suryanto tan Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Hereno' ] I am not an NSO member, genius. [/quote] Exactly. Because it would be shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 What you're saying... let me get this right... is that you cannot have friendship without having a treaty? And yes, the examples and things that you have stated say that NEW has no right to give Kaskus money, thereby saying your vision of the way the world works is the correct vision. The One Vision you might say... *rimshot* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='suryanto tan' timestamp='1357824061' post='3073823'] Exactly. Because it would be shameful. [/quote] I agree. NSO are the scum of planet Bob. Only terrible alliances would ever ally them. I wouldn't be caught dead associating with NSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1357806881' post='3073757'] To be honest here, I applaud NEW for aiding Kaskus. This just goes to show the bond the two alliances shared still exists. Let's be real. NEW has repeatedly backed Kaskus' antics. Using the "you don't have a treaty" line is horse dung. If NPO wanted to roll, they should have just rolled in, and against NEW who did the aid-bomb. It's sad that this world has resorted to "I'm not going to hit you because I want to trigger my treaties not yours". However, as sad as it is, let's get this war started. Quit walking around on eggshells and just throw blows. [/quote] If NEW wanted to roll, they should have just rolled in, and declared on NSO. I don't know if it's sad, but it is reality that most of the posturing these days is around who gets to say they're on the defensive. NEW's aid to Kaskus appears (to me anyway) as an attempt to prompt an attack on NEW while maintaining a veil of NEW being on the defensive when that attack comes. We are not trying to "teach NEW a lesson". We are making it clear that any outside involvement in this conflict by anyone not treatied to Kaskus is an aggressive act against NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Kaskus isn't losing as much NS because they don't have much to lose. When you are all under 30k, you can't go down that much further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oranges Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1357824168' post='3073824'] What you're saying... let me get this right... is that you cannot have friendship without having a treaty? And yes, the examples and things that you have stated say that NEW has no right to give Kaskus money, thereby saying your vision of the way the world works is the correct vision. The One Vision you might say... *rimshot* [/quote] No, I'm saying that a treaty which authorises such action legitimises wartime interalliance aid. There is no hidden meaning behind any of what I'm writing. If you read too deeply into things that aren't there, you're liable to fall into holes that don't exist. Let me ask you this, then. What if the tables had been reversed? What if it were the NPO that was aiding a non-allied alliance while they were at war. Would you be annoyed at this? If yes, well, double standards. If no, thank you for having unbiased principles, but you're still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1357824263' post='3073826'] If NEW wanted to roll, they should have just rolled in, and declared on NSO. I don't know if it's sad, but it is reality that most of the posturing these days is around who gets to say they're on the defensive. NEW's aid to Kaskus appears (to me anyway) as an attempt to prompt an attack on NEW while maintaining a veil of NEW being on the defensive when that attack comes. We are not trying to "teach NEW a lesson". We are making it clear that any outside involvement in this conflict by anyone not treatied to Kaskus is an aggressive act against NPO. [/quote] Do not twist this around. NSO realizing they need help, they asked shangri la to aid bomb them, sending almost 40 package of aid. When NEW counter the aid bomb, NSO see the excuse to throw their honor away, retract their own word that they would not call in their allies, and start crying for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='suryanto tan' timestamp='1357824687' post='3073831'] Do not twist this around. NSO realizing they need help, they asked shangri la to aid bomb them, sending almost 40 package of aid. When NEW counter the aid bomb, NSO see the excuse to throw their honor away, retract their own word that they would not call in their allies, and start crying for help. [/quote] Sorry, but there's a bigger world out there than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oranges Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='suryanto tan' timestamp='1357822055' post='3073813'] Treaty says ...well just in case you will leave us when we need you, let us put it in writing because we still have doubt for each other. When there is no doubt, there is no need of treaty to tell you what you have to do, because we trust each other and believe they will make the right call. [/quote] Do your treaty allies know that you doubt them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) [quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1357824263' post='3073826'] I don't know if it's sad, but it is reality that most of the posturing these days is around who gets to say they're on the defensive. NEW's aid to Kaskus appears (to me anyway) as an attempt to prompt an attack on NEW while maintaining a veil of NEW being on the defensive when that attack comes. We are not trying to "teach NEW a lesson". We are making it clear that any outside involvement in this conflict by anyone not treatied to Kaskus is an aggressive act against NPO. [/quote] And clearly Brehon couldn't make a statement of the fact as he's done in the past? Surely you see the error of your argument. To denounce the very thing being done by you is silly. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoy a good brewhaha.. All I'm saying is let's get the dance underway instead of !@#$%footing around the subject. Everyone wants to war, but nobody wants to lose. [quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357825022' post='3073834'] Do your treaty allies know that you doubt them? [/quote] And to address this, surely you recall the incidents of the past. The only thing a treaty does is to force people into situations they don't want to be in. Why do you think there's only war once a year. Because we like to !@#$%* that we want war, but in order to go to war we play the treaty shuffle and try to corner the "other side" into having less treaties activating. I wish more people in this world operated the way NEW and Kaskus do. If you all have not learned by now, they're kind of a package deal and they don't need paper to prove it. Edited January 10, 2013 by Micheal Malone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1357824768' post='3073833'] Sorry, but there's a bigger world out there than that. [/quote] Apology accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 All I got from this thread is that the new way to try to "insult" Pacificans is to say that they are "yes man". This is the evolution from the years old "drone" comment. Evolution at its best. xD Also Waarrrgh. Glad to see NPO and NSO together on the field of battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=4]Treaties are signed to honor a friendship that had already been established, they outline our formal obligations to each other, nothing in the treaty is meant to limit either party from providing further support not outlined in the treaty. [/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=4]So let's just get on with it then, stop waiting[/size][/font][/color] Edited January 10, 2013 by Muddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oranges Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1357825066' post='3073835'] And to address this, surely you recall the incidents of the past. The only thing a treaty does is to force people into situations they don't want to be in. Why do you think there's only war once a year. Because we like to !@#$%* that we want war, but in order to go to war we play the treaty shuffle and try to corner the "other side" into having less treaties activating. I wish more people in this world operated the way NEW and Kaskus do. If you all have not learned by now, they're kind of a package deal and they don't need paper to prove it. [/quote] So what you're saying is, let's just forget about formalising treaties. Forget about legitimate action. You're saying that alliances don't need a legitimate [i]casus belli[/i] or [i]casus foederis[/i], because they don't need to justify their actions. Yours would be a chaotic world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 This is a political world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357825612' post='3073841'] So what you're saying is, let's just forget about formalising treaties. Forget about legitimate action. You're saying that alliances don't need a legitimate [i]casus belli[/i] or [i]casus foederis[/i], because they don't need to justify their actions. Yours would be a chaotic world. [/quote] Justification is never "legitimate" anyway, it's all in how you spin it, why should the world be bond by what has become meaningless treaties? Edited January 10, 2013 by Muddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357825612' post='3073841'] So what you're saying is, let's just forget about formalising treaties. Forget about legitimate action. You're saying that alliances don't need a legitimate [i]casus belli[/i] or [i]casus foederis[/i], because they don't need to justify their actions. Yours would be a chaotic world. [/quote] You might think so... but I know better from other-world experience. The bonds are still formed between friends, and people still become allies. Only this way it's more honest. And please don't feed me that line about CBs.... As if the rest of the world doesn't already know that a war is won before it's even fought. I'm not in one of those swing alliances you need to persuade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oranges Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357825888' post='3073845'] Justification is never "legitimate" anyway, it's all in how you spin it, why should the world be bond by what has become meaningless treaties? [/quote] Legitimate justification is better than the absence of justification entirely. Without a legal framework in which alliances can operate checks and balances, what is there but chaos? The NPO does not have 'meaningless' treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357826241' post='3073849'] Legitimate justification is better than the absence of justification entirely. Without a legal framework in which alliances can operate checks and balances, what is there but chaos? The NPO does not have 'meaningless' treaties. [/quote] There is no international law in our world, nor should there be and it's about damn time people started remembering that. Edit- Keeps double quoting Edited January 10, 2013 by Muddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 "NEW aided Kaskus in an uncoordinated way" translation A few friends of Kaskus aided them, and still we have little excuse for hitting Kaskus and not NEW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollard Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Hail Pasithica! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oranges Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357826457' post='3073852'] There is no international law in our world, nor should there be and it's about damn time people started remembering that. [/quote] Sure, there's no supranational body there to say what is right and what is wrong. It's alliances keeping each other in line; you break the status quo, you get punished for it. Surely a bit of common decency isn't too much to ask for? For example, an alliance not sending aid to an unallied alliance which is at war. If you were at war with an alliance and they recieved aid from an unallied alliance, would you sit idly by? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". If the NPO, in a position to act, were to do nothing, then we would be condoning this action. Inaction in the face of wrong is a wrong itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Maybe GOONS will get a break now. They had to deal with NEW nations switching over to fight them, not just aid packages. There shouldnt be a shock that NEW aided Kaskus as they have shown in the past they are willing to help them in war times. I guess since some alliances holds a ODP they can aid NSO though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [b]Kaskus gluttony for war will be satisfied. [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 [quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357827237' post='3073857'] Sure, there's no supranational body there to say what is right and what is wrong. It's alliances keeping each other in line; you break the status quo, you get punished for it. Surely a bit of common decency isn't too much to ask for? For example, an alliance not sending aid to an unallied alliance which is at war. If you were at war with an alliance and they recieved aid from an unallied alliance, would you sit idly by? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". If the NPO, in a position to act, were to do nothing, then we would be condoning this action. Inaction in the face of wrong is a wrong itself. [/quote] Treaty or no treaty NEW acted on a bond that extends far beyond our world, instead of acting on that and doing the "right thing" and going after the party responsible, you called them out by attacking K? What does that prove, that you can kick a man while he is down? Why wait, why the line in the sand, why the public spectacle, who are you trying to protect and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts