magicninja Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I'm still here. I almost forgot I was leading a nation........so this war is still a thing then? Anyone else surrender since TPF and STA or? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 "RnR or any other peripheral alliance" Its good to read properly before jumping the gun and looking a fool. Nice try Ego. Have you read the average OWF post? I can pretty much state i'm typing with my feet standing on my hands wearing a tutu and still look less like a fool then.. well you for example. My post was directed both to you since of all the peripheral alliances you called R&R by name plus you and a lot of others are arguing the fact this is to get us out of the war earlier. Which isn't going to happen. We know exactly when what needs to happen before we exit the war and fighting goons or whatever other alliance you want to throw on us after that wont make the slightest bit of change in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagpuss Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Oh TIO is attacking us now! God thats so great, a pathetic alliance so terrible it has to follow NATO around is countering us with no declaration. I love it. Lol Why we need to declare war on GOONs i'd love to know.... Do you lot not read bloc treaties, exact same reason as per TOP just in this case cba posting a recognition of hostilities. GOONs declares war on both TIO and NATO when declaring war on R&R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Lol Why we need to declare war on GOONs i'd love to know.... Do you lot not read bloc treaties, exact same reason as per TOP just in this case cba posting a recognition of hostilities. GOONs declares war on both TIO and NATO when declaring war on R&R. Well no, GOONS declared on R&R. TIO and NATO are welcome to view themselves as defending R&R though and war with GOONS. You have the direct bloc ties for that. But no, an attack on one is not an attack on all, it is still just an attack on one. We would be foolish to think NATO and TIO wouldn't come in against GOONS, but at least call it like it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da DreadLord Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well no, GOONS declared on R&R. TIO and NATO are welcome to view themselves as defending R&R though and war with GOONS. You have the direct bloc ties for that. But no, an attack on one is not an attack on all, it is still just an attack on one. We would be foolish to think NATO and TIO wouldn't come in against GOONS, but at least call it like it is. We did call it like it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagpuss Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well no, GOONS declared on R&R. TIO and NATO are welcome to view themselves as defending R&R though and war with GOONS. You have the direct bloc ties for that. But no, an attack on one is not an attack on all, it is still just an attack on one. We would be foolish to think NATO and TIO wouldn't come in against GOONS, but at least call it like it is. As your bumchums in TOP already know US view that differently, an attack on one IS an attack on all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As your bumchums in TOP already know US view that differently, an attack on one IS an attack on all. Bumchums, that's a good one. :laugh: I'm still here. I almost forgot I was leading a nation........so this war is still a thing then? Anyone else surrender since TPF and STA or? No more fruitcake for us all then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 tbf you should possibly re-write the clause so it is't as open to interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da DreadLord Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 tbf you should possibly re-write the clause so it is't as open to interpretation. I think it's quite clear as it is written now.. attack one = all signatories consider themselves at war with aggressor.. no idea how anyone can 'interpret' that differently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think it's quite clear as it is written now.. attack one = all signatories consider themselves at war with aggressor.. no idea how anyone can 'interpret' that differently You need to leave room for them to ignore the MD first for one of their other oAs. It can't be automatically activated by mutual consent. :psyduck: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think it's quite clear as it is written now.. attack one = all signatories consider themselves at war with aggressor.. no idea how anyone can 'interpret' that differently Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is correct, nor does it mean that everyone else should accept it. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, this is a declaration from GOONS on R&R. TIO and NATO are welcome to defend R&R via their treaty, but it is not an attack on all of you. This is simply a situation where your opinion on your bloc matters far less then interpretation by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziperia Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Speaking of talking out of one's ass, everyone's still waiting on TIO and NATO! An attack on one is an attack on all, right? Sure is, why do you think I'm stomping GOONs now? That's a logical fallacy. You can't argue against me when I have the required information to cast a valid judgement, and you don't. Yes I see the logic behind what Alex said, but it still doesn't change the fact that his conclusion is wrong. You can't expect me to give the specifics at this point in time, but they will become clear as the war unfolds. If the reason your conclusions differs is that you have different (more) information, that doesn't make his conclusion illogical or wrong. Conclusions are made from the facts *at had*. Unknown variable do not make the logic wrong, or otherwise no one would ever be correct with anything. Edited January 10, 2014 by Ziperia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think it's quite clear as it is written now.. attack one = all signatories consider themselves at war with aggressor.. no idea how anyone can 'interpret' that differentlyWell the other coalition seems to view it differently. It isn't necessary, obviously, it's your treaty. Just to save all the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlogYou Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Sure is, why do you think I'm stomping GOONs now? TIO Damage TAKEN: 2,899,836 Damage INFLICTED: 2,064,559. That's a ratio of .711 second worst damage ratio in the war only to your mates RnR. You are not stomping anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziperia Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 TIO Damage TAKEN: 2,899,836 Damage INFLICTED: 2,064,559. That's a ratio of .711 second worst damage ratio in the war only to your mates RnR. You are not stomping anything! Reading comprehension ftw! Then again, what can you expect from a paradoxian... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Reading comprehension ftw! Then again, what can you expect from a paradoxian... Haha you have a WRC, down declared on non nuclear nations. Yeah good job. Give me a minute to get down to your size and we can turn that ratio around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziperia Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Haha you have a WRC, down declared on non nuclear nations. Yeah good job. Give me a minute to get down to your size and we can turn that ratio around. I'm sorry, I'll make sure next round not to downdeclare in order to give the goonies a fighting chance. I've got 3 defensive slots, deal with it. None of that still changes the fact that FlogYou really too stupid to read. If you read my original post and the crymson post it was a reply to, you might notice it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to his callout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 TIO Damage TAKEN: 2,899,836 Damage INFLICTED: 2,064,559. That's a ratio of .711 second worst damage ratio in the war only to your mates RnR. You are not stomping anything! D'awww, don't hurt our feelings. One would figure that with 194 wars right now, and never really dropping below 120 since our entry, we'd be pulling our weight right now. Nevermind the fact that prior to declaring war against us, MI6 was really the only alliance that had been doing anything in the week or so prior. TOP and Umbrella weren't really doing much (and have a whopping 66 wars between you two currently), GOONS has 12 wars outside of R&R, with a (generous) 10 that have expired since their declaration on us, and if you ask what both HB and UPN were doing prior to their DoW on us, I would gladly give you the answer of "not squat." That said, you're welcome to continue to take potshots at us, while our comparatively unequipped (in reference to Manhattan Projects, SDIs, CIA, etc.) nations take on those nations of yours that turtled their way down into our lower tier. Have a nice day. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlogYou Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I'm sorry, I'll make sure next round not to downdeclare in order to give the goonies a fighting chance. I've got 3 defensive slots, deal with it.None of that still changes the fact that FlogYou really too stupid to read. If you read my original post and the crymson post it was a reply to, you might notice it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to his callout. Bob Sanders, is that you? That doesn't make sense, maybe before you critique peoples read comp., you might want to learn to write a proper sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Bob Sanders, is that you? That doesn't make sense, maybe before you critique peoples read comp., you might want to learn to write a proper sentence. Whoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well the other coalition seems to view it differently. It isn't necessary, obviously, it's your treaty. Just to save all the debate. Its stupid. Just as stupid as when EQ did it. An attack on one is not an attack on all. However you/they are free to react in whatever manner you lot see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Its stupid. Just as stupid as when EQ did it. An attack on one is not an attack on all. However you/they are free to react in whatever manner you lot see fit.I do agree that it was stupid when EQ did it, but moreso because it wasn't written into (most of) their treaties. Now, would I sign a treaty that had that clause? Only with very good and politically savvy friends. But I don't fault others for doing so if they place that much trust in their treaty partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 As your bumchums in TOP already know US view that differently, an attack on one IS an attack on all. As you and your bumchums should already know, we don't care about how US views things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Oh this again, yeah? :| Child's play. Translation: only when convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Its stupid. Just as stupid as when EQ did it. An attack on one is not an attack on all. However you/they are free to react in whatever manner you lot see fit. Just as stupid as when Marx did it to NATO in EQ? Like I suggested earlier, we weren't complaining, but you kinda lose the moral high ground when you do it as well. Edit: Or when UMB did it to NATO in the Dave War, to make it more relevant to the poster. Edited January 11, 2014 by Sir Humphrey 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.