Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 385
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

"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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by Ziperia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well the other coalition seems to view it differently. It isn't necessary, obviously, it's your treaty. Just to save all the debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sir Humphrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...