Master Hakai Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 But elawyers need their jerbs and planners need their strings to pull. Some like hookups and some like marriage. Some like to nurse their blue bombs for six years and then blow them on the next DBDC that comes along (looking at you, WTF). No need to fight about the type of love. If it's love, it's alllllrriiiight. #waitingtobesanctionedonyellow Keep it up and we'll sanction not just you, but also your wives and children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderonomy Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Keep it up and we'll sanction not just you, but also your wives and children Now this is just going too far, sir. Baby Mama and I can take your slings and arrows, but you leave the kiddos out of this. Krihelion and Stewie are already taking enough damage from WTF. :v: Kashmir should keep tight on the sanctions or ready themselves for a rap battle that will tear these forums asunder. :smug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I'm telling you, officially and formally as one half of that magnificent duo that runs foreign affairs, that how DBDC feels or felt about young Mogar never entered into our calculus; if you'd joined Kashmir instead of yet another retirement alliance, you would have seen it yourself. Some of us (unlike certain born again moralists) still "do it for the lulz". Secondly, and more importantly,Kashmir believes that on a fundamental level, the treaty web is a lie. Our first approach to educate the Cyberverse, the Kashmir Co Prosperity Sphere, attempted to fundamentally re-adress the issue of legal language and treaty signing, but it was received poorly by people too mired in the past to understand it. Now, we keep our foreign relations simple; we have our friends, and we need no pieces of paper to hold them to us. relationships, and not ultimately unenforceable contracts, are the glue between sovereign states and alliances both. We invite all other free leaders to follow this model and experience the freedom it brings to dialogue (both internal and external) and to the political process. Regardless, you've been dragged into multiple major wars on behalf of a foreign power. Thus, despite having no on paper treaties, there is no fundamental difference in your actions, and an alliance tangled in the web's actions. The end result is the same. You found yourself fighting a chained in war that only served to further another alliance's agenda. Though I suppose, I'm sure Kashmir loved to see Polar burn, though, so I guess it did suit your role. Treaties are frequently ignored, and are only activated when it furthers an alliance's goals, which sounds an awful lot like what you just said. Really though, there are no truely independent alliances in CN except the one currently being attacked. That will sure do alot to encourage others to drop treaties and go it alone. Also, while I love Kashmir and did seriously consider joining, it should be quite obvious that I have no desire to fight for the people you have, and will continue to fight for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gh0s7 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Regardless, you've been dragged into multiple major wars on behalf of a foreign power. Thus, despite having no on paper treaties, there is no fundamental difference in your actions, and an alliance tangled in the web's actions. The end result is the same. You found yourself fighting a chained in war that only served to further another alliance's agenda. Though I suppose, I'm sure Kashmir loved to see Polar burn, though, so I guess it did suit your role. Treaties are frequently ignored, and are only activated when it furthers an alliance's goals, which sounds an awful lot like what you just said. Really though, there are no truely independent alliances in CN except the one currently being attacked. That will sure do alot to encourage others to drop treaties and go it alone. Also, while I love Kashmir and did seriously consider joining, it should be quite obvious that I have no desire to fight for the people you have, and will continue to fight for. Kashmir doesn't need a piece of paper to tell them when they go to war, that's what they're saying. You think they'll just ignore their friends when a tough war comes along; however, knowing Kashmir as I do, I can tell you that's not even in the slightest bit true. Kashmir has no spoken treaties; but it would be a mistake to think they would ever find themselves alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Rey, you words are like a culinary abortion. Even you can't really stomach them, can you?At this point you really shouldn't still be mad over getting owned in #mi6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Regardless, you've been dragged into multiple major wars on behalf of a foreign power. Thus, despite having no on paper treaties, there is no fundamental difference in your actions, and an alliance tangled in the web's actions. The end result is the same. You found yourself fighting a chained in war that only served to further another alliance's agenda. Though I suppose, I'm sure Kashmir loved to see Polar burn, though, so I guess it did suit your role. Treaties are frequently ignored, and are only activated when it furthers an alliance's goals, which sounds an awful lot like what you just said. Really though, there are no truely independent alliances in CN except the one currently being attacked. That will sure do alot to encourage others to drop treaties and go it alone. Also, while I love Kashmir and did seriously consider joining, it should be quite obvious that I have no desire to fight for the people you have, and will continue to fight for. We were dragged into nothing. Our front in the Doom war had nothing to do with the Doom Sphere, we had beef with SUN, and we worked it out. There was minor cross traffic in declarations between our front and the main, and no declarations on Polar whatsoever. We beat SUN and friends, and then we exited the war. If anything, we dragged DS/DBDC into our front to cover a couple of larger nations, but save for 1 or 2 wars against NADC, the only nations we fought were SUN, Invicta, and the Legion. We blunted the combat ability of a rival, blooded our younger nations, brought activity up...all of this sounds like sound achievements in a limited conflict that we fought in. The only chains around here are the ones holding you to an alliance that has not and will not do anything except rot on the vine. Anyway, I'm done with this, less I hear some smart ass say something about protesting too much. Edited March 20, 2015 by Margrave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I am still confused on why Kashmir felt the need to insert themselves into this issue. I like you guys, but