occupation with what INT might or might not do, is 100% only in existence because it serves the political agenda of certain people to poke and prod at them.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340217948' post='2990354']
Oh.. so since GOD and NPL sit on the sidelines.. and are saying nothing... they are somehow less troll fodder. Ive never been a fan of prodding allies who have to make decisions about whether to defend allies, but the pre-occupation with what INT might or might not do, is 100% only in existence because it serves the political agenda of certain people to poke and prod at them.
[/quote]
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact INT is allowing multiple of their treaty partners to be attacked, simply because it might put your bloc in a situation where victory isnt certain, as opposed to:
SF is coming under multiple aggressive attacks, and counter declaring is exactly what your coalition wants, so letting you continue to "preempt" and burn more political capital works in SF's favor in the future.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340217948' post='2990354']
Oh.. so since GOD and NPL sit on the sidelines.. and are saying nothing... they are somehow less troll fodder. Ive never been a fan of prodding allies who have to make decisions about whether to defend allies, but the pre-occupation with what INT might or might not do, is 100% only in existence because it serves the political agenda of certain people to poke and prod at them.
[/quote]
The ~AGENDA~ Dun, dun, dunnnnnn!!! What am I, Tygaland?

Educate yourself, brotha:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=93&showentry=3459

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1340058670' post='2988011']
I dont' usually get into this even as thick as it has gotten in this thread, because it's generally useless to do so, but let's get this straight: I'm not interested in seeing anyone burn or wrecked or scrapped etc based on any sort of personal needs. Some people genuinely believe I'm in this thread because I want to "get" C&G, some people are just being lazy with their argument and that's the easy route. So let's put that aside. If it was NoR getting pounded right now, I would be talking about Valhalla and MK right now instead of The International. The fact of the matter is that if everything I advocated was about my personal desires to watch people burn, from the accusations to that effect you would be hard pressed to find an alliance of any notoriety that I supposedly want to see destroyed. That's silly. The fact of the matter is that me and NoR's honeymoon ended a year ago, and having Zeppelin on my show was the first time I spoke to any degree to anyone in NoR for over a year.
Go ahead, give Chax a call, he'll tell you we've had this very misunderstanding over one post in which I used Europa and Invicta's treaty as an example of the speech I'm about to give. He knows this is philosophical.

No, this is much more simple than the depths of the psyche of a non-mortal body-swapping observer of all time. It's about planetary political dynamics. You claim to be a leftist alliance, and you seek to be the poster-child of the Left; that's the identity you've created and sold and clawed your way up from nothing with, and you've tied up most of the left together through treaties with each other that unite the Left. Congratulations.
Nordreich is the antithesis of everything you say you stand for, and whether or not they've been cordial with you and other leftist AAs in the past 3 years, they are your natural enemies, and in some cases your advertised and stated enemies. They -are- the CN Right, so there's not much to unite, but they've found a niche among Nordic and Germanic alliances similar to your Left umbrella. Congratulations, NoR.

This is a stage set for glory.

But the glory is stolen by a weak-hearted, a weak-stomached, a selfish, a vainglorious, an illogical foreign policy on the part of each. A grasp for clout and power which results in neither, as each has traded-in its potential for comfort and table scraps.

And it's not just The International or Nordreich this conversation is about, noooo. So many, too many to go into detail on each account--we all know the stories; in fact, you're better-connected than me, you know all the more.

You're not damned--from the perspective of "dealing" with me (or however you want to phrase it)--if you had or had not fulfilled your obligations. The VE, NoR, PC, Europa any number of alliances across the spectrum, and today, you; only those who choose expedience over obligation hear from me.
[/quote]

