A Cancellation

[Garion]

[quote name='Elorian' timestamp='1348061833' post='3031818']
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?
[/quote]

[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]

I'll quote myself.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1348061150' post='3031812']
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
[/quote]

In each of those, save Legion-Tetris, the non-responding allies were roundly called out for their inaction. In the case of Legion, their treaties specifically state that defense is at request. So, once again, no, it is NOT the universally accepted standard.

[Crownguard]

I wasn't aware we had to give our blessings to others deciding what they want to do in their actions. See, LSF had said (due to internal inactivity) that it wanted an eternal war with NoR. This was something we, as Congress, kinda take into account when we're asked about such things by external alliances.

It's nice to know we have that sort of rubberstamp though, I'm sure it will be useful one day.

As others have said before, it is wonderful to see so many people interested in how INT decided things. People with a deep grasp of our internal affairs and all that. I could go on about how we actually hold votes to decide an FA path and the mistakes of someone making promises (even a government member) aren't valid til they are voted on by Congress (you know, supposedly a democracy and all that) but I guess the point would be lost.

-CG

[Hereno]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348065789' post='3031833']
In each of those, save Legion-Tetris, the non-responding allies were roundly called out for their inaction. In the case of Legion, their treaties specifically state that defense is at request. So, once again, no, it is NOT the universally accepted standard.
[/quote]

There is a clause in the NSO-Tetris treaty specifically making fun of !@#$%^&* like this, and I am proud to have wrote it. I can't believe you're actually pulling the "you can't tell your allies to stay out" line in a world where pre-empts are the norm and CBs don't matter. LSF told their allies to stay out when it was clear that INT was going to take MK's bargain. The only thing I'm left wondering, at this point, was if ODN or TLR knew MK never planned to honor their promise to drop NoR in exchange for LSF burning for months to save them and allow CNG some peace of mind, or if that came later on and they rolled with it like the good cocksuckers that they are.

[Kestral]

[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 basically you're upset that Int didn't offer help that you were then intending to refuse anyway? Unless you're saying that you'd like only Int to have burned for something for which they bore no responsibility...

Int held a MDoaP with you, you attacked aggressively, they decided not to bring all their allies (inc CnG) into the firing line to help with your aggressive (and quite honestly cowardly - I mean spying like that? really?) crusade.

I get that it would have given you that warm fuzzy feeling if they'd decided to sacrifice their allies to OPTIONALLY assist your foolishness so that you could be all like 'Oh no, we don't want you to get involved anyway' and feel like you've somehow saved your allies from a threat (which you created), but to try and drag their name through the dirt after all they did to try and help you out of your own mess? To be honest I'm just glad this treaty went, Int deserve better.

[Mr Vicarious]

[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]

I'm curious as to who MCXA preempted. It sounds like I missed a pretty good war sometime in the last few months.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348066306' post='3031835']
There is a clause in the NSO-Tetris treaty specifically making fun of !@#$%^&* like this, and I am proud to have wrote it. I can't believe you're actually pulling the "you can't tell your allies to stay out" line in a world where pre-empts are the norm and CBs don't matter. LSF told their allies to stay out when it was clear that INT was going to take MK's bargain. The only thing I'm left wondering, at this point, was if ODN or TLR knew MK never planned to honor their promise to drop NoR in exchange for LSF burning for months to save them and allow CNG some peace of mind, or if that came later on and they rolled with it like the good cocksuckers that they are.
[/quote]

A clause in the NSO-Tetris treaty means nothing to me. Clauses like those in Legion ( and many others since mid-2010), that specifically signify military aid being required at request, would not exist if IT WERE ALREADY THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD. Those clauses exist because it is NOT the universal standard.

[Garion]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348066306' post='3031835']
The only thing I'm left wondering, at this point, was if ODN or TLR knew MK never planned to honor their promise to drop NoR in exchange for LSF burning for months to save them and allow CNG some peace of mind, or if that came later on and they rolled with it like the good cocksuckers that they are.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think we all have heard about this during and after the war. Anyone in TLR or ODN care to elaborate? Don't let the curious bystanders down

Was it a rumor spread by malicious enemies of C&G only? Did nothing of the sort happen?
Or was this a real promise? Were they effectively forbidden from bringing that plan into fruition? Or did they simply agree to not go ahead with it?

[Thane Carcajou]

[quote name='Kestral' timestamp='1348066889' post='3031836']
So basically you're upset that Int didn't offer help that you were then intending to refuse anyway? Unless you're saying that you'd like only Int to have burned for something for which they bore no responsibility...

Int held a MDoaP with you, you attacked aggressively, they decided not to bring all their allies (inc CnG) into the firing line to help with your aggressive (and quite honestly cowardly - I mean spying like that? really?) crusade.

I get that it would have given you that warm fuzzy feeling if they'd decided to sacrifice their allies to OPTIONALLY assist your foolishness so that you could be all like 'Oh no, we don't want you to get involved anyway' and feel like you've somehow saved your allies from a threat (which you created), but to try and drag their name through the dirt after all they did to try and help you out of your own mess? To be honest I'm just glad this treaty went, Int deserve better.
[/quote]

Read the discussion. LSF is stating that they had talks with Int about a war against the fascists. They did not expect other treaty partners, who did not have ideological issues with the fascists, to support them. They did however expect certain contributions from their treaty partner The International. The International failed to deliver for whatever reason and that treaty is cancelled as a result.

Various people will have various theories as why The International unsurprisingly failed to deliver, but the point is that LSF felt they had a certain understanding how a specific treaty would chain. They did have expectations regarding how others would opt to chain and thus they remain on good terms with them.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348067259' post='3031838']
A clause in the NSO-Tetris treaty means nothing to me. Clauses like those in Legion ( and many others since mid-2010), that specifically signify military aid being required at request, would not exist if IT WERE ALREADY THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD. Those clauses exist because it is NOT the universal standard.
[/quote]

It doesn't surprise me that a degenerate powindah such as yourself might actually believe the tripe you are slinging. However, believing in the promises and ability of powindah to be saved from their condition is what doomed the Elesufis from the start. Straying from the word of Elesef, the one true god, doomed LSF's war from the very beginning. It was a divine punishment, a punishment for believing that the dirty powindah such as yourself have any honor, integrity, or dignity left beyond that which the poo-eating powindah sacrifice to throw their blocs to the wolves to willing enslave themselves to the will of puppetmasters.

It is the regrettable but inevitable position of the powindah to e-lawyer on an internet forum for hours about the wording of particular treaties in hopes of not having to displease their masters. Unfortunately, since my leave from LSF, I too am degenerating to the point where I thought it a good idea to actually engage misguided powindah in discussion. But the opinions of powindah cannot be changed, for they do not in truth exist. And so I leave you to rot. Be gone, willing tool!

[Sabcat]

Also, there was no spying, I'm not sure where that comes from.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348068316' post='3031842']
It doesn't surprise me that a degenerate powindah such as yourself might actually believe the tripe you are slinging. However, believing in the promises and ability of powindah to be saved from their condition is what doomed the Elesufis from the start. Straying from the word of Elesef, the one true god, doomed LSF's war from the very beginning. It was a divine punishment, a punishment for believing that the dirty powindah such as yourself have any honor, integrity, or dignity left beyond that which the poo-eating powindah sacrifice to throw their blocs to the wolves to willing enslave themselves to the will of puppetmasters.

It is the regrettable but inevitable position of the powindah to e-lawyer on an internet forum for hours about the wording of particular treaties in hopes of not having to displease their masters. Unfortunately, since my leave from LSF, I too am degenerating to the point where I thought it a good idea to actually engage misguided powindah in discussion. But the opinions of powindah cannot be changed, for they do not in truth exist. And so I leave you to rot. Be gone, willing tool!
[/quote]

If the words on the paper do not mean much, then all treaties should read as the Athens-MK MDoAP read. That people take the time, and the care to formulate words like "an attack on X is an attack on Y" , that they cling to words like mandatory and obligation, says to me that some people actually do care what words they put on paper.

For reference: The entirety of the Athens-MK treaty text reads : "This is a non-chaining mutual defense and optional aggression pact"

Edited September 19, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Crownguard' timestamp='1348066224' post='3031834']
I wasn't aware we had to give our blessings to others deciding what they want to do in their actions. See, LSF had said (due to internal inactivity) that it wanted an eternal war with NoR. This was something we, as Congress, kinda take into account when we're asked about such things by external alliances.

It's nice to know we have that sort of rubberstamp though, I'm sure it will be useful one day.

As others have said before, it is wonderful to see so many people interested in how INT decided things. People with a deep grasp of our internal affairs and all that. I could go on about how we actually hold votes to decide an FA path and the mistakes of someone making promises (even a government member) aren't valid til they are voted on by Congress (you know, supposedly a democracy and all that) but I guess the point would be lost.

-CG
[/quote]

It's a terrible injustice isn't it, all this trolling of Int? Why don't you simply honour the intelligence clauses you have with your remaining allies and provide them with the details of what was said by your leader to us (I handily gave you screen shots)? If you do this then Rush etc. will stop posting here asking us dumb questions and understand perfectly why we cancelled our treaty with you and have no plans to cancel any other treaties.

[Wobblies]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348068316' post='3031842']
It doesn't surprise me that a degenerate powindah such as yourself might actually believe the tripe you are slinging. However, believing in the promises and ability of powindah to be saved from their condition is what doomed the Elesufis from the start. Straying from the word of Elesef, the one true god, doomed LSF's war from the very beginning. It was a divine punishment, a punishment for believing that the dirty powindah such as yourself have any honor, integrity, or dignity left beyond that which the poo-eating powindah sacrifice to throw their blocs to the wolves to willing enslave themselves to the will of puppetmasters.

It is the regrettable but inevitable position of the powindah to e-lawyer on an internet forum for hours about the wording of particular treaties in hopes of not having to displease their masters. Unfortunately, since my leave from LSF, I too am degenerating to the point where I thought it a good idea to actually engage misguided powindah in discussion. But the opinions of powindah cannot be changed, for they do not in truth exist. And so I leave you to rot. Be gone, willing tool!
[/quote]
Now were talking, right on brother!

[Wyrmon]

[quote name='Garion' timestamp='1348067706' post='3031839']
Yeah, I think we all have heard about this during and after the war. Anyone in TLR or ODN care to elaborate? Don't let the curious bystanders down

Was it a rumor spread by malicious enemies of C&G only? Did nothing of the sort happen?
Or was this a real promise? Were they effectively forbidden from bringing that plan into fruition? Or did they simply agree to not go ahead with it?
[/quote]


The future has not yet been written.

[Crownguard]

Funny enough, he doesn't speak for Congress. Any member can make promises on a forum all day long, but they mean as much as one you or Pile Butts would make to us.

I made the point that back before May, before May Day, prior to the Martens 2012 campaign. It was laid out to us (perhaps right or wrong) that you wished for [u]eternal war with Nordreich[/u]. That you didn't care about the game much anymore and wanted to go out with a bang.

You wanted us back them to come in on it with you and we talked things down to help you along with the Martens campaign as light-hearted fun. Back then you pushed for war, and wanted to plan on it, and were convinced to switch it over to Martens. This would be in March, back in your embassy.

I know memories are a bit short, but perhaps that is one of the reasons why the votes, coupled with the issue with IRON and your own previous words, were the reason we as Congress (who decide on war by the way, not Trotsky) that it voted Nay.

Funny enough, I should almost make a caveat to show my obvious bias:

Given how I was one of the people who actually typed up a vote to consider going to war with you, I guess I would be remiss for not mentioning that. I have/had sympathy, but there is a difference between a war with an objective and one where you say "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

But by all means, carry on. It makes for good OWF drama. The world needs more drama.

-CG

Edited September 19, 2012 by Crownguard

[Stewie]

Good luck to both parties moving forward.

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

Honestly, I believe that both sides weren't innocent of being defensive. It was certain by the time the war broke out both NoR and LSF wanted to be the !@#$ out of each other, or else the war wouldn't have been going on as long as this.

Beyond those semantics, if it was so criminal that INT did not join the war, why wasn't any of LSF's [b]mutual[/b] defence partners were criticized for not going to war for them? I am sure those alliances would have been sufficient.

Oh wait, some were hoping for INT's allies to jump onto the war? Guess that didn't happen.

Anyways, my condolence to both INT and LSF. It is a sad day were long time allies separate.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Crownguard' timestamp='1348072294' post='3031857']
I don't speak for Trotsky and, funny enough, he doesn't speak for Congress. He can make promises on a forum all day long, but they mean as much as one you or Pile Butts would make to us.

I made the point that back before May, before May Day, prior to the Martens 2012 campaign. It was laid out to us (perhaps right or wrong) that you wished for [u]eternal war with Nordreich[/u]. That you didn't care about the game much anymore and wanted to go out with a bang.

You wanted us back them to come in on it with you and we talked things down to help you along with the Martens campaign as light-hearted fun. Back then you pushed for war, and wanted to plan on it, and were convinced to switch it over to Martens. This would be in March, back in your embassy.

I know memories are a bit short, but perhaps that is one of the reasons why the votes, coupled with the issue with IRON and your own previous words, were the reason we as Congress (who decide on war by the way, not Trotsky) that it voted Nay.

Funny enough, I should almost make a caveat to show my obvious bias:

Given how I was one of the people who actually typed up a vote to consider going to war with you, I guess I would be remiss for not mentioning that. I have/had sympathy, but there is a difference between a war with an objective and one where you say "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

But by all means, carry on. It makes for good OWF drama. The world needs more drama.

-CG
[/quote]

On the cancellation thread in your embassy people are saying the war council decided, not the membership. Here you're saying the membership decided. Flip flop. You're a flakey bunch who won't take responsibility for anything, you elected your leaders but what for?

What you don't get is that you weren't voting to go to war for us but yourselves, we've come out of this just fine.

[Commander shepard]

[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]


[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348057486' post='3031778']
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.
[/quote]


INT has a great history and friendship with their allies in LSF, it would have been rude to insult INT by taking their spot at helm especially when they were not asked to do so.

You retired? Perhaps your nation is suffering from PTSD.

[Sir Humphrey]

I don't have any vested interest in this cancellation, but since Rush insists on continuing to fling mud at NATO, I will say this: Due to the aggressive actions of the LSF nations at the beginning of its conflict with NoR, we initially concluded that entering the war would have involved the activation of the oA clause of our treaty, rather than MD. This assessment might have changed over time if NoR appeared to be offering unreasonable terms to stop the war.

In the meantime, MK kicked off its war with CSN, and our ally in R&R was attacked. Faced with the option of entering either war, we felt we had a greater obligation to enter for R&R given it was clearly on the defensive side of the war, and to honour our pre-war (and pre-LSF v NoR war) commitments.

It appears to me that LSF has cancelled on INT not because it did not enter the conflict with NoR per se, but due to differences in their understanding of pre-war commitments made based on discussions between them, and thus an apparent divergence in interests. LSF has just as much right to cancel its treaty with INT due to divergent interests as INT did to cancel its treaty with R&R due to divergent interests.

That said, it is a shame to see such an old relationship end this way. We'll do our best to see LSF rebuilt, and I wish INT all the best as well.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1348074547' post='3031864']
I don't have any vested interest in this cancellation, but since Rush insists on continuing to fling mud at NATO, I will say this: Due to the aggressive actions of the LSF nations at the beginning of its conflict with NoR, we initially concluded that entering the war would have involved the activation of the oA clause of our treaty, rather than MD. This assessment might have changed over time if NoR appeared to be offering unreasonable terms to stop the war.

In the meantime, MK kicked off its war with CSN, and our ally in R&R was attacked. Faced with the option of entering either war, we felt we had a greater obligation to enter for R&R given it was clearly on the defensive side of the war, and to honour our pre-war (and pre-LSF v NoR war) commitments.

It appears to me that LSF has cancelled on INT not because it did not enter the conflict with NoR per se, but due to differences in their understanding of pre-war commitments made based on discussions between them, and thus an apparent divergence in interests. LSF has just as much right to cancel its treaty with INT due to divergent interests as INT did to cancel its treaty with R&R due to divergent interests.

