Sabcat Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348750130' post='3034736'] Am I the only one failing to see how sir pwnage's screenshots of VL advocating better relations with UCR is damning? So what if there was always the bonus of if things turned sour they could merge into Int? How is that relevant to whatever happened in the past year or recent months that led specifically to this cancellation? Or relevant to a new leadership under VL? Am I missing something? [/quote] No, you're missing nothing, sir pwnage is missing the point, wilfully. Edited September 27, 2012 by Sabcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348750294' post='3034738'] No, you're missing nothing, sir pwnage is missing the point, wilfully. [/quote] You are the authoirty on misrepresentation. What ever happened to understanding the awkard position you knew LSF would be putting INT into and accepting whichever decision we came to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Azreal' timestamp='1348750551' post='3034739'] You are the authoirty on misrepresentation. What ever happened to understanding the awkard position you knew LSF would be putting INT into and accepting whichever decision we came to? [/quote] I understand that position perfectly, your analysis is perfectly correct. LSF is LSF, Int is Int. The values and ideas of the respective alliances are not compatible. See Rush's post, he thinks he's slinging an insult but he actually gets it. UCR see it the same way. The cancellation of these treaties is not a refusal to accept the decisions Int came too, it is a recognition of what those decisions mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348751012' post='3034742'] I understand that position perfectly, your analysis is perfectly correct. LSF is LSF, Int is Int. The values and ideas of the respective alliances are not compatible. See Rush's post, he thinks he's slinging an insult but he actually gets it. UCR see it the same way. The cancellation of these treaties is not a refusal to accept the decisions Int came too, it is a recognition of what those decisions mean. [/quote] You say you understand then can I ask why you appear to be allowing those who have absolutley no understanding of what occured run around with half truths attacking The International while allowing your alliance to come across as victims of betrayal and backstabbing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir pwnage Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348750130' post='3034736'] Am I the only one failing to see how sir pwnage's screenshots of VL advocating better relations with UCR is damning? So what if there was always the bonus of if things turned sour they could merge into Int? How is that relevant to whatever happened in the past year or recent months that led specifically to this cancellation? Or relevant to a new leadership under VL? Am I missing something? [/quote] It wasn't "Oh, let's get better relations so that if things go bad they'll merge." It was "I want them to merge into us. How can I best exploit their current situation to make them merge with us?" The other thing to consider is that we (as an alliance) talked to UCR about merging, and they said, very firmly, "No. We have an identity and we want to keep it." So by working for a merge, VL was working against the interest of UCR. To see him saying that he was working for better relations was just... ridiculous. Internally, VL was often one of UCR's loudest critics, and was more interested in their nations than their alliance. So that edit in the OP... oh lawdy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Azreal' timestamp='1348752484' post='3034755'] You say you understand then can I ask why you appear to be allowing those who have absolutley no understanding of what occured run around with half truths attacking The International while allowing your alliance to come across as victims of betrayal and backstabbing? [/quote] Int had a choice, go one way or the other. It's not surprising that some will see that as betrayal; the sigs, the posturing on irc and in embassies led people to assume that a different choice had already been made. I don't see it as betrayal but that's not to say that my thoughts on what happened paint Int in a better light, they don't. Betrayal would suggest a deliberate act, a motive and a plan. I wouldn't like it but on some level at least it could be respected. I don't see Int as a backstabber, I see a leaf blowing in the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348754108' post='3034764'] It wasn't "Oh, let's get better relations so that if things go bad they'll merge." It was "I want them to merge into us. How can I best exploit their current situation to make them merge with us?" The other thing to consider is that we (as an alliance) talked to UCR about merging, and they said, very firmly, "No. We have an identity and we want to keep it." So by working for a merge, VL was working against the interest of UCR. To see him saying that he was working for better relations was just... ridiculous. Internally, VL was often one of UCR's loudest critics, and was more interested in their nations than their alliance. So that edit in the OP... oh lawdy. [/quote] You can't have it both ways. Your screenshots just show him wanting to move to be more close to UCR and if anything fails, you'd be there to pick up the pieces. Nothing a good friend wouldn't do, even if it was self serving. Unless you have some more of your internal posts that are actually offensive I don't know why you'd be dragging it all out for everyone to see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348757694' post='3034779'] Int had a choice, go one way or the other. It's not surprising that some will see that as betrayal; the sigs, the posturing on irc and in embassies led people to assume that a different choice had already been made. I don't see it as betrayal but that's not to say that my thoughts on what happened paint Int in a better light, they don't. Betrayal would suggest a deliberate act, a motive and a plan. I wouldn't like it but on some level at least it could be respected. I don't see Int as a backstabber, I see a leaf blowing in the wind. [/quote] LSF had a choice too, be patient or go off half cocked guess which one INT was in favour of and guess which one LSF decided to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir pwnage Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348757804' post='3034782'] You can't have it both ways. Your screenshots just show him wanting to move to be more close to UCR and if anything fails, you'd be there to pick up the pieces. Nothing a good friend wouldn't do, even if it was self serving. Unless you have some more of your internal posts that are actually offensive I don't know why you'd be dragging it all out for everyone to see here. [/quote] Except the screen shots don't show him saying that at all. He's saying he wants to pursue an aggressive policy with them with the end objective being them merging into us. He even proposed a change to our Constitution that was timed to coincide with UCR's internal issues in the hopes they'd be more willing to merge with us. But you seem fixated on interpreting things the way you want to (as am I, I suppose) so we'll have to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1348717497' post='3034601'] . . . a year ago. Big. Whoop. All this shows is that INT was scheming against its own ally for a year. Which shouldn't surprise anyone given their treatment of allies from SOS to LSF across a span of years. Rush, I'm going to put this in plain terms for you: Everyone--friends and otherwise--who knows anything is laughing