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340217948' post='2990354']
Oh.. so since GOD and NPL sit on the sidelines.. and are saying nothing... they are somehow less troll fodder. Ive never been a fan of prodding allies who have to make decisions about whether to defend allies, but the pre-occupation with what INT might or might not do, is 100% only in existence because it serves the political agenda of certain people to poke and prod at them.
[/quote]
Rush my calling out of INT is specific to the fact that many of them poked and prodded an ally and were backing up LSFs play all the way up to the actual hammer dropping. High ranking .gov of INT have thrown in support all around for LSFs antics and that sir is why I personally am so on about this. Dont go in to a bar and tell your friend you got his back then when he gets punched in the nose hide behind the juke box. IF INT wanted to be a true friend they should have held back LSF. I know plenty of times in back channels where this has had to be done. In MJ we had to do it a couple of times and I know back in the early CnG days it was done as well. GOD and NPL are doing what ever right now should they be in probably very true but im not in that coalition channel to understand what their strategy is. Difference is neither of those AAs were out prodding a bear and ran when it woke up.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1340214002' post='2990241']
The difference is that The International has specifically stated that they are "dishonoring" their treaty and that is has nothing to do with the e-lawyering that C&G has been spouting in their defense, and that contrary to some people's impression, LSF did actually ask for and expect International to honor the treaty, [b]while Liz has explicitly stated on my radio show that they would be holding off on activating treaties[/b], and as far as I know, [b]no on ein SF has told Liz to go piss off[/b] the way International has done.

The situations really aren't at all the same.
[/quote]

I can confirm this 100%.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340219108' post='2990378']
I can confirm this 100%.
[/quote]
And if you do try to activate a treaty, and you do get told to go piss up a rope, I'd looooovvvvvve to hear about.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1340219563' post='2990384']
And if you do try to activate a treaty, and you do get told to go piss up a rope, I'd looooovvvvvve to hear about.
[/quote]

If the spies don't get a hold of that information first, I'm sure Liz would be more than happy to give you that sort of exclusive interview.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1340219082' post='2990377']
Rush my calling out of INT is specific to the fact that many of them poked and prodded an ally and were backing up LSFs play all the way up to the actual hammer dropping. High ranking .gov of INT have thrown in support all around for LSFs antics and that sir is why I personally am so on about this. Dont go in to a bar and tell your friend you got his back then when he gets punched in the nose hide behind the juke box. IF INT wanted to be a true friend they should have held back LSF. I know plenty of times in back channels where this has had to be done. In MJ we had to do it a couple of times and I know back in the early CnG days it was done as well. GOD and NPL are doing what ever right now should they be in probably very true but im not in that coalition channel to understand what their strategy is. Difference is neither of those AAs were out prodding a bear and ran when it woke up.
[/quote]

To be fair, you are not in our channel to understand INTs strategy either. Implying that INT could have held back LSF, quite honestly, is a disingenuous argument. They tried, LSF gave no $%^&'s. In fact, INT having done nothing to this point, makes more sense than the rest of SF having done nothing. By everyone's standard, CSN was hit "just because". LSF was hit while gleefully poking and prodding, therefore giving many people the opinion that they are the aggressors, hence enabling them to view their war from an oA or a non-chaning standpoint. No such feeling exists anywhere on the other side. It is one thing if you dont see it as an oA or non-chaning situation, but that is purely opinionative.

I patently reject the notion that INT assured LSF they would have its back if they baited NoR into a war. Nobody in INT wieleds the power to profess that to a non MADP partner. In ALL cases of deciding to go to war, the membership votes to empower the war council, then the war council votes whether to go to war. There may have been many members of INT, and maybe a gov member or 2 who said we would have your back, but if LSF, who have posted that people should know more about how THEY work internally, did not know that INT too would have to progress through internal mechanisms, then they cross yet a 3rd level of idiocy.

No, Bud, my friend, for 95% of the people prodding at INT, it is a clear anti-C&G, anti-DH agenda that they are so eager to bring about, while their own allies are doing the same things they mock INT for.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340228517' post='2990560']
No, Bud, my friend, for 95% of the people prodding at INT, it is a clear anti-C&G, anti-DH agenda that they are so eager to bring about, while their own allies are doing the same things they mock INT for.
[/quote]

Except our allies haven't come out to the OWF and said they are dishonoring our treaty(/ies). Int came out and said they are dishonoring the treaty, plain and simple. CSN (I will not speak on the behalf of Fark but they have also come out and said they are not activating [i]any[/i] of their treaties due to their newly formed protectorate with Umbrella) has deemed fit to not activate the bulk of its treaties at this time. I am not in LSF so I cannot say if they have actually decided to activate their treaties, but if what I've read is correct, then they have requested Int's help and (again) Int has publicly stated it will not honor its treaty.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340228979' post='2990582']
Except our allies haven't come out to the OWF and said they are dishonoring our treaty(/ies). Int came out and said they are dishonoring the treaty, plain and simple. CSN (I will not speak on the behalf of Fark but they have also come out and said they are not activating [i]any[/i] of their treaties due to their newly formed protectorate with Umbrella) has deemed fit to not activate the bulk of its treaties at this time. I am not in LSF so I cannot say if they have actually decided to activate their treaties, but if what I've read is correct, then they have requested Int's help and (again) Int has publicly stated it will not honor its treaty.
[/quote]

People in alliances have opinions. I know this doesnt shock you SoM. And LOL at "activating" a defense clause. You posted the treaty, maybe its been too long, so I will remind you...