That said, it is a shame to see such an old relationship end this way. We'll do our best to see LSF rebuilt, and I wish INT all the best as well.
[/quote]
Lets be fair Sir Humphrey, Im not flinging mud at NATO, I woulda done exactly what NATO did, which was nothing. It is what LSF deserved for their stupid decision-making practices. Im just contrasting why all the hate for INT, and no hate for any of their other treaty partners. LSF knew that INT + LSF could not take down NoR, they were banking on the rest of C&G. LSF put all their eggs in one basket based on one a post by Trotsky saying that he had the war council vote sewn up in INT. He didnt. This war coucil nonsense, at the time he posted it, had not even been mentioned to C&G gov, that LSF figured that C&G gov would have 0 input on supporting their nonsense, is a testament to the brash stupidity with which they approached the situation. Assuming the trotsky post is accurate, and he promised LSF that the INT war council would vote to go to war with them, LSF , being an alliance that votes on everything, should know that nothing is official until the vote. I have no real issue whatsoever with NATO not going to war for LSF, LSF deserved no support.

[Sabcat]

One post you're either a character or a retard, Rush

[Crownguard]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348074033' post='3031861']
On the cancellation thread in your embassy people are saying the war council decided, not the membership. Here you're saying the membership decided. Flip flop. You're a flakey bunch who won't take responsibility for anything, you elected your leaders but what for?

What you don't get is that you weren't voting to go to war for us but yourselves, we've come out of this just fine.
[/quote]

When we're at war (during the Dave War) and vote to hand power to the War Council, voting on further FA stuff is suspended til the end of the duration when power defaults back. Prior and after that war, Congress votes. You would think you would know this, but hey, whatever.


There were multiple votes at different stages of this drama [which we informed you of, by the way], but it's ok to spin that how you want, and ignore the other salient point about [u]wanting eternal war with Nordreich[/u] and then demanding us and by extension C&G to jump in. It's what the cool kids do nowadaways. Our groups are unallied, I suppose somehow manage to persevere on despite the odds.

-CG

Edited September 19, 2012 by Crownguard

[Optimistic]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348077181' post='3031867']
LSF knew that INT + LSF could not take down NoR, they were banking on the rest of C&G.[/quote]
This is entirely true.

[quote]LSF put all their eggs in one basket based on one a post by an INT government member saying that they had the war council vote sewn up in INT.[/quote]
It was a bit more than just one post. This INT member made multiple posts promising INT's involvement and telling us that there was absolute certainty that The International AND CnG would come in on this.

[quote]He didnt. This war coucil nonsense, at the time he posted it, had not even been mentioned to C&G gov, that LSF figured that C&G gov would have 0 input on supporting their nonsense, is a testament to the brash stupidity with which they approached the situation.[/quote]
How were we to know this, considering the INT member had told us we would have INT and CnG's support? Upon being told this, is it not understandable to assume that contact has been made between INT and CnG?

[quote]Assuming the INT government member's post is accurate, and they promised LSF that the INT war council would vote to go to war with them, LSF , being an alliance that votes on everything, should know that nothing is official until the vote.[/quote]
The post[size="5"][i][u][b]s[/b][/u][/i][/size] are accurate. We knew nothing was official, but we were told that 3 of the 5 members of the war council had already voted yes (or were definitely going to vote yes). Perhaps only a day or so later, the vote was held and despite nothing changing in the situation between the time the promise was made and the time the vote happened, even the INT gov. member who made these promises voted against helping us. And then (and to be fair, this was an honest mistake by the INT gov. member), we were told that the war council can't actually vote on war declarations (I was in INT for this bit, I remember it happening). The post about the war council on LSF forums isn't the most important one. There were plenty of others which didn't mention the war council and still told us that there was no way that INT would let LSF burn.

[quote]I have no real issue whatsoever with NATO not going to war for LSF, LSF deserved no support.
[/quote]
I'm restraining myself here. There I so many things that I want to say to you which I won't, because it would just take away from the other things I'm telling you.