A Declaration of Peace

[Farnsworth]

Only a 4-month NAP? Why not 12? Or a perma-NAP? pl0x?

Anyway, I'm glad this has ended! I like light terms.

o/ NoR
o7 LSF

[Princess Erix]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348025544' post='3031684']
I'll repeat what I said for you: I don't care how joke alliances like yourself works, in cyberverse government members opinions always had and always will carry much more weight than regular members ones, period. And even if I cared, government members of democratic alliances opinions would care even more weight since they were elected to REPRESENT regular members.
[/quote]

You sir, need to perhaps learn how an alliance works before shamefully deriding one as a 'joke alliance'.

At the same time, stop being a hypocrite by posting stuff in direct relation to alliance which you supposedly 'don't care about'.

I won't ask for you to elaborate more about your claims since you aren't supposed to care about how we work (as per your claim on post #81)

*Grabs popcorn*

[D34th]

[quote name='Princess Erix' timestamp='1348044524' post='3031747']
You sir, need to perhaps learn how an alliance works before shamefully deriding one as a 'joke alliance'.

At the same time, stop being a hypocrite by posting stuff in direct relation to alliance which you supposedly 'don't care about'.

I won't ask for you to elaborate more about your claims since you aren't supposed to care about how we work (as per your claim on post #81)

*Grabs popcorn*
[/quote]

I don't need to know the inner works of your alliance to know that you are a bunch of cowards who don't honor your treaties and don't have free will, letting others alliances take decisions in your behalf.

Also note that not caring about how your alliance works isn't the same thing about not caring about your alliance, I DO care about your alliance future a lot...

[Princess Erix]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348046463' post='3031750']
I don't need to know the inner works of your alliance to know that you are a bunch of cowards who don't honor your treaties and don't have free will, letting others alliances take decisions in your behalf.

Also note that not caring about how your alliance works isn't the same thing about not caring about your alliance, I DO care about your alliance future a lot...
[/quote]

Ah ha! Flaw in your assumption, but I'd let you figure that yourself.

Such a nice guy, going about caring about other alliance's future.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1347940731' post='3031343']
You would be correct, if we ignore the fact that said member held a high government position at the time.
[/quote]

SO that means his statement hold more weight than the other 6 who held high (and in some cases higher) gov positions. Where I come from, we call that cherry picking. Fortunately, I will not let you get away with it.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348025544' post='3031684']
I'll repeat what I said for you: I don't care how joke alliances like yourself works, in cyberverse government members opinions always had and always will carry much more weight than regular members ones, period. And even if I cared, government members of democratic alliances opinions would care even more weight since they were elected to REPRESENT regular members.
[/quote]

"I don't care for the reality of the situation only my opinion."

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348050155' post='3031761']
SO that means his statement hold more weight than the other 6 who held high (and in some cases higher) gov positions. Where I come from, we call that cherry picking. Fortunately, I will not let you get away with it.
[/quote]

Did I said his statement hold more weight than the other 6 who held high (and in some cases higher) gov positions? No, so you can go back from wherever you come from.

[Thrash]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1347972272' post='3031423']
And in both cases, do you know how much my vote counted for when the measure went before Congress? One. One vote. Just like everybody else.
[/quote]

So why do you bother signing mandatory treaties if you poll the whole alliance on whether to enter a war or not? Seems to me all your treaties are essentially optional based on that.

[D34th]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1348054043' post='3031767']
So why do you bother signing mandatory treaties if you poll the whole alliance on whether to enter a war or not? Seems to me all your treaties are essentially optional based on that.
[/quote]

Every alliance who signs a treaty with CnG Alliances (should) know that there are a secret treaty clause that states: [i]"In case of war if your alliance is not directly or indirectly supporting MK, this treaty becomes null and void. "[/i]

[sir pwnage]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348030218' post='3031704']
I didn't said that all alliances are jokes, I said your alliance and GATO are jokes and not because they are democratic but because your alliances lack a spine, free will and sovereignty. That said not matter how hard you try to spin, wont change [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113153&view=findpost&p=3031451"]the fact that I stated[/url].
[/quote]

Oh, so this was just a butthurt rant against INT and GATO because our FA doesn't line up with your personal wet dream. Here I thought you were actually trying to debate something of substance. That was silly of me.

You seem to think that we should have entered into a losing war through some sense of honor, is that about right?

[Thrash]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348055741' post='3031771']
You seem to think that we should have entered into a losing war through some sense of honor, is that about right?
[/quote]

You might want to rephrase that. That sounds like you'll wiggle your way out anytime it looks like you have a chance of losing. I hope that's not the case.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1348056984' post='3031775']
You might want to rephrase that. That sounds like you'll wiggle your way out anytime it looks like you have a chance of losing. I hope that's not the case.
[/quote]

[i]whoooooooosh[/i]

Not even close.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1348054043' post='3031767']
So why do you bother signing mandatory treaties if you poll the whole alliance on whether to enter a war or not? Seems to me all your treaties are essentially optional based on that.
[/quote]

Ironically Thrash, I suggest you go read the NATO-LSF treaty. Are you prepared to ask NATO the same thing? We all know what Mandatory and Obligation mean. The absolute WORST case scenario is that INT did exactly what NATO did. Yet, all the fallout lies to one side. And why does it lie to one side? Because LSF said to NATO "You dont have to help us"... then said to the world "RAWR INT ISNT HELPING US!" Its a complete double standard, and there is an entire section of the web ignoring it, because NATO cant be called out, NPO is too important to their underlying cause.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348058899' post='3031790']
Ironically Thrash, I suggest you go read the NATO-LSF treaty. Are you prepared to ask NATO the same thing? We all know what Mandatory and Obligation mean. The absolute WORST case scenario is that INT did exactly what NATO did. Yet, all the fallout lies to one side. And why does it lie to one side? Because LSF said to NATO "You dont have to help us"... then said to the world "RAWR INT ISNT HELPING US!" Its a complete double standard, and there is an entire section of the web ignoring it, because NATO cant be called out, NPO is too important to their underlying cause.
[/quote]

I think you're reading into my comment too much. I was just trying to understand how their policy works when it comes to actually getting involved in a war and how they operate. As far as an underlying cause, I've got a piece of MK twice now, I'm fairly satisfied.

[Garion]

Godspeed in rebuilding

[D34th]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348055741' post='3031771']
Oh, so this was just a butthurt rant against INT and GATO because our FA doesn't line up with your personal wet dream. Here I thought you were actually trying to debate something of substance. That was silly of me.

You seem to think that we should have entered into a losing war through some sense of honor, is that about right?
[/quote]

Do I think you should have entered into the war? Yes. Do I expected you to honor a treaty with someone in the losing side? hell no, I know better to expect this kind of behavior from someone in Sycophants bloc.

The funny thing about all of it is that you're still using "[i]Nordreich Delendum Est[/i]" in your signature. What are you waiting? MK and CnG let you do that or do you want them to do it for you?

[Proest]

You're all idiots for arguing over such retarded !@#$%^&*.

[sir pwnage]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1348056984' post='3031775']
You might want to rephrase that. That sounds like you'll wiggle your way out anytime it looks like you have a chance of losing. I hope that's not the case.
[/quote]

The joke is that Sabcat told us to avoid doing exactly that

[quote]The funny thing about all of it is that you're still using "Nordreich Delendum Est" in your signature. What are you waiting? MK and CnG let you do that or do you want them to do it for you? [/quote]

This coming from the guy who has been shouting until he was blue in the face about "Fungicide" for the last year and a half and done exactly nothing to accomplish it. Please, tell me more about all the great takedowns you've orchestrated. I'd love to hear your advice, really.

[D34th]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348069699' post='3031848']
The joke is that Sabcat told us to avoid doing exactly that



This coming from the guy who has been shouting until he was blue in the face about "Fungicide" for the last year and a half and done exactly nothing to accomplish it. Please, tell me more about all the great takedowns you've orchestrated. I'd love to hear your advice, really.
[/quote]

You've got me, I'm too afraid of MK to make any real move against them, I also love my infra too much to risk it in a war.

[Optimistic]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348058899' post='3031790']
Ironically Thrash, I suggest you go read the NATO-LSF treaty. Are you prepared to ask NATO the same thing? We all know what Mandatory and Obligation mean. The absolute WORST case scenario is that INT did exactly what NATO did. Yet, all the fallout lies to one side. And why does it lie to one side? Because LSF said to NATO "You dont have to help us"... then said to the world "RAWR INT ISNT HELPING US!" Its a complete double standard, and there is an entire section of the web ignoring it, because NATO cant be called out, NPO is too important to their underlying cause.
[/quote]
I originally decided to keep myself from posting in this thread, but I feel you need to be reminded of some things.

Being a member of both The International and the LSF while these things were happening, I feel I'm in pretty good standing to tell you what happened and why LSF held/holds INT in a different light to NATO.

The first thing to address is INT's involvement in the run up to the war. LSF was told by an INT government member (who will go unnamed) before the war started that it was an absolute certainty that they (and by extension CnG) would back LSF up if war came between LSF and NoR. This member then continued to egg LSF on throughout the "rogues, what rogues?" incident. (Irrelevant to the NoR war, but something to add too, this member also egged LSF on with the IRON apology). So, this wasn't some big LSF masterplan to manipulate INT and their allies - if anything, LSF were the ones who were manipulated. LSF also had somewhat of a "special relationship" with The International. Being both leftist alliances and with many of INT's members originating from LSF, it is ENTIRELY understandable that LSF would expect INT to be there with them as quickly as they could. These are the core reasons for LSF's frustration with the International.

At first, NATO gave us their support. They told us that they would come in for us if requested. Upon hearing that INT would not be coming in to support us, we immediately told NATO and the rest of our allies not to come in, because we knew we were going to get absolutely destroyed and understood how it would look if we asked these allies to come and follow us in being ground into the dust. We calculated, perhaps wrongly in retrospect, that asking NATO to come in without INT and CnG's help would end in almost certain defeat. So we decided to keep it one-on-one with NoR for the mean time. Nearly all (or perhaps all of them, I can't quite remember) of our other allies told us they were prepared to come in for us if requested, which explains why we're not bothered about UCR, SWF etc.

Once again, the same INT member came to us and told us that if we stuck it our for a few months, INT would come in after their war had ended and they'd had a chance to rebuilt. So once again, we carried on with our actions, spurred on by these encouraging words. And yet again, we were let down by the alliance for the second time.

So, Rush, did you just not know the full story? Or have you just decided that you're prepared to lie about us just to have a go at us?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Alex Thompson

[shwampy]

[quote name='Alex Thompson' timestamp='1348075874' post='3031865']
I originally decided to keep myself from posting in this thread, but I feel you need to be reminded of some things.

Being a member of both The International and the LSF while these things were happening, I feel I'm in pretty good standing to tell you what happened and why LSF held/holds INT in a different light to NATO.

The first thing to address is INT's involvement in the run up to the war. LSF was told by an INT government member (who will go unnamed) before the war started that it was an absolute certainty that they (and by extension CnG) would back LSF up if war came between LSF and NoR. This member then continued to egg LSF on throughout the "rogues, what rogues?" incident. (Irrelevant to the NoR war, but something to add too, this member also egged LSF on with the IRON apology). So, this wasn't some big LSF masterplan to manipulate INT and their allies - if anything, LSF were the ones who were manipulated. LSF also had somewhat of a "special relationship" with The International. Being both leftist alliances and with many of INT's members originating from LSF, it is ENTIRELY understandable that LSF would expect INT to be there with them as quickly as they could. These are the core reasons for LSF's frustration with the International.

At first, NATO gave us their support. They told us that they would come in for us if requested. Upon hearing that INT would not be coming in to support us, we immediately told NATO and the rest of our allies not to come in, because we knew we were going to get absolutely destroyed and understood how it would look if we asked these allies to come and follow us in being ground into the dust. We calculated, perhaps wrongly in retrospect, that asking NATO to come in without INT and CnG's help would end in almost certain defeat. So we decided to keep it one-on-one with NoR for the mean time. Nearly all (or perhaps all of them, I can't quite remember) of our other allies told us they were prepared to come in for us if requested, which explains why we're not bothered about UCR, SWF etc.

Once again, the same INT member came to us and told us that if we stuck it our for a few months, INT would come in after their war had ended and they'd had a chance to rebuilt. So once again, we carried on with our actions, spurred on by these encouraging words. And yet again, we were let down by the alliance for the second time.

So, Rush, did you just not know the full story? Or have you just decided that you're prepared to lie about us just to have a go at us?
[/quote]
yup, that about sums it up.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Alex Thompson' timestamp='1348075874' post='3031865']
I originally decided to keep myself from posting in this thread, but I feel you need to be reminded of some things.

Being a member of both The International and the LSF while these things were happening, I feel I'm in pretty good standing to tell you what happened and why LSF held/holds INT in a different light to NATO.

The first thing to address is INT's involvement in the run up to the war. LSF was told by an INT government member (who will go unnamed) before the war started that it was an absolute certainty that they (and by extension CnG) would back LSF up if war came between LSF and NoR. This member then continued to egg LSF on throughout the "rogues, what rogues?" incident. (Irrelevant to the NoR war, but something to add too, this member also egged LSF on with the IRON apology). So, this wasn't some big LSF masterplan to manipulate INT and their allies - if anything, LSF were the ones who were manipulated. LSF also had somewhat of a "special relationship" with The International. Being both leftist alliances and with many of INT's members originating from LSF, it is ENTIRELY understandable that LSF would expect INT to be there with them as quickly as they could. These are the core reasons for LSF's frustration with the International.

At first, NATO gave us their support. They told us that they would come in for us if requested. Upon hearing that INT would not be coming in to support us, we immediately told NATO and the rest of our allies not to come in, because we knew we were going to get absolutely destroyed and understood how it would look if we asked these allies to come and follow us in being ground into the dust. We calculated, perhaps wrongly in retrospect, that asking NATO to come in without INT and CnG's help would end in almost certain defeat. So we decided to keep it one-on-one with NoR for the mean time. Nearly all (or perhaps all of them, I can't quite remember) of our other allies told us they were prepared to come in for us if requested, which explains why we're not bothered about UCR, SWF etc.

Once again, the same INT member came to us and told us that if we stuck it our for a few months, INT would come in after their war had ended and they'd had a chance to rebuilt. So once again, we carried on with our actions, spurred on by these encouraging words. And yet again, we were let down by the alliance for the second time.

So, Rush, did you just not know the full story? Or have you just decided that you're prepared to lie about us just to have a go at us?
[/quote]

All of this is exactly what LSF's diplomat to CoJ told us at the beginning of the war, and is the basis for my criticisms of the mewling red mess INT, but not NATO. Now MagicNinja, Rush Sykes, Craig, and all you other clowns can go back to the circus where people want your jokes. Out here, we know the score.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Schattenmann

[magicninja]

I dont see why LSF would take 1 members word on anything knowing that the entire membership would need to be convinced it was a good idea much less CnG and the rest of INTs allies for something on the scale they were asking of all of us. Bottom line is we could've figured out an actual plan instead of having to back them up on their !@#$%^&* with no warning. It would have been different if they were the ones on the defensive but they started a war without regard for how anyone would actually feel about it. It was stupid on their part and quite frankly they got what they deserved for their stupidity.

[keeology]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348107883' post='3032055']
I dont see why LSF would take 1 members word on anything knowing that the entire membership would need to be convinced it was a good idea much less CnG and the rest of INTs allies for something on the scale they were asking of all of us. Bottom line is we could've figured out an actual plan instead of having to back them up on their !@#$%^&* with no warning. It would have been different if they were the ones on the defensive but they started a war without regard for how anyone would actually feel about it. It was stupid on their part and quite frankly they got what they deserved for their stupidity.
[/quote]


well when a leader of an alliance (even a democratic one) comes in and says yeah we have the votes for this and eggs on the fight then LSF would have a good assumption that "said leader" would gone to his allies and talk to them as well. thats a pretty safe assumption that apparently didnt happen. the fact is INT chicken out on LSF. LSF and INT drifted apart due to the war.

[magicninja]

[quote name='keeology' timestamp='1348108430' post='3032059']
well when a leader of an alliance (even a democratic one) comes in and says yeah we have the votes for this and eggs on the fight then LSF would have a good assumption that "said leader" would gone to his allies and talk to them as well. thats a pretty safe assumption that apparently didnt happen. the fact is INT chicken out on LSF. LSF and INT drifted apart due to the war.
[/quote]

INTs leaders who supported LSFs actions fought tooth and nail for LSF within CnGs halls. Trotsky should have gotten support before telling anyone anything. That said CnG told INT we'd roll if they did. Yes we still fought against it and even expressed our concerns to the people who would vote for or against war. In the end INT as a whole did not vote to activate an optional pact. LSF and Trotsky should not have jumped the gun. I don't see how INT as a whole is at fault in the slightest.