Article III. Mutual Defense

An act of war upon one signatory is to be considered an act of war upon the other and will be responded to with all available force, no activation required.


Dont play this game with me like I do not know what I am talking about.


That little tidbit comes from http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=40472

Now... Tell me about CSN not activating that treaty bro.


More: From the RIA treaty:

Article III. On Loyalty and Defense.
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, the Commonwealth's faithful, One Hundred Percent. So is the Random Insanity Alliance, but we can't be bothered finding a rhyme that fits them at the moment. Either way, both agree that should the other get attacked, the other will spring to their defense.

No Activation need there (like specified in the SF treaty, or in the TTK treaty)...

Guru Order:

2)Defense
Regardless of what we think of each other's taste in music, The Commonwealth the Gaga Order (No? WTF) pledge to defend each other in the event that one is attacked.

No activation mechanism there either.

NPL:


Article 4: Mutual Defense
An attack on either signatory alliance by a foreign aggressor will be seen as an attack on both alliances. Proper defensive measures will be taken.

Yep. No activation there.

Point is< IDC what your allies do, i really dont, but its really getting old watching everyone rag on INT, when !@#$ like this exists as well. The search for consistency in CN goes on and on.

Additional Edit: To date, I have seen 2 members of INT characterize on the OWF that they feel they are dishonoring a treaty. Maybe more do, maybe they all do. But its quite the damned leap to look at those 2 opinions, and say "INT are saying it." INT is not 2, 3 or even 10 members.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340229810' post='2990612']
People in alliances have opinions. I know this doesnt shock you SoM. And LOL at "activating" a defense clause. You posted the treaty, maybe its been too long, so I will remind you...


Article III. Mutual Defense

An act of war upon one signatory is to be considered an act of war upon the other and will be responded to with all available force, no activation required.


Dont play this game with me like I do not know what I am talking about.


That little tidbit comes from http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=40472

Now... Tell me about CSN not activating that treaty bro.
[/quote]

You've gone to school, maybe it's been too long, so I will remind you...

"[...] [i]no activation required.[/i]" In other words, "no activation necessary". So GOD can, against our wishes, jump in at any time whenever they deem fit; however, we have discussed it with our allies and would not like to see them jump at this particular moment. No where is there a timed clause that "requires" immediate involvement but if you want to e-lawyer that too, be my guest. But it seems you are too hung up on the literal phrasing of "activate". While writing this (clicked on Preview Post) you decided to go ahead through each treaty so I'll oblige and play the game.

Above explains the GOD treaty.

[b]NPL:[/b]

Article 2: Respect
Both signatories agree to remain respectful to each other at all times in public and in private. Any disputes will be settled diplomatically via private channels.

[...]

Article 4: Mutual Defense
An attack on either signatory alliance by a foreign aggressor will be seen as an attack on both alliances. Proper defensive measures will be taken.

As stated above, we have asked NPL to hold off and they have respected our wishes. Plus SF! takes precedent over this treaty [i]anyways[/i] in this regard.

[hr]
[b]GO:[/b]

1)Sovereignty
Both The Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations and the Ragu Order will remain separate and distinct entities, retaining their own sovereignty (you'd think the name would clue that in, hurr) and preferences regarding meatless pasta sauces and the heresies thereof. What? SERIOUSLY? Agh.

2)Defense
Regardless of what we think of each other's taste in music, The Commonwealth the Gaga Order (No? WTF) pledge to defend each other in the event that one is attacked.

Once more, GO has respected our wishes in holding off on their entry, along with respecting our sovereignty (the "respect" and "sovereignty" clause is both in Art. 1).
[hr]

[b]RIA:[/b]

Article I. On Food and Freedoms
If either party should dislike Green Eggs and Ham, the other party will respect their sovereignty, regardless of how much they think the first party will like Green Eggs and Ham, and will not try to make them eat it in a lake, or with a snake; in the snow, or off a hobo; with a prude, or in the nude.

Article III. On Loyalty and Defense.
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, the Commonwealth's faithful, One Hundred Percent. So is the Random Insanity Alliance, but we can't be bothered finding a rhyme that fits them at the moment. Either way, both agree that should the other get attacked, the other will spring to their defense.

Article VI. On friends and kind treatment
A person is a person, no matter how small. So both parties agree to remain publically civil and kind to each other, regardless of how small they are and how much they actually ARE one of those people who should answer those ads for Ci41is.

Again, respecting our sovereignty in delaying their entry.
[hr]

[b]TTK:[/b]

Provision I: Sovereignty
This Treaty shall not infringe upon the sovereignty of either "The Templar Knights" nor "Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations" (hence forth referred to as TTK and ( "CSN" ) respectively)and shall serve only to embody the mutual respect, trust, and friendship between these alliances. Hence, the member-states and governing bodies of the respective entities shall be subject only to the laws and restrictions of their own alliances, in addition to the following Provisions of this treaty.

Provision IV: Defensive War
Recognizing the respect between the ("Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations") and TTK, this Provision hereby dictates that under any circumstances if either of the undersigned finds itself attacked by a foreign power, the opposite signatory to this agreement is required to come in full force by the side of their ally, without exception. The attacked signatory of this agreement maintains the right to waive assistance. Should the party required by this treaty to defend their ally not respond within 24-hours the abandoned ally may cancel this agreement immediately.

Within Provision IV is the opportunity of waiving assistance. TTK has, at this time, respected this decision via Provision I.
[hr]

[b]CRAP:[/b]

Article I- Sovereignty

Both signatories formally recognize the right of the other signatory to exclusively exercise authority in all aspects of its own internal domain. No action may be taken to undermine the sovereignty of either alliance.

Article III- Defence

A) Both signatories are required upon signing of this document to provide military defence to each other, should either be attacked. However should the signatory who is being attacked ask the other to stand down, compliance with the request is mandatory.


This one is quite straight forward.
[hr]

[b]SuperFriends! Topscore:[/b]

II. Sovereignty
While all signatories and their respective members shall remain civil to each other at all times, as well as projecting to the public an aura of unity, it is acknowledged and required that all member alliances shall remain free and sovereign.

VI. War

A. An attack on one signatory is considered an attack on the entire membership of the bloc.

B. All signatories agree to defend other member alliances via military, political, and financial actions in the event that an aggressive war is enacted by an outside alliance or group.

C. Any other signatory may refrain from participation in a defensive conflict with the consent of the engaged alliance.

Again, straight forward as all Hell.
[hr]

But none of that really has to do with the droll fact that Int government has said they are purposely dishonoring/ignoring the treaty, regardless if LSF is asking for assistance or not. I don't really care about the Int-LSF relationship or their treaty (their problems are theirs and theirs alone, not mine). You should focus paying attention more because you missed a pretty big statement straight from the horse's mouth:

[quote]We chose to dishonor the treaty, not simply refuse optional aggression. I'm not going to do any spinning here, and you guys don't need to for our sake either. Actually, to be frank I'd rather you not.
[/quote]
[sup]Source: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111621&st=140&p=2988521&#entry2988521[/sup]

So spare me the rhetoric. You know how to read, so it doesn't take someone special to understand what "[i]I am not in LSF so I cannot say if they have actually decided to activate their treaties, but if what I've read is correct, then they have requested Int's help and (again) Int has publicly stated it will not honor its treaty"[/i] means. So if LSF requested Int to enter, then yes, I think Int is being a little !@#$ in that regard. If not, and LSF requested Int stay out, then by all means I respect that because it's the same thing we have done. But I've been told that LSF [i]had[/i] requested help and by VL's statement, it would appear that Int had no intention in [i]ever[/i] helping LSF. How two parties mutually interpret their treaty is their responsibility and business, but it's pretty clear to see why Int wouldn't want in on that war, just to remain realistic here.

Edited June 20, 2012 by SpacingOutMan

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340232446' post='2990685']
You've gone to school, maybe it's been too long, so I will remind you...

