A Cancellation

[Azaghul]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1348082188' post='3031899']
Yeah we totally took the easy way out, our upper tier just happened to blow itself up after we bandwagoned in with the winning side.
[/quote]
Rush isn't criticizing NATO, he's saying that people are holding Int and NATO to two different standards while attacking Int.

Neither deserves criticism.

[quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1348094688' post='3031974']
So let me see if I am getting all this clearly. LSF attacked Nor. So no treaties would have come into play unless they were of the agressive variety. So Int and the others are clear of that. What people seem to be bashing Int for is that somebody in Int supported this idea and claimed to have the support of Int as well. This proved not to be the case. So my question is, why would LSF attack without a 100% iron clad deal from not only Int but C&G as well? Would a meeting with such a group not have been something you would do before marching off to war? Did such a meeting between LSF and C&G take place? Because if it did not and LSF marched off to war just hoping for support then they are idiots.
[/quote]
No one ever accused LSF of being brilliant.

[Dochartaigh]

[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]

From what I can tell, Int gave assurances they would come in against LSF and then broke their promise. To me that is not about obligation more than it is about trust. If you tell your ally you will hit an alliance with them (a much larger alliance than your ally btw) and then after your ally hits, you back out. Then your ally has every right to be pissed and consider you to be untrustworthy. NATO, SWF, MCXA all stated they would come in but LSF said no.

[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]

You keep switching your story mate. Either all the alliances were obligated, in which case Int was as well and they failed to honor their treaty in which case this cancellation is valid or considering LSF went aggressive, no one had an obligation on paper. As stated above for Marx, the key difference from what I gather is that Int gave their word to LSF they would enter against NoR and then broke it.

[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 are looking at the "Mutual Defense" portion which from what I have gathered, even LSF knows they were the aggressors. So, why don't you read the correct article entitled "Optional Aggression". Now, I know what you are going to state already and for that I again state read above. LSF has no real reason to lie unlike Int and CnG as a whole about what Int promised. For LSF, this is losing their oldest treaty partner and one whom they fought for on several occasions. Int on the other hand, have every reason to lie in order to make themselves look better. LSF losing the Int treaty puts them in a worse place than just keeping it would have. (though given how Int treats LSF, that is up for debate)

SWF, UCR, and tR are small and inconsequential. MCXA is not well liked by many. Only NATO is held in good light by many and is part of a decent sphere.

[Joe Stupid]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1348099321' post='3031998']
Rush isn't criticizing NATO, he's saying that people are holding Int and NATO to two different standards while attacking Int.

Neither deserves criticism.

[/quote]

To be fair i hold Int to a higher standard then i do NATO or MCXA. I've always admired them from afar.

[Gingervites]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1348099321' post='3031998']
Rush isn't criticizing NATO, he's saying that people are holding Int and NATO to two different standards while attacking Int.
[/quote]
Probably because NATO was busy being at war with MK while Int was just sitting around doing nothing.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Gingervites' timestamp='1348101300' post='3032013']
Probably because NATO was busy being at war with MK while Int was just sitting around doing nothing.
[/quote]

Pretty much this.

[Subcomandante VL]

[quote name='Gingervites' timestamp='1348101300' post='3032013']
Probably because NATO was busy being at war with MK while Int was just sitting around doing nothing.
[/quote]
Now I may not be their biggest fan at the moment, but this is just patently false. INT was fighting GOD, NPL and CRAP. (All of which were hella fun wars btw.)

Nice try though.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1348101718' post='3032016']
Now I may not be their biggest fan at the moment, but this is just patently false. INT was fighting GOD, NPL and CRAP. (All of which were hella fun wars btw.)

Nice try though.
[/quote]
Yeah, those alliances were also tied up with numerous other alliances. Come on now.

[Mogar]

wars of survival vs wars of choice.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1348102550' post='3032021']
[img]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1356589/trollface.gif[/img]
[/quote]

There is never anything good enough for you, is there?

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1348103247' post='3032027']
There is never anything good enough for you, is there?
[/quote]
Why would an excuse [i]ever[/i] be good for me?

[sir pwnage]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1348102550' post='3032021']
Yeah, those alliances were also tied up with numerous other alliances. Come on now.
[/quote]

Yes, all those other alliances that were fighting NPL

[Mogar]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348104791' post='3032037']
Yes, all those other alliances that were fighting NPL
[/quote]
I love that for the past two wars there has been nothing but negative talk about NPL, thought they weren't a big deal and anyone could take them? pushovers and whatnot.

[keeology]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1348105327' post='3032039']
I love that for the past two wars there has been nothing but negative talk about NPL, thought they weren't a big deal and anyone could take them? pushovers and whatnot.
[/quote]


i can personally tell anyone one thing NPL is not is push overs.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348104791' post='3032037']
Yes, all those other alliances that were fighting NPL
[/quote]
The International has over four times the NS of NPL.

Is that why they didn't help LSF? Hands were tied by NPL?

[Roxas]

Eh saw it coming

[magicninja]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1348028288' post='3031699']
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.
[/quote]

Funny how you gloss over the fact that INTs participation in LSFs aggression was also optional. Come on man.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348108188' post='3032057']
Funny how you gloss over the fact that INTs participation in LSFs aggression was also optional. Come on man.
[/quote]
It can (and has) been spun either way. I think a lot of people are just amused that Int would rather support an aggressive MK action than their own ally. I know I am.

[Sabcat]

We live and learn. LSF is forever

[magicninja]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1348108379' post='3032058']
It can (and has) been spun either way. I think a lot of people are just amused that Int would rather support an aggressive MK action than their own ally. I know I am.
[/quote]

They didn't really have a choice. Anyone who knows CnG knows once one goes we all go. That said had they rolled for LSF we wouldn't have had a choice. It works both ways see?

The facts show LSF instigated the war, a war they absolutely wanted. Now Trotsky may have promised them the moon and if that is the case then yeah they have every right to be pissed at him....but he is not INT. No one can say INT promised anything.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348109828' post='3032065']
They didn't really have a choice. Anyone who knows CnG knows once one goes we all go. That said had they rolled for LSF we wouldn't have had a choice. It works both ways see?

The facts show LSF instigated the war, a war they absolutely wanted. Now Trotsky may have promised them the moon and if that is the case then yeah they have every right to be pissed at him....but he is not INT. No one can say INT promised anything.
[/quote]

They did have a choice, they just had/have cowardly friends "backing" them up.

Right, same story with MK. Which is why Int is catching so much flak. They backed MK, instead of an ally who they have a very long history with. And uh. If the leader of an alliance says something, it generally carries the weight of the entire alliance. But hey, maybe Trotsky should just be more careful with what he says.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1348110703' post='3032071']
They did have a choice, they just had/have cowardly friends "backing" them up.

Right, same story with MK. Which is why Int is catching so much flak. They backed MK, instead of an ally who they have a very long history with. And uh. If the leader of an alliance says something, it generally carries the weight of the entire alliance. But hey, maybe Trotsky should just be more careful with what he says.
[/quote]

Their choice was whether or not to hit NoR and they made it. When TLR and ODN went in for MK INT and us had no choice but to follow or else break the treaty. Which I guess is a choice butI don't think any of us would break CnG just to spite.

Not in a democracy where people who are not the leader make the actual decisions. You were in GATO. You know the AC can't make a promise congress isn't on board with.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348111131' post='3032077']
Not in a democracy where people who are not the leader make the actual decisions. You were in GATO. You know the AC can't make a promise congress isn't on board with.
[/quote]
Your argument is simplistic and silly. INT is not an anarchy, they elect someone to represent them, and that man made promises from his office in an official capacity whether or not a poll was going to be taken. His promises were not private, they were INT's.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Schattenmann

[magicninja]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1348112254' post='3032086']
Your argument is simplistic and silly. INT is not an anarchy, they elect someone to represent them, and that man made promises from his office in an official capacity whether or not a poll was going to be taken. His promises were not private, they were INT's.
[/quote]

No they weren't. I don't see how it is so hard to understand. Trotsky can't promise something and when it's time to vote tell everyone "oh well I promised." It does not work that way and you damn well know it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348112502' post='3032088']
No they weren't. I don't see how it is so hard to understand. Trotsky can't promise something and when it's time to vote tell everyone "oh well I promised." It does not work that way and you damn well know it.
[/quote]
MagicNinja, your argument is simply absurd. Governments act on behalf of their constituents. Whether or not Trotsky's assurances turned out to be unfounded once the cowards in his alliance and bloc heard gunfire does not suddenly change the fundamental way that governments work everywhere on the planet whether they're democracies or monarchies.

[sir pwnage]

[quote name='keeology' timestamp='1348106048' post='3032042']
i can personally tell anyone one thing NPL is not is push overs.
[/quote]

Seconded.

[quote]The International has over four times the NS of NPL.[/quote]

And they have four times (at least) the amount of low tier (20k and under) nuclear nations. As the person coordinating the aid going to hard pressed lower tier nations, I can tell you that that kind of war is a pain in the bajimbas.