this reeks of trying to score points with others. Admittedly you're probably not in the minority there but in our defense, as we've indicated, our sanction was not placed for anyone else but was intended purely for our own amusement. When our Senator, Lex Quintus, recently indicated that he could place a sanction again it was suggested that Mogar receive the honor. Initially jokingly I should add, as we otherwise felt no compelling reason to do so, but this thread gave the proposition steam (and I'm sure members had other reasons of their own). Silly and needless, sure, but so was this thread (after all, breaking a NAP to prove a point isn't exactly rational). In this instance though no damage was actually done. No harm, no foul. I'm flattered you would consider joining us within our hallowed halls but I'm afraid that, should you overcome your reservations about the company we truly freely choose to defend, your misunderstandings about paperlessness and Kashmir in general would be too much of a stumbling block. Uhhhm I think perhaps you may wish to rethink this phraseology. :) :blink: That one went far, far over your head. How embarrassing. :( Sorry we bogarted this thread, DBDC (although that's not our fault), you can have it back now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Admittedly you're probably not in the minority there but in our defense, as we've indicated, our sanction was not placed for anyone else but was intended purely for our own amusement. When our Senator, Lex Quintus, recently indicated that he could place a sanction again it was suggested that Mogar receive the honor. Initially jokingly I should add, as we otherwise felt no compelling reason to do so, but this thread gave the proposition steam (and I'm sure members had other reasons of their own). Silly and needless, sure, but so was this thread (after all, breaking a NAP to prove a point isn't exactly rational). In this instance though no damage was actually done. No harm, no foul. I'm flattered you would consider joining us within our hallowed halls but I'm afraid that, should you overcome your reservations about the company we truly freely choose to defend, your misunderstandings about paperlessness and Kashmir in general would be too much of a stumbling block. I have no issue at all with Kashmir going to the paperless route. That was not my argument. I am pointing out that despite not having paper - you are still bound by the exact same chains as someone with paper. When it comes down to it, a treaty is just a matter of convenience as proven time and time again by both sides. In the end, you'll still be used the next time DS/DBDC go on the offensive, and will wind up in the same position whether you had treaties or didn't. You're trying to play up Kashmir as some sort of independent alliance that is changing the way everything is done. I don't see any results or anything based in reality to support that claim. The only chains around here are the ones holding you to an alliance that has not and will not do anything except rot on the vine. I think you might be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 As fun as it is to humor your subjective interpretations of how we operate - or what our greater goals are (you're off on both) - I don't see any good points being raised or anything based in reality to support your claims. Feel free to continue misinterpreting things or actually get to better know us at cnkashmir.com. You like us after all, remember? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 You're trying to play up Kashmir as some sort of independent alliance that is changing the way everything is done. I don't see any results or anything based in reality to support that claim. To be fair they have done better in the attempt than most in the past. Sanctions for lulz should certainly disqualify them from a senate seat, however. That's truly despicable behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Churchill Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Kashmir doesn't need a piece of paper to tell them when they go to war, that's what they're saying. You think they'll just ignore their friends when a tough war comes along; however, knowing Kashmir as I do, I can tell you that's not even in the slightest bit true. Kashmir has no spoken treaties; but it would be a mistake to think they would ever find themselves alone. ^ Well said ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 To be fair they have done better in the attempt than most in the past. Sanctions for lulz should certainly disqualify them from a senate seat, however. That's truly despicable behaviour. I'm sure all the nations on yellow affected by the sanction on Mogar will make their displeasure known come the next senate election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It is up to Kashmir at the end of the day, oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Kashmir doesn't need a piece of paper to tell them when they go to war, that's what they're saying. You think they'll just ignore their friends when a tough war comes along; however, knowing Kashmir as I do, I can tell you that's not even in the slightest bit true. Kashmir has no spoken treaties; but it would be a mistake to think they would ever find themselves alone. He didn't say anything about ignoring their friends when a tough war comes along. His point is that by having friends who will back each other up militarily in a war, they aren't escaping from the treaty web or how treaty webs work with global wars. Treaties are just a formal way of publicly stating your ties and friendships. The ties and friendships are generally what determine what side you will be on in a war, not the formal public declarations (treaties). Edited March 21, 2015 by Azaghul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) He didn't say anything about ignoring their friends when a tough war comes along. His point is that by having friends who will back each other up militarily in a war, they aren't escaping from the treaty web or how treaty webs work with global wars. Treaties are just a formal way of publicly stating your ties and friendships. The ties and friendships are generally what determine what side you will be on in a war, not the formal public declarations (treaties). The difference is the rest of you follow the letter of the law, we the spirit. People are so concerned with justifying their actions through treaty links that we still have ghost decs so allies can get on their desired front. Edited March 22, 2015 by WorldConqueror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 The difference is the rest of you follow the letter of the law, we the spirit. People are so concerned with justifying their actions through treaty links that we still have ghost decs so allies can get on their desired