"[...] [i]no activation required.[/i]" In other words, "no activation necessary". So GOD can, against our wishes, jump in at any time whenever they deem fit; however, we have discussed it with our allies and would not like to see them jump at this particular moment. No where is there a timed clause that "requires" immediate involvement but if you want to e-lawyer that too, be my guest. But it seems you are too hung up on the literal phrasing of "activate". While writing this (clicked on Preview Post) you decided to go ahead through each treaty so I'll oblige and play the game.

Above explains the GOD treaty.

[b]NPL:[/b]

Article 2: Respect
Both signatories agree to remain respectful to each other at all times in public and in private. Any disputes will be settled diplomatically via private channels.

[...]

Article 4: Mutual Defense
An attack on either signatory alliance by a foreign aggressor will be seen as an attack on both alliances. Proper defensive measures will be taken.

As stated above, we have asked NPL to hold off and they have respected our wishes. Plus SF! takes precedent over this treaty [i]anyways[/i] in this regard.

[hr]
[b]GO:[/b]

1)Sovereignty
Both The Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations and the Ragu Order will remain separate and distinct entities, retaining their own sovereignty (you'd think the name would clue that in, hurr) and preferences regarding meatless pasta sauces and the heresies thereof. What? SERIOUSLY? Agh.

2)Defense
Regardless of what we think of each other's taste in music, The Commonwealth the Gaga Order (No? WTF) pledge to defend each other in the event that one is attacked.

Once more, GO has respected our wishes in holding off on their entry, along with respecting our sovereignty (the "respect" and "sovereignty" clause is both in Art. 1).
[hr]

[b]RIA:[/b]

Article I. On Food and Freedoms
If either party should dislike Green Eggs and Ham, the other party will respect their sovereignty, regardless of how much they think the first party will like Green Eggs and Ham, and will not try to make them eat it in a lake, or with a snake; in the snow, or off a hobo; with a prude, or in the nude.

Article III. On Loyalty and Defense.
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, the Commonwealth's faithful, One Hundred Percent. So is the Random Insanity Alliance, but we can't be bothered finding a rhyme that fits them at the moment. Either way, both agree that should the other get attacked, the other will spring to their defense.

Article VI. On friends and kind treatment
A person is a person, no matter how small. So both parties agree to remain publically civil and kind to each other, regardless of how small they are and how much they actually ARE one of those people who should answer those ads for Ci41is.

Again, respecting our sovereignty in delaying their entry.
[hr]

[b]TTK:[/b]

Provision I: Sovereignty
This Treaty shall not infringe upon the sovereignty of either "The Templar Knights" nor "Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations" (hence forth referred to as TTK and ( "CSN" ) respectively)and shall serve only to embody the mutual respect, trust, and friendship between these alliances. Hence, the member-states and governing bodies of the respective entities shall be subject only to the laws and restrictions of their own alliances, in addition to the following Provisions of this treaty.

Provision IV: Defensive War
Recognizing the respect between the ("Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations") and TTK, this Provision hereby dictates that under any circumstances if either of the undersigned finds itself attacked by a foreign power, the opposite signatory to this agreement is required to come in full force by the side of their ally, without exception. The attacked signatory of this agreement maintains the right to waive assistance. Should the party required by this treaty to defend their ally not respond within 24-hours the abandoned ally may cancel this agreement immediately.

Within Provision IV is the opportunity of waiving assistance. TTK has, at this time, respected this decision via Provision I.
[hr]

[b]CRAP:[/b]

Article I- Sovereignty

Both signatories formally recognize the right of the other signatory to exclusively exercise authority in all aspects of its own internal domain. No action may be taken to undermine the sovereignty of either alliance.

Article III- Defence

A) Both signatories are required upon signing of this document to provide military defence to each other, should either be attacked. However should the signatory who is being attacked ask the other to stand down, compliance with the request is mandatory.


This one is quite straight forward.
[hr]

[b]SuperFriends! Topscore:[/b]

II. Sovereignty
While all signatories and their respective members shall remain civil to each other at all times, as well as projecting to the public an aura of unity, it is acknowledged and required that all member alliances shall remain free and sovereign.

VI. War

A. An attack on one signatory is considered an attack on the entire membership of the bloc.

B. All signatories agree to defend other member alliances via military, political, and financial actions in the event that an aggressive war is enacted by an outside alliance or group.

C. Any other signatory may refrain from participation in a defensive conflict with the consent of the engaged alliance.

Again, straight forward as all Hell.
[hr]

But none of that really has to do with the droll fact that Int government has said they are purposely dishonoring/ignoring the treaty, regardless if LSF is asking for assistance or not. I don't really care about the Int-LSF relationship or their treaty (their problems are theirs and theirs alone, not mine). You should focus paying attention more because you missed a pretty big statement straight from the horse's mouth:


[sup]Source: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111621&st=140&p=2988521&#entry2988521[/sup]

So spare me the rhetoric. You know how to read, so it doesn't take someone special to understand what "[i]I am not in LSF so I cannot say if they have actually decided to activate their treaties, but if what I've read is correct, then they have requested Int's help and (again) Int has publicly stated it will not honor its treaty"[/i] means. So if LSF requested Int to enter, then yes, I think Int is being a little !@#$ in that regard. If not, and LSF requested Int stay out, then by all means I respect that because it's the same thing we have done. But I've been told that LSF [i]had[/i] requested help and by VL's statement, it would appear that Int had no intention in [i]ever[/i] helping LSF. How two parties mutually interpret their treaty is their responsibility and business, but it's pretty clear to see why Int wouldn't want in on that war, just to remain realistic here.
[/quote]

Your post would make an iota of sense, if it werent for your complete and utter BS explanation on the GOD treaty.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340214661' post='2990268']

-World(getanewgimmick)Conqueror
[/quote]

Talk about get a new gimmick.....u so funny. You seemingly have only one gimmick yourself, hate on Val. NP, were used to idiots hating on us while being closed minded blowhards. Also by your own philosophy your hate of us must reflect the hate MK as a whole has for Val. So by extension you must hate DR also since Val is part of said Bloc, which means you also are wishing harm on an ally of your ally(TOP). How does TOP feel about this? Does TOP know that you are actively seeking to harm one of its closest allies thru your obvious hate/targeting of Val? Seems like you arent a very good ally to be putting one of your 'good'(TOP) allies in such a predicament.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340232604' post='2990692']
Your post would make an iota of sense, if it werent for your complete and utter BS explanation on the GOD treaty.
[/quote]

I though I made my point as I didn't post [i]every[/i] defensive/military treaty but fine.

Article I. Sovereignty

Both signatories shall retain their sovereignty and shall not take any action, directly or indirectly, that would threaten the sovereignty of the other signatory, in any way, ever.

Article III. Mutual Defense

An act of war upon one signatory is to be considered an act of war upon the other and will be responded to with all available force, no activation required.

Article VI. Civility

Both signatories and its respective members shall remain civil to the other in any public area and any disagreements shall be solved through private channels.

Art. III has no "time limit", so while the treaty doesn't require a request from CSN (as I said in my previous post), GOD has honored Art. I and Art. VI by abiding my our request for them to not enter at this time.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340232866' post='2990696']
I though I made my point as I didn't post [i]every[/i] defensive/military treaty but fine.

Article I. Sovereignty

Both signatories shall retain their sovereignty and shall not take any action, directly or indirectly, that would threaten the sovereignty of the other signatory, in any way, ever.

Article III. Mutual Defense

An act of war upon one signatory is to be considered an act of war upon the other and will be responded to with all available force, no activation required.

Article VI. Civility

Both signatories and its respective members shall remain civil to the other in any public area and any disagreements shall be solved through private channels.

Art. III has no "time limit", so while the treaty doesn't require a request from CSN (as I said in my previous post), GOD has honored Art. I and Art. VI by abiding my our request for them to not enter at this time.
[/quote]

I bet if INT tried their "Article XX has no time limit" argument, it would get a warm reception from the trolls. We all know what no activation required means, we all know an attack on one is considered an attack on both means. There are hundreds of people who support your position now, and would be the 1st to troll and rage if the situations were reversed. My entire point is not directed at CSN or GOD. It is directed at those who are trolling and prodding at INT, because a certain move by INT will support an agenda unrelated to INT and LSF and NOR and IRON. While conveniently ignoring the same thing happening elsewhere, that does not support their agenda.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340233430' post='2990712']
I bet if INT tried their "Article XX has no time limit" argument, it would get a warm reception from the trolls. We all know what no activation required means, we all know an attack on one is considered an attack on both means. There are hundreds of people who support your position now, and would be the 1st to troll and rage if the situations were reversed. My entire point is not directed at CSN or GOD. It is directed at those who are trolling and prodding at INT, because a certain move by INT will support an agenda unrelated to INT and LSF and NOR and IRON. While conveniently ignoring the same thing happening elsewhere, that does not support their agenda.
[/quote]

I haven't read their treaty so sure, if Article XX says nothing about immediate action, that's a-okay in my book (though my opinion doesn't matter whatsoever in their dynamic). My point was that if LSF was requesting Int to come in, and Int government has explicitly stated they are dishonoring the treaty regardless, that's a real !@#$%* thing to do. But as I've admitted twice now, I have not been privy to their conversations/delegation and am going off of off-hand OWF/IRC remarks.

[Ogaden]

Oh god the e-lawyering, make it stop

[the rebel]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340233755' post='2990722']
My point was that if LSF was requesting Int to come in, and Int government has explicitly stated they are dishonoring the treaty regardless, that's a real !@#$%* thing to do. But as I've admitted twice now, I have not been privy to their conversations/delegation and am going off of off-hand OWF/IRC remarks.[/quote]

Rush Sykes is a good spin-doctor isn't he.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111622&view=findpost&p=2988746
[quote]I'd like to reiterate what I said in the TLR thread: we were requested to [i]defend[/i] LSF from NoR's aggression, which we voted against.

We did not receive any request to go in for LSF on oA in this latest development, because neither LSF nor us considered LSF to be the aggressors.

This probably just makes us look even worse than it usually would, but I'm just throwing it out there because there's a severe lack of honesty on the OWF as of well, ever. I'm not particularly proud at the moment, but I feel it should be known rather than just trying to spin things in our favour.[/quote]

That's from the horse's mouth so to speak and not CnG talking out of their arse for INT.

[Hereno]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1340233815' post='2990725']
Oh god the e-lawyering, make it stop
[/quote]

I'm in this boat. Holy !@#$ who cares about the specific wording of treaties.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Captain Spock' timestamp='1339992301' post='2987139']
You're seriously expecting INT to throw away all their FA work for LSF's stupidity?
[/quote]
Hey, MK and co. expected CSN's allies to all jump in to get rolled. Why shouldn't he expect the same?

Now, can he just jump in on International for not honoring their treaty? CN precedence says yes.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1340236859' post='2990788']
Rush Sykes is a good spin-doctor isn't he.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111622&view=findpost&p=2988746


That's from the horse's mouth so to speak and not CnG talking out of their arse for INT.
[/quote]

I guess when you talk to the horse, you have to talk to all the heads.

[02:49:26] <Comrade_Trotsky[INT]> I think we're going to be treating it as aggression.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340243016' post='2990897']
I guess when you talk to the horse, you have to talk to all the heads.

[02:49:26] <Comrade_Trotsky[INT]> I think we're going to be treating it as aggression.
[/quote]

My question has been answered then. Cheers! Also, not really our fault that different government members are saying different things. Obviously, though, Trotsky's decision is [i]the[/i] decision since he is executive government and all that jazz. Thanks for the log tidbit all the same.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340232446' post='2990685']
lulzy wall-o-text here
[/quote]
This is the sound of someone who just got owned.

I personally just call your whole lot including XX (minus Invicta and RnR) a bunch of cowards. Let just call a spade, a spade.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Steve Buscemi

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1340232719' post='2990693']
Talk about get a new gimmick.....u so funny. You seemingly have only one gimmick yourself, hate on Val. NP, were used to idiots hating on us while being closed minded blowhards. Also by your own philosophy your hate of us must reflect the hate MK as a whole has for Val. So by extension you must hate DR also since Val is part of said Bloc, which means you also are wishing harm on an ally of your ally(TOP). How does TOP feel about this? Does TOP know that you are actively seeking to harm one of its closest allies thru your obvious hate/targeting of Val? Seems like you arent a very good ally to be putting one of your 'good'(TOP) allies in such a predicament.
[/quote]
Still the same old retard, aren't you chefjoe. Haven't even learned to spell yet. If you can not see the difference between saying every member speaks for their alliance, and saying that a certain member is saying something that fits with the attitude of their government, there is no helping you. I do like how you try to shut me down by appealing to the TOP treaty, of all things. Just because I don't like Valhalla doesn't mean I have any particular opinion on DR. Christ, for how long you've been here, you're about as politically switched on as some noob venturing to the OWF for the first time.