at you. Not with you. People you respect and confide in are laughing [b]at[/b] you. So yuck it up, dumbass, everyone else is. [/quote] You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheeks. Let me define what 0(the value of anything you have to say in regards to me, my alliance, my bloc, or my friends) means.... Devoid of value. Valueless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Azreal' timestamp='1348760431' post='3034802'] LSF had a choice too, be patient or go off half cocked guess which one INT was in favour of and guess which one LSF decided to do? [/quote] Int communicated no such preference to LSF until after fighting started, quite the opposite in fact. You already know this but I suppose if you're so inclined you could rehash the argument about who constitutes Int and who doesn't but that would be just as disingenuous now as it was first time round. The reality is, Int had no plan, they blew in the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Say what you want about VL or how this announcement was done, UCR is the kind of alliance who even months into the war was asking their ally if they could honor their treaty alone and go into the receiving side of a curbstomp to bash the fash. That kind of commitment and camaraderie is rare on Bob, and an alliance like INT doesn't deserve an ally like UCR anyway you shake it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grigoris Lambrakis Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 What's UCR's military history already? I've been away for a good moment. I dunno. How many wars has glorious and courageous UCR fought in its long history? I think the answer is just one, against a micro. Perhaps I'm wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Rigas' timestamp='1348763018' post='3034822'] What's UCR's military history already? I've been away for a good moment. I dunno. How many wars has glorious and courageous UCR fought in its long history? I think the answer is just one, against a micro. Perhaps I'm wrong? [/quote] How many courageous wars did INT fight? I count 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grigoris Lambrakis Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1348763679' post='3034823'] How many courageous wars did INT fight? I count 0. [/quote] Any man can have his opinion, and his intellect is measured by it, but I hope you can see the irony of an alliance that never fights calling out for cowardice an alliance that carries the scars of all globals since its creation. Int has fought against 21 alliances so far... LSF can talk, even if they are in the wrong, cause they do know how to burn for friends. But UCR talks now? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1348763679' post='3034823'] How many courageous wars did INT fight? I count 0. [/quote] The line between courageous and idiotic is wafer thin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) <<<<is a spoon Edited September 27, 2012 by Hiro Nakara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rigas' timestamp='1348764441' post='3034825'] Any man can have his opinion, and his intellect is measured by it, but I hope you can see the irony of an alliance that never fights calling out for cowardice an alliance that carries the scars of all globals since its creation. Int has fought against 21 alliances so far... LSF can talk, even if they are in the wrong, cause they do know how to burn for friends. But UCR talks now? Really? [/quote] Intellect is not measured by opinions, never was and never will be. I can see your point about the irony, but I don't think they were calling INT out on their scars. It seems more likely they called them out for lacking the courage to fight for an ally that burned for them when the outcome of such an act would be uncertain. Edited September 27, 2012 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir pwnage Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1348763679' post='3034823'] How many courageous wars did INT fight? I count 0. [/quote] And NEW-DF was what, exactly? Us, Fark, and TPE v. NEW + PC/iFOK nations might just be the most even war of the post-Karma era, with the possible exception of Legion/NSO. Plus, it was even a war we fought to defend an alliance that technically didn't even exist. I know it's not convenient to your "INT doesn't care about its allies" line, but it did happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1348766785' post='3034842'] And NEW-DF was what, exactly? Us, Fark, and TPE v. NEW + PC/iFOK nations might just be the most even war of the post-Karma era, with the possible exception of Legion/NSO. Plus, it was even a war we fought to defend an alliance that technically didn't even exist. I know it's not convenient to your "INT doesn't care about its allies" line, but it did happen. [/quote] So it was [b]INT[/b], [b]Fark[/b] and [b]tPE [/b]vs [b]NEW[/b], The stats put your side over 3 times the NS of NEW, hardly a close fight, global wars have been closer than that. And it look's like the war was heavily contained, not a sign of this courage. Edited September 27, 2012 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Just so you know, ODN is canceling on Int because Craig smells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 It wasn't our turn to change the Depends. -CG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='Yankees Empire' timestamp='1348770100' post='3034855'] Just so you know, ODN is canceling on Int because Craig smells. [/quote] This is the real reason. I just couldn't bring myself to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [img]http://i.imgur.com/iCE4J.jpg[/img] Good luck UCR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 [quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1348704739' post='3034488'] [center][img]http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/RA2Leader/UCRFlaggood-2.png[/img][/center] [center]48 hours ago, UCR informed The International of our intent to cancel our treaty with them. Simply put, we are an alliance strongly committed to the ideals of friendship and commitment, especially amongst our mutual comrades in arms, and we have collectively concluded that The International no longer prioritizes said ideals as much as we would like in a group with which we are aligned. Pursuant to Section VII of the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109367]United Leftist Accords[/url], the Union of Communist Republics hereby declares the treaty terminated. We truly wish you well in the future, INT, and have every intention of remaining on amiable and respectable terms with you all. I have little doubt we'll still always look to you as a sort of big sibling regardless of our present relations. The rest of you may now commence your yawning, bickering, etc.[/center] Edit: On a more personal note, I'd like to add that having been instrumental in improving relations between UCR and INT for the past two years, this is extremely depressing to announce. [/quote] Much respect UCR, this is how CN should work. [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1348708233' post='3034514'] And thus, International (and therefore Complaints and Grievances) lost their valuable ties to superbloc Arizona. What happens now is anyone's guess. [/quote] Looks like you value sucking up to power more than you do honoring ones treaties and word. I'm not surprised. [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348711021' post='3034550'] Maybe UCR can merge into LSF and make another run at NoR. I promise C&G will support them..... [/quote] Wouldn't be the first time a CnG member hasn't lived up to their word on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.