front. You say that, WC, but some would disagree. :p He didn't say anything about ignoring their friends when a tough war comes along. His point is that by having friends who will back each other up militarily in a war, they aren't escaping from the treaty web or how treaty webs work with global wars. Treaties are just a formal way of publicly stating your ties and friendships. The ties and friendships are generally what determine what side you will be on in a war, not the formal public declarations (treaties). Yes, exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorback05 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 I have no issue at all with Kashmir going to the paperless route. That was not my argument. I am pointing out that despite not having paper - you are still bound by the exact same chains as someone with paper. When it comes down to it, a treaty is just a matter of convenience as proven time and time again by both sides. In the end, you'll still be used the next time DS/DBDC go on the offensive, and will wind up in the same position whether you had treaties or didn't. You're trying to play up Kashmir as some sort of independent alliance that is changing the way everything is done. I don't see any results or anything based in reality to support that claim. I think you might be surprised. A treaty is a treaty whether it is officially on the OWF or not. I fail to see your argument. Unless it is to say that no matter what an AA will be dragged into war by DBDC. That to me seems like your only argument. You have no idea about the ties DBDC has behind doors nor do you know the ties any other AA has behind doors. Here is what you can do................ Buy up to the top 250 and get wrecked. Then come back on here and cry some more. I love how everyone in the Upper Lower Class of this game has something the say. Mainly because they can't do sh#t about anything. give to 2 posts and someone will say "Coming from you Gatorback who has never fought until now" Old news dude. Get over it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Your constant threats are simply ensuring those who are your enemies simply wait outside of range of you, while you slowly are forced to turn against your allies, but by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Your constant threats are simply ensuring those who are your enemies simply wait outside of range of you, while you slowly are forced to turn against your allies, but by all means. They would never do that! Best allies in the world! But in all seriousness they claim to raid because bored, don't know what will happen when its just "friends" and peacemoders in range as boredom will go through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You say that, WC, but some would disagree. :p Yes, exactly. We achieve everything one can achieve in the treaty web without being bound to it; our relations are as such that you can't figure out who we are friends with (the people who came in with us in the SUN War surprised alot of folks). We also don't generate vacuous, mindless hails threads because of x treaty, nor do we give any indication of a potential relationship gone bad by announcing treaty cancellations. Governments change, and alliances change, and we are free to react to that without giving a critic a leg to stand on. We're a maneuver element in a world still fighting attrition warfare style (diplomatically, that is.) You keep striving for relevance, Mogar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You sanctioned me, if I was irrelevant that would not have occured. It is genuinely adorable you think you are somehow relevant though. I have a history of accomplishments and alliance positions longer than your average verbose post, please continue to behave as though you are an original and unique snowflake though, it proves my own theories about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You sanctioned me, if I was irrelevant that would not have occured. It is genuinely adorable you think you are somehow relevant though. I have a history of accomplishments and alliance positions longer than your average verbose post, please continue to behave as though you are an original and unique snowflake though, it proves my own theories about you. "Accomplishments" Let's not get ahead of ourselves, here. :smug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 A treaty is a treaty whether it is officially on the OWF or not. I fail to see your argument. Unless it is to say that no matter what an AA will be dragged into war by DBDC. That to me seems like your only argument. You have no idea about the ties DBDC has behind doors nor do you know the ties any other AA has behind doors. Here is what you can do................ Buy up to the top 250 and get wrecked. Then come back on here and cry some more. I love how everyone in the Upper Lower Class of this game has something the say. Mainly because they can't do sh#t about anything. give to 2 posts and someone will say "Coming from you Gatorback who has never fought until now" Old news dude. Get over it and move on. You're actually arguing the same thing as I am. I'm not sure whether you realized that. Anyway, I'll just "buy" up into the top 250. Sure. Also, I'm not the one who "can't do shit". I have more than 250 nations in range, and I'm not allied to 75% of them. I guess an actual political debate is "crying". Lastly, I've never said anything about you never fighting, so telling me to move on might be a bit misplaced, but then again nobody said you were intelligent. We achieve everything one can achieve in the treaty web without being bound to it; our relations are as such that you can't figure out who we are friends with (the people who came in with us in the SUN War surprised alot of folks). We also don't generate vacuous, mindless hails threads because of x treaty, nor do we give any indication of a potential relationship gone bad by announcing treaty cancellations. Governments change, and alliances change, and we are free to react to that without giving a critic a leg to stand on. We're a maneuver element in a world still fighting attrition warfare style (diplomatically, that is.) You keep striving for relevance, Mogar. I think everyone knows who you are friends with, and what side you will be on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 We're gonna need 5 more pages of Starfox and Margrave repeating themselves, so if we could get that done that'd be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 We're gonna need 5 more pages of Starfox and Margrave repeating themselves, so if we could get that done that'd be great. I'll attempt to throw a stick in the spokes with the following statement: Mogar is an !@#$%^& and often an idiot, but he isn't always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts