Treaty Cancellation

[D34th]

If we follow this assumption to its conclusion, the North Atlantic will be doing some Treaty Organization to the effect of drop-kicking CCC, RoK, and R&R, here pretty soon.

 

Well, the treaty with CCC is an ODP and RoK is connected with XX/SF/Aftermath just via ODPs, so if the the isolation of the previous mentioned sphere really started I think the one that should really worry about losing a treaty partner is R&R. I hope this isn't the case, but based in the post of NADC leader in this thread I fear it's just a fool's hope.

[Commander shepard]

 

How does what NPO said have anything to do with a decision by NATO to review and adjust its treaties?

I think you're reading a bit too much into it.

It was about DH and a war against XX/SF/NpO

 

 

Well, the treaty with CCC is an ODP and RoK is connected with XX/SF/Aftermath just via ODPs, so if the the isolation of the previous mentioned sphere really started I think the one that should really worry about losing a treaty partner is R&R. I hope this isn't the case, but based in the post of NADC leader in this thread I fear it's just a fool's hope.

 

 

That is terribly far-fetched, as the NATO guy said they're just reviewing and adjusting their treaties.

And even if it was so NATO would not need to cancel on R&R as nobody attacking R&R does the same job.

You and your outlandish ideas. 

Edited April 23, 2013 by Commander shepard

[Sir Humphrey]

Well, the treaty with CCC is an ODP and RoK is connected with XX/SF/Aftermath just via ODPs, so if the the isolation of the previous mentioned sphere really started I think the one that should really worry about losing a treaty partner is R&R. I hope this isn't the case, but based in the post of NADC leader in this thread I fear it's just a fool's hope.

If this was the case, R&R should have been worried about losing its treaty prior to the Dave War, or have been worried about the treaty not being signed, or worried about NATO not initiating the treaty talks in the first place despite being well aware of the political context at the time ;)

[Helbrecht]

Good luck to both of you.

<3 NATO/Anu/Humphmeister <3

[D34th]

If this was the case, R&R should have been worried about losing its treaty prior to the Dave War, or have been worried about the treaty not being signed, or worried about NATO not initiating the treaty talks in the first place despite being well aware of the political context at the time ;)

 

I really hope that is the case, you know I have a huge respect for NATO and I would hate to see your alliance succumb to external influences and drop treaties with your allies just to enable a curbstomp. 

[Sir Humphrey]

 
I really hope that is the case, you know I have a huge respect for NATO and I would hate to see your alliance succumb to external influences and drop treaties with your allies just to enable a curbstomp. 

Surely you can judge that based on our recent history. This one event hardly reflects a trend of NATO determining treaties or avoiding wars based on external influences. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Azreal]

I really hope that is the case, you know I have a huge respect for NATO and I would hate to see your alliance succumb to external influences and drop treaties with your allies just to enable a curbstomp. 

 

Perhaps pressure was coming from the other side, you know the ones that just came out of curbstomping other alliances and a lot of them seem to be enamoured with the idea of doing it over again. So perhaps this was dropped to avoid such pressures entirley. I mean if we are just making baseless speculations we should speculate all the angles.

EDIT: Grammer

(cue spelling/grammer mistakes)

Edited April 23, 2013 by Azreal

[Lord Valleo]

We find this cancellation confusing, considering we just fought a war in their defense. The confusion is further heightened by the fact NATO wished to cancel because of other treaty obligations; other treaty obligations that didn't seem to matter much to them before the war. Nonetheless, we wish NATO well in their future endeavours.

I don't mean this as an attack, but the fact you are confused about the cancellation could be indicative of a communication problem which has lead both sides to drift and have a divergence in FA policies and ideals. *shrugs

 

Whatever the actual reasons are, good luck to both parties.

 

o/ NATO

[D34th]

Perhaps pressure was coming from the other side, you know the ones that just came out of curbstomping other alliances and a lot of them seem to be enamoured with the idea of doing it over again. So perhaps this was dropped to avoid such pressures entirley. I mean if we are just making baseless speculations we should speculate all the angles.

EDIT: Grammer

(cue spelling/grammer mistakes)

 

You mean the curbstomp that your ally was among the main planners? Since you're still allied with them it gives the impression you liked it and would like doing it over again, may be it is the reason lot of alliances seem to be enamored with the idea, they just want to please you. 

[Helbrecht]

In all my experience with NATO, i cant think of a situation where outside influence impacted their keeping or dropping or even signing of a treaty. If you look at their current treaty portfolio you would find more than enough examples of them dancing to their own tune.

[muwen1234]

Good luck to NADC in the future. It was some fun going through all these years.

[President S O]

EQ crumbling in front of us.. :shock horror:

 

Congrats to NATO.

Edited April 23, 2013 by President S O

[Skippy]

 
Well, the treaty with CCC is an ODP and RoK is connected with XX/SF/Aftermath just via ODPs, so if the the isolation of the previous mentioned sphere really started I think the one that should really worry about losing a treaty partner is R&R. I hope this isn't the case, but based in the post of NADC leader in this thread I fear it's just a fool's hope.

I do not give permission for NATO to cancel on our mutual ally in R&R, so yeah, no need to speculate.

[Garion]

Anyone hinting at NATO conveniently disposing of allies due to fear for their own safety is terribly misinformed: I will point you all to the support they gave RoK in the post-Bob Ilyani days and to the help they gave R&R during Dave War.

[Azreal]

You mean the curbstomp that your ally was among the main planners? Since you're still allied with them it gives the impression you liked it and would like doing it over again, may be it is the reason lot of alliances seem to be enamored with the idea, they just want to please you. 

 

Exactly what about my post mentioned anything about TPF or their involvement in EQ or our/my current relationship in regards to them? I was merely pointing out that if you follow your assumptions then outside pressure could have been exerted on NATO to engage in another curbstomp and they decided they wouldn't be used like that. It is as likley an explanation for this cancellation as your explanation was given the information we have avliable to us, in fact the past history of NATO going to bat for allies when they probably shouldn't and have an out to not do so would put it more strongly in favour of my argument. But facts and logic have never been your strong point when half truths and spin will do.

[Ziperia]

I do not give permission for NATO to cancel on our mutual ally in R&R, so yeah, no need to speculate.

I thought NATO was the one with pants in this relationship  :psyduck:

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114336&st=0

[AmbroseIV]

If this was the case, R&R should have been worried about losing its treaty prior to the Dave War, or have been worried about the treaty not being signed, or worried about NATO not initiating the treaty talks in the first place despite being well aware of the political context at the time ;)

 

I'm worried, does that count?

[Baron Flynt]

Dick move, NATO

[Skippy]

We find this cancellation confusing, considering we just fought a war in their defense. The confusion is further heightened by the fact NATO wished to cancel because of other treaty obligations; other treaty obligations that didn't seem to matter much to them before the war. Nonetheless, we wish NATO well in their future endeavours.

I would hardly call that wishing NATO well, a smear tactic style of post is quite the contrary I'd say. Situations do change in this world, and whilst I'm sure they greatly appreciated your assistance in the war, the treaty itself is no longer something they feel is necessary.

[Skippy]

I thought NATO was the one with pants in this relationship  :psyduck:
 
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114336&st=0

I took the pants back when I took power :awesome:

[D34th]

Exactly what about my post mentioned anything about TPF or their involvement in EQ or our/my current relationship in regards to them? I was merely pointing out that if you follow your assumptions then outside pressure could have been exerted on NATO to engage in another curbstomp and they decided they wouldn't be used like that. It is as likley an explanation for this cancellation as your explanation was given the information we have avliable to us, in fact the past history of NATO going to bat for allies when they probably shouldn't and have an out to not do so would put it more strongly in favour of my argument. But facts and logic have never been your strong point when half truths and spin will do.

 

Oh I see why you think I mentioned TPF, you're in INT, based in your alliance name I thought you were in TLR, I was talking about NPO, disregard my post then. 

About the rest of your post I just found one interesting part "NATO going to bat for allies when they probably shouldn't"  Why they shouldn't? Just because they allies were in the losing side? Not everybody thinks like The International.

 

The rest of your post is almost incomprehensible, but I guess you are criticizing my assumption based in the ad hominem in the end of your post, so let me explain why I made such assumption: After so many years seeing alliances isolating their next target by putting pressure in their allies to cancel treaties and after see so many coward alliances, like yours for example, who cancel their treaties to avoid the defeat I became a pessimist and I expect the worse and keep my expectations low, so when I saw NATO canceling their treaty with NADC who is in a bloc who is probably going to be the next target, I thought it was the isolation tactic in progress. It's true that NATO has no history of abandoning its allies and as I said in this very thread I have a huge respect for them because of that, but being a pessimist I always imagine the worse situation(and I'm right majority of the times), happily this time isn't the case and this cancellation isn't related with the next curbstomp. 

[Azreal]

Oh I see why you think I mentioned TPF, you're in INT, based in your alliance name I thought you were in TLR, I was talking about NPO, disregard my post then. 

About the rest of your post I just found one interesting part "NATO going to bat for allies when they probably shouldn't"  Why they shouldn't? Just because they allies were in the losing side? Not everybody thinks like The International.

 

The rest of your post is almost incomprehensible, but I guess you are criticizing my assumption based in the ad hominem in the end of your post, so let me explain why I made such assumption: After so many years seeing alliances isolating their next target by putting pressure in their allies to cancel treaties and after see so many coward alliances, like yours for example, who cancel their treaties to avoid the defeat I became a pessimist and I expect the worse and keep my expectations low, so when I saw NATO canceling their treaty with NADC who is in a bloc who is probably going to be the next target, I thought it was the isolation tactic in progress. It's true that NATO has no history of abandoning its allies and as I said in this very thread I have a huge respect for them because of that, but being a pessimist I always imagine the worse situation(and I'm right majority of the times), happily this time isn't the case and this cancellation isn't related with the next curbstomp. 

 

I understand fully why you made the assumption, I was merly pointing out that using the same logic the argument I presented was just as valid, and with NATO's history was possibly a more likley one than the one you gave. Like I said if your going to speculate you can come up with lots of explanations 

 

Also I will admit a poor choice of words on my part, saying "not abbadoning alliances needlessly" would have been a better statement. And no I don't think saving you skin is a good reason to not back up an ally just to be absolutly clear.

[mmansfield68]

Parting is such sweet sorrow.  The very best to both parties!

[Lenny N Karl]

I wish NADC well in the future and I really hope that our paths cross again. This was not a quick or impulsive decision as well discussed this for a very very long time. It is one of those moments where I can really say...sad, but necessary (but with large amounts of regret and 2nd thinking)

 

 

o/ NADC = still dig you guys.

[Chimaera]

Load of North Atlantic drama here.  Quite enjoyable.