A Cancellation

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1348055322' post='3031770']
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.
[/quote]

You completely ignored everything I said, and spun it, good job, but it was pretty fail.

[Garion]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348057696' post='3031780']
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.
[/quote]

Are you ignoring on purpose the part where LSF states that Int gave their blessings to LSF endeavors, only to change their mind later?

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1348056817' post='3031774']
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.
[/quote]

We have masks for our allies on our boards that give near full access. Some Int members including their leader had these masks. The significance of this is that not only did Int know precisely what was happening before it happened but their leader was actively involved in the discussions where plans were formed. During those discussions guarantees were made. We didn't put anyone in any position, thanks for your contribution though.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Garion' timestamp='1348058112' post='3031783']
Are you ignoring on purpose the part where LSF states that Int gave their blessings to LSF endeavors, only to change their mind later?
[/quote]

Are you now going to ignore what the NATO and tR treaties say in word? See, I said VERY SPECIFICALLY, I know reading is hard , that they said they had certain promises from certain members of INT gov, and that may or may not be true, I have seen no logs, so I will stick with what I can see. What I can see is the treaty text. An attack on LSF, is an attack on NATO. There is no room for interpretation, there is no "military aid is sent by request" clause. It is, 100% factually, an attack on LSF is an attack on NATO. I know it suits your purpose to ignore THAT, but I will not let you ignore it. I said quite clearly, INT gov members may have or may not have made promises. I do not know. At this point, I have only LSF's word on it, and you know how much THAT is worth to me. If INT made those promises, they did so before discussing it with the bloc (C&G), which is something, to be bluntly honest, they would be pretty dumb for having done. But, until I see proof, and testimony from both sides, I will not state it as fact. What IS fact, and what IS undeniable, is the wording of the NATO and The Resistance treaties, something that public at large seems to be missing in their condemnation on INT, and INT alone.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348058305' post='3031785']
We have masks for our allies on our boards that give near full access. Some Int members including their leader had these masks. The significance of this is that not only did Int know precisely what was happening before it happened but their leader was actively involved in the discussions where plans were formed. During those discussions guarantees were made. We didn't put anyone in any position, thanks for your contribution though.
[/quote]

So both the LSF and INT were foolish. And what were MCXA, NATO and who ever else's opinions on those discussions?

[Hereno]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348058524' post='3031786']
Are you now going to ignore what the NATO and tR treaties say in word? See, I said VERY SPECIFICALLY, I know reading is hard , that they said they had certain promises from certain members of INT gov, and that may or may not be true, I have seen no logs, so I will stick with what I can see. What I can see is the treaty text. An attack on LSF, is an attack on NATO. There is no room for interpretation, there is no "military aid is sent by request" clause. It is, 100% factually, an attack on LSF is an attack on NATO. I know it suits your purpose to ignore THAT, but I will not let you ignore it. I said quite clearly, INT gov members may have or may not have made promises. I do not know. At this point, I have only LSF's word on it, and you know how much THAT is worth to me. If INT made those promises, they did so before discussing it with the bloc (C&G), which is something, to be bluntly honest, they would be pretty dumb for having done. But, until I see proof, and testimony from both sides, I will not state it as fact. What IS fact, and what IS undeniable, is the wording of the NATO and The Resistance treaties, something that public at large seems to be missing in their condemnation on INT, and INT alone.
[/quote]

Holy e-lawyering, shut up. Nobody gives a !@#$ about the specific wording of treaties. If you don't want to believe the truth, that is your perogative.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1348058875' post='3031789']
So both the LSF and INT were foolish. And what were MCXA, NATO and who ever else's opinions on those discussions?
[/quote]

NATO et al had little to zero input. The irony of this is that they were still willing to burn for something for which they bore no responsibility. That is not something that we wanted, it would have benefited no one. They offered to come in, we told them not too. It's not rocket science.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348059210' post='3031793']
NATO et al had little to zero input. The irony of this is that they were still willing to burn for something for which they bore no responsibility. That is not something that we wanted, it would have benefited no one. They offered to come in, we told them not too. It's not rocket science.
[/quote]

I never asked if you requested their support. I simply asked how much input they had in the discussions leading up to the war.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348059153' post='3031791']
Holy e-lawyering, shut up. Nobody gives a !@#$ about the specific wording of treaties. If you don't want to believe the truth, that is your perogative.
[/quote]

Nobody cares about the wording of treaties. THATS GREAT! then INT had no obligation. Thank you sir, You have cleared things up. We can all go home now.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348059210' post='3031793']
NATO et al had little to zero input. The irony of this is that they were still willing to burn for something for which they bore no responsibility. That is not something that we wanted, it would have benefited no one. They offered to come in, we told them not too. It's not rocket science.
[/quote]

So then, what your treaties say, mean nothing. I really dont think you want that to be the accepted standard.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1348059312' post='3031794']
I never asked if you requested their support. I simply asked how much input they had in the discussions leading up to the war.
[/quote]

I told you, next to zero. I gave you some more details as well, because I'm a nice person

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348059581' post='3031797']
So then, what your treaties say, mean nothing. I really dont think you want that to be the accepted standard.
[/quote]

It's long been the accepted standard that allies with non optional treaties, when the situation suits, request that their treaty partners keep out of a conflict. You know this, I know this.

[Crownguard]

Normally I wouldn't want to comment on this, but a minor correction to words that were spoken:

Sabcat:

[quote=Sabcat]. If victory is still possible lets do it. If not, then for $%&@s sake don't come into a beat down through some sense of honour. It's going to get some angry reactions from some LSF members if you don't but the truth is, a strong left alliance is more important than some LSF pixels. We're indestructible anyway. We can rebuild (you can help us) and we can work something else out in the future.[/quote]

I'll screen-shot if if I have to, but they're your words from your embassy and you ideally being a bastion of upholding truth in the telling, I'll trust you won't deny them.

I'm aware you are pissed off, my personal opinion about how things went is already noted, but be straight about how the *entirety* of it went, thanks. I'll accept that people think we're !@#$%^&*, but let's all be honest !@#$%^&* about the whole affair.

-CG

EDIT: I left out a bit of the more inflammatory remarks in the post, but the point ideally remains the same.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Crownguard

[Garion]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348058524' post='3031786']
Are you now going to ignore what the NATO and tR treaties say in word? See, I said VERY SPECIFICALLY, I know reading is hard , that they said they had certain promises from certain members of INT gov, and that may or may not be true, I have seen no logs, so I will stick with what I can see. What I can see is the treaty text. An attack on LSF, is an attack on NATO. There is no room for interpretation, there is no "military aid is sent by request" clause. It is, 100% factually, an attack on LSF is an attack on NATO. I know it suits your purpose to ignore THAT, but I will not let you ignore it. I said quite clearly, INT gov members may have or may not have made promises. I do not know. At this point, I have only LSF's word on it, and you know how much THAT is worth to me. If INT made those promises, they did so before discussing it with the bloc (C&G), which is something, to be bluntly honest, they would be pretty dumb for having done. But, until I see proof, and testimony from both sides, I will not state it as fact. What IS fact, and what IS undeniable, is the wording of the NATO and The Resistance treaties, something that public at large seems to be missing in their condemnation on INT, and INT alone.
[/quote]

You could have simply said: "Yeah, I' aware of Int support for LSF before the war actually happened, but I choose to ignore it and pursue instead a different line of defence that ignores what happened in favor of my spinning".

Even better: "We strongarmed Int in not defending their ally after those idiots supported LSF in the build up to that war. This is the extent of my alliance's influence!".

No need for these walls of text, really. I actually admire the ability with which you guys were able to tarnish Int's reputation in a few weeks. That was a real masterstroke.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348059813' post='3031799']
It's long been the accepted standard that allies with non optional treaties, when the situation suits, request that their treaty partners keep out of a conflict. You know this, I know this.
[/quote]

It has NOT long been the accepted standard. If it were, you wouldnt see so many treaties specifically spelling out this very situation since 2011. You are quite frankly, wrong. What a treaty says matters, if it does not, then the treaty itself does not matter.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Crownguard' timestamp='1348059857' post='3031800']
Normally I wouldn't want to comment on this, but a minor correction to words that were spoken:

Sabcat:



I'll screen-shot if if I have to, but they're your words from your embassy and you ideally being a bastion of upholding truth in the telling, I'll trust you won't deny them.

I'm aware you are pissed off, my personal opinion about how things went is already noted, but be straight about how the *entirety* of it went, thanks. I'll accept that people think we're !@#$%^&*, but let's all be honest !@#$%^&* about the whole affair.

-CG

EDIT: I left out a bit of the more inflammatory remarks in the post, but the point ideally remains the same.
[/quote]

I don't deny them, no. As I said in your embassy yesterday - I would, given the choice have not made the formal request to Int to enter - What you don't realise is who that post was aimed at. Reference the screen shots in your embassy and I'm sure the scales will fall from your eyes.

I'm also not pissed off. As I said in your embassy, this cancellation became inevitable before nukes even flew. There is nothing else that could happen.

What you, and your allies need to accept is that you are not being held to a unique set of standards that do not apply to NATO et al.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348058524' post='3031786']
Are you now going to ignore what the NATO and tR treaties say in word? See, I said VERY SPECIFICALLY, I know reading is hard , that they said they had certain promises from certain members of INT gov, and that may or may not be true, I have seen no logs, so I will stick with what I can see. What I can see is the treaty text. An attack on LSF, is an attack on NATO. There is no room for interpretation, there is no "military aid is sent by request" clause. It is, 100% factually, an attack on LSF is an attack on NATO. I know it suits your purpose to ignore THAT, but I will not let you ignore it. I said quite clearly, INT gov members may have or may not have made promises. I do not know. At this point, I have only LSF's word on it, and you know how much THAT is worth to me. If INT made those promises, they did so before discussing it with the bloc (C&G), which is something, to be bluntly honest, they would be pretty dumb for having done. But, until I see proof, and testimony from both sides, I will not state it as fact. What IS fact, and what IS undeniable, is the wording of the NATO and The Resistance treaties, something that public at large seems to be missing in their condemnation on INT, and INT alone.
[/quote]

You seem desperate to rationalize CnG going back on its word (as well as MK,) in thumbing its nose up at Int, whom was actively in planning LSF's course of action and had pledged to eventually support them.

The real irony is that in your incessant berating of LSF and strong-arming of your own ally in Int to not defend its allies came at a time when you bent over backwards for dear old MK.

[D34th]

I love how they give up the defense of The Interoptional and now are trying the "But INT was not the only one to blame!" strategy.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348060049' post='3031802']
It has NOT long been the accepted standard. If it were, you wouldnt see so many treaties specifically spelling out this very situation since 2011. You are quite frankly, wrong. What a treaty says matters, if it does not, then the treaty itself does not matter.
[/quote]

cut the !@#$@#$ spin:

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NSO-RoK_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NEW-DF_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/R%26R-UINE_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NG-SOS%E5%9B%A3_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NG-UPN_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Legion-Tetris_War


those were just ones off the top of my head, i'm sure we can easily search for more if you wish

[Sabcat]

Stop forcing Rush to confront reality, as far as he's concerned, it's something that happens to other people.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348060819' post='3031809']
You seem desperate to rationalize CnG going back on its word (as well as MK,) in thumbing its nose up at Int, whom was actively in planning LSF's course of action and had pledged to eventually support them.

The real irony is that in your incessant berating of LSF and strong-arming of your own ally in Int to not defend its allies came at a time when you bent over backwards for dear old MK.
[/quote]

nah, real irony is only ally who pledged to back INT no matter what got cancelled on

edit:

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348061278' post='3031813']
Stop forcing Rush to confront reality, as far as he's concerned, it's something that happens to other people.
[/quote]


heh, at this point i'm trying to figure out how he's able to make all these nonsense posts so quickly

Edited September 19, 2012 by Lurunin

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348061278' post='3031813']
Stop forcing Rush to confront reality, as far as he's concerned, it's something that happens to other people.
[/quote]

Rush is quite in touch with reality, even if retired. (and perhaps on his deathbed soon (Kidding, love you Rush.))

He's just being a good soldier.

[Elorian]

There was a treaty and now it's gone. Most of what I've read here by the rabid criticizers of the International, has been pure speculation. LSF was the offender and helping them was -optional-. INT opted not to. Can we just get over the whole paranoid "CnG and MK did this for X reason" crap and move back to whining about micros and the decline of the world's population?

[wes the wise]

From what I'm seeing here, it looks like INT was screwed almost as badly as LSF. I'm wondering if INT should be canceling some treaties themselves. I've seen this sort of thing happen in CnG before.

[Thrash]

[quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1348062932' post='3031822']
I'm wondering if INT should be canceling some treaties themselves. I've seen this sort of thing happen in CnG before.
[/quote]

Don't hold your breath.