A Cancellation

[IYIyTh]

Since there can be only one iceburn , I got here late.

Edited September 19, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Reyas' timestamp='1348019588' post='3031637']
So basically, you'd support MCXA in a pre-empt of another alliance when they ignored their own tie to LSF? Stunning.
[/quote]

MCXA did their thing for another ally. One way or the other MCXA burned to help an ally. It may not have been LSF but it showed they are loyal to their allies. The one difference you forget to mention is MCXA did not ignore an MDoAP ally. LSF was an oDoAP ally which means not only optional aggression but also optional defense.

The International on the other hand, ignored their longest held treaty that was an MDoAP. Also, I am having a hard time keeping a straight face about someone from ODN complaining about pre-empts or having an ally that ignores a treaty to LSF.

Pre-empts are apparently the norm now, get with the times mate.

Also, it appears that Sabcat already told you all that was really needed to be said.

[King Brandon]

Int lost nothing of value here, grats guys.

Also I don't see how you guys can still paint LSF as the victim, when LSF has been completely retarded the last couple months. Let's not forget about their IRON apology... btw guess who was there trying to help them out of trouble?

Edited September 19, 2012 by King Brandon

[Bob]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1348021618' post='3031657']
As for Int not defending LSF, LSF deliberately got themselves into this fight and then tried to manipulate their treaty to try to force Int to support their aggressive actions. [/quote]
No but you see, that's cool as long as it could hurt MK.

[Grigoris Lambrakis]

Well, I handled LSF's FA for a good moment during this war. LSF had 2 major allies and none of the two was allowed to enter this conflict. Nothing shocking there for anyone accustomed to the way the CN food chain works. The difference is that NATO was clear and responsible about it. If Int had acted the way NATO did, we wouldn't be here today I believe. But here we are, an ancient treaty cancelled, Int losing a friend that has gone to bat 4 times for us, and the word incompetency more than fitting.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

And nothing of value was lost.

[BloodFury]

Congratulations LSF, this is a good move in my books.

[quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1348022100' post='3031661']
Guess you hadn't returned yet when the RoK drama going on.
[/quote]

I'm not quite sure if that is a hit on The Combine or not, but I am going to assume it is and that you aren't aware of the Ragnarok situation. We were well prepared to stand with Ragnarok even with every one of their other allies canceling on them, however the actions of Adel undermined every attempt at ours to smooth things over with other alliances for them and to work out things with the tech raids on their protectorate, that we were pushed into a position where we were not going to defend the actions of their government any longer. We were still prepared to defend their members from actions, but if Ragnarok pushed itself into a position because of the failings of its government we were not going to be placed into a position to defend stupidity from a group that had undermined the last government and made an illegal coup.

[Incitatus]

[quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1348003504' post='3031540']
There was a treaty? Had me fooled
[/quote]



LSF, you're better without.

[Mogar]

good on you LSF.

[Princess Erix]

[quote name='Nemhauser' timestamp='1348019322' post='3031633']
I can understand very well why INT didn't helped LSF. It's like this little kid being friends with a big kid and uses that friendship to pick a fight with another big kid, hoping his friend will come to his aid. In this case it didn't work and the little kid got stomped and lost his friend in the process.
[/quote]

What a nice analogy

Either way, what a nice beginning to more drama.

Wishing LSF all the best still

[berbers]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1348021618' post='3031657']
Congrats International!

As for Int not defending LSF, LSF deliberately got themselves into this fight and then tried to manipulate their treaty to try to force Int to support their aggressive actions. I'd be pretty pissed at LSF if I was Int. Good riddance at the treaty.
[/quote]

Except for you know the 100 comments over the last 4 months that show Int gave assurances pre-war and then backed away once the bullets started flying.

Dude 1: Hey friend, I think I am going to jump that big guy over there
Dude 2: Awesome friend, if you do, I've totally got your back and will hit the big guy with this rock when he's distracted fighting you
/CHARRRRGE
Dude 2: Oh yeah, I forgot I had to be somewhere else, see ya

Edit:

[quote name='Pacifist Ninja' timestamp='1348013226' post='3031607']
Most General Response to some concerns: I don't know for sure if LSF would have gone to war if it weren't for the support and unofficial promises LSF received from Int beforehand.
[/quote]

Edited September 19, 2012 by berbers

[Garion]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348007494' post='3031569']
What [s]LSF[/s] MK did was dumb and wrong, and they were clearly the aggressors, but INT supported them and also allowed another treaty partner to be attacked for INT bloc partners because of MK...


[/quote]

[img]http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/1720-ba-dum-tss.png[/img]


Yeah, but double standards... don't forget them.

[President S O]

Congratulations, LSF.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Reyas' timestamp='1348019257' post='3031632']
Larger alliances than INT ignored the same treaty obligations. I look forward to seeing you cancel on them as well.
[/quote]

LoL, this will not happen because those pressing the "RAWR INT SUCKS" line, have designs set on killing C&G (through extension of killing MK)... for this, they need NPO and friends, therefore, publicly calling out NATO, who were in an equal position to make the same difference to LSF that INT could make, will not further their agenda, hence sweeping it under the rug quietly, and keeping together their hopes of future coalition building, by not bashing those they need in the coalition, keeps their dream alive. Everyone sees it, nobody will discuss it though. The world is such a cute place.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348020487' post='3031643']
All but one of those alliances offered to enter in our defence within 96 hours of the beginning of the war without the conditions you seem to believe they attached. Only one alliance had an obligation to support us and they refused to do so. We burnt. There would have been no point in allowing allies who were largely unaware of the way the situation developed to burn with us. They had after all not been fully informed of the situation as it developed or offered guarantees of support before the fact.

Only one cancellation is appropriate and we have made it.
[/quote]

Im curious as to how with all those MDoAP ties listed above, only 1 alliance had an obligation to defend you. Serious question.

From the NATO treaty:

Article I: Mutual Defense
Any declaration of war upon a member of either signatory is considered an act of aggression to the undersigned signatories. Peace will only be offered through mutual consent of the alliances represented by the undersigned. Diplomatic channels will remain open to ensure that all signatories are aware of any potential threats developing to either alliances' safety. In the event either signatory declares war via activation of a clause from another treaty, and therefore requests the other signatory's assistance after coming under attack, the mandatory defense is then considered optional defense.
______________________________________________________________________ Looks like a defense obligation to me, it does not say "defense must be requested"____________________________________



From the Resistance Treaty:
Article IV: Mutual DefenseEdit
Both tR and LSF undertake to defend each other should either be subject to aggression by an outside alliance. It is understood that an attack on one signatory is an attack on both signatories, and that if defense is requested, it must be undertaken to the fullest capabilities of both signatories.

______________________________________________________________________ Sure looks like an obligation to me if you were in a defensive war.____________________________________________________


On the other hand, if you want to admit that you were not in a defensive war, then I fail to see how you can say INT had an "obligation" to you. You may have had an expectation (the veracity of which I will not debate, because I was not privy to any of your conversations with them), but an expectation and an obligation are not the same. So I ask you, were you in a defensive war with NoR? Or were you in an aggressive war with NoR. OA clauses exist, presumably, for a reason(that reason is not to have to follow someone else's blind stupidity). So, I eagerly await your answers.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348025285' post='3031681']
How many alliances MK manipulated last war to support their aggressive actions? Should all of them be pretty pissed at MK too?
[/quote]

Who did they manipulate, and how did they manipulate them? I don't really expect you will answer (mostly because you cannot), but I will ask anyways.

[Groucho Marx]

If you're expecting serious answers to your questions Rush I suggest not holding your breath for them.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348049170' post='3031756']
LoL, this will not happen because those pressing the "RAWR INT SUCKS" line, have designs set on killing C&G (through extension of killing MK)... for this, they need NPO and friends, therefore, publicly calling out NATO, who were in an equal position to make the same difference to LSF that INT could make, will not further their agenda, hence sweeping it under the rug quietly, and keeping together their hopes of future coalition building, by not bashing those they need in the coalition, keeps their dream alive. Everyone sees it, nobody will discuss it though. The world is such a cute place.
[/quote]

This strikes me as extremely paranoid.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348049815' post='3031758']
Im curious as to how with all those MDoAP ties listed above, only 1 alliance had an obligation to defend you. Serious question.
[/quote]

NATO offered to come in at the start of the war - they clearly felt an obligation to defend us as did SWF, MCXA and Tetris. Your criticism of our allies is as misinformed as it is unjustified. In our eyes none of these alliances had any obligation. Remember your little tantrum on irc when you accused me of "swinging my bloc like a Louisville slugger"? You aimed it at the wrong person. Guarantees were provided to the LSF before the war, advice was given. The provider of these guarantees had the obligation and we are no longer allied to them.

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348049973' post='3031759']
Who did they manipulate, and how did they manipulate them? I don't really expect you will answer (mostly because you cannot), but I will ask anyways.
[/quote]

What? Manipulation.

Why? Power addiction.

Where? Cybeverse.

When? Last war, but it's happening since Karma war.

Who? Almost, if not everyone, who supported/enabled them last war.

How? I'm sure they used many techniques, from bribe to coercion.

How much (it will last)? I hope it's going to end soon.

[quote]I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
I send them over land and sea,
I send them east and west;
But after they have worked for me,
I give them all a rest.

I let them rest from nine till five,
For I am busy then,
As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea,
For they are hungry men.
But different folk have different views;
I know a person small—
She keeps ten million serving-men,
Who get no rest at all!

She sends'em abroad on her own affairs,
From the second she opens her eyes—
One million Hows, two million Wheres,
And seven million Whys![/quote]

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348049815' post='3031758']
Im curious as to how with all those MDoAP ties listed above, only 1 alliance had an obligation to defend you. Serious question.
[/quote]

Is that the new CnG way? You have other treaty partners and you're not MK, so we're not going to bother defending our "ally" when you need the help.

Edited September 19, 2012 by supercoolyellow

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1348004855' post='3031552']
"What LSF did was dumb and wrong, and they were clearly the aggressors, but INT still should have entered the war for them!"


Come on, Doch, you're better than this. It's gotta be one or the other, 'cause it can't be both.
[/quote]


Suggestion for new INT MDoAPs

Article X. "If one of the parties interprets that the other did a "dumb" move the other is not obligated to help"

Article Y. "If one of the parties is attacked, the other can avoid entering the conflict by saying that "they were clearly the aggressors"

[Groucho Marx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but LSF's members were the first to declare on Nordreich and then the alliance as a whole refused to end the hostilities when approached diplomatically. They even stated that they were going to see their mission or whatever through until the end - the eradication of "fascist oppressors" - Nordreich. LSF as a whole may not have intended to start a war with Nordreich, but their collective actions were of an aggressive nature. They were also incredibly stupid. If the LSF was really a good ally they wouldn't have put their treaty partners in the position that they did and then become indignant towards them when they refused to participate in that farce. And nobody can possibly accuse the International of being in the wrong for refusing to go to war on an oA clause, or moreover ask the LSF if they could assist in the first place, without being a colossal moron or a spin doctor.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348051946' post='3031763']
This strikes me as extremely paranoid.
[/quote]

It's not paranoid, it is pretty factual. Or perhaps you have a better explanation for why NATO (who was as much a game changer as INT for LSF), gets 0 fallout, and everyone is RAWR INT!. There is no explanation. There is a future gambit at play. There is ALWAYS a future gambit at play.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348053100' post='3031764']
NATO offered to come in at the start of the war - they clearly felt an obligation to defend us as did SWF, MCXA and Tetris. Your criticism of our allies is as misinformed as it is unjustified. In our eyes none of these alliances had any obligation. Remember your little tantrum on irc when you accused me of "swinging my bloc like a Louisville slugger"? You aimed it at the wrong person. Guarantees were provided to the LSF before the war, advice was given. The provider of these guarantees had the obligation and we are no longer allied to them.
[/quote]

They offered, but they didnt. The treaty that you hold with NATO, is not one that is activated on request, its right there to read. You say INT had an obligation, based on things that people said to you before the attack, you may or may not be right, my point is , alliances like NATO and The Resistance had the EXACT same obligation on paper. So, what exactly was the line of thought with LSF saying to NATO "you do not have to come in for us", but at the same time, not affording INT the exact same courtesy? Is that the way your treaties are expected to work? I did not pick the word obligation, others did. The words are there for everyone to see, we all know what obligation means.