Jump to content

Siberian Tiger Alliance Declaration


Tygaland

Recommended Posts

 
You know, for someone who never does anything but talk a whole lot of s*&^, you do a surprisingly small amount of backing it up.


Why because I'm happy to just sit here and grumble if a time comes that my alliance is greviously harmed by MI6 then action will be taken. But until such point I shall sit and continue moaning.

I mean this is just my personal opinion of the alliance affiliation of MI6 I happen to quite like some individual members. However your situation and ours MI6 are no where near clean. You do talk and awful amount of shit about and to us as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i wouldn't group ODN in the same class as Valhalla in terms of honoring treaties. Valhalla as been in a class of their own since disorder war

 

I disagree with this statement. Here's why:

 

ODN will gladly be on the offensive- let's not forget the "1000 nation army" comment they made while trying to muscle their FA to the World Task Force (who laughed at them- and rightfully should have)... over one nation!

 

BUT when it comes to all of STA burning- they are no where to be found.

 

At least Valhalla doesn't muscle up for a ego boost and then hide from an event where an actual ally is burning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually the treaty with NG was also a MnDoAP, but that is not exactly what I was referring to in my remarks.

 

 

Not just to Polar but also Mi6.  Both ODN and Valhalla have found themselves in situations where technically they could simply ride back to the barracks and sit out wars, but it was then and continues to be perceived as an act of an alliance that wants to avoid war whenever possible and makes them look like politicians, not friends.

 

I recognize that sometimes winning on Planet Bob involves being political and sidestepping a conflict or entering a conflict on a side that is in your best long term interest even if it doesn't appear to be a good move in the short term.  But more often, it involves moving toward to the sound the guns, knowing that you're probably going to be losing some serious NS in the process.  That is what STA is doing now, and that deserves a tip of the hat by everyone and as this thing winds down, generous terms at the end.

The difference NG wanted/expected to be defended by Valhalla. I dont recall NG ever saying "Hey, we are going to bite the bullet for our ally befriending the alliance everyone is going to roll, you guys sit this one out."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Then you don't remember the ODN I remember.  They were the originators of the "tactic" and have been criticized for it over a period of years.  In more recent times they seemed content to ride along whenever there was a fight, but very often the fights they have been involved in involved being part of a larger coalition that had an advantage.  It would be counter to utilizing politics over friendship not to show up and fight in such circumstances.  Valhalla used to be the sort of alliance that showed up for its friends whether the fight was a winning one or a losing one.  They were fortunate to be lead by people who were FA masters that knew how to make the best of bad situations--indeed, several Valhalla treaties and new friendships stemmed from losing wars.  When Valhalla reformed, that magic was lost.

The magic was lost when backroom deals were made so newly aquired allies could roll it's MnDoAP partner. You seen a degree of my disgust and the fight that i had to go through just to get people to talk about defending NG that war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you arguing with the person who wrote the first draft of the treaty text?


Couldn't careless if was the pope who wrote it, already covered how it's only binding to the treaty partners and its ridiculous to try and dictate to non signatories how they should view their DoW upon an alliance holding said treaty.

You could of added an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on the whole world and it would just be as ridiculous as saying an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on all.

Playing slight of hand and claiming STA literally declared on all rather than just the one like they did, makes me wonder what the rest of Oculus is scared of to not post a DoW on STA?

Maybe Rush a staunt ally calling the preemptive on TPF fucking stupid holds more water than meets the eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also let's not pretend this was just an issue that sprang into war -- although MI6 hilariously botched the Sengoku thing with the horrible thread Sargun made

 

If you think we did bad, then yeah that says it all mate. How about you wipe the shit from your eyes at some point and maybe Oculus could be a little bit happier without such a large tool shoved so far up their ass...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just want to point out -

 

Whether ODN defends STA is a decision that should be (and is) completely determined by ODN and STA, not external parties interpreting their treaty. If STA asks ODN not to engage, or tells them they will not request assistance, then that does not make ODN a bad ally - Just as it would not have make TPF bad allies if they would have been able to sit this out, as we had asked. It's a determination between the two parties, and if STA and ODN are satistifed with their relationship, then those external to them shouldn't be trying to change that.

 

 

 

I disagree with this statement. Here's why:

 

ODN will gladly be on the offensive- let's not forget the "1000 nation army" comment they made while trying to muscle their FA to the World Task Force (who laughed at them- and rightfully should have)... over one nation!

 

BUT when it comes to all of STA burning- they are no where to be found.

 

At least Valhalla doesn't muscle up for a ego boost and then hide from an event where an actual ally is burning.

 

I already told you your line of argument on this point was wrong in my earlier response to you, and now a member of MI6 has confirmed what I already told you. So now that members of MI6 and Oculus have told you this line of argument is wrong it would be a good time to recoginize that, learn from it, and drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't careless if was the pope who wrote it, already covered how it's only binding to the treaty partners and its ridiculous to try and dictate to non signatories how they should view their DoW upon an alliance holding said treaty.

You could of added an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on the whole world and it would just be as ridiculous as saying an attack on one signatory is viewed as an attack on all.

Playing slight of hand and claiming STA literally declared on all rather than just the one like they did, makes me wonder what the rest of Oculus is scared of to not post a DoW on STA?

Maybe Rush a staunt ally calling the preemptive on TPF !@#$@#$ stupid holds more water than meets the eye.

 

This line of reasoning is simply incorrect, it's a straw man and it holds precisely zero water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I already told you your line of argument on this point was wrong in my earlier response to you, and now a member of MI6 has confirmed what I already told you. So now that members of MI6 and Oculus have told you this line of argument is wrong it would be a good time to recoginize that, learn from it, and drop it.

 

 

my argument on the matter isn't wrong- your argument is.

 

look who i'm talking to though: NPOs treaty-ing TPF adversaries isn't wrong- TPF treaty-ing MI6 is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Oculus treaty does indeed bind only those who signed it.  That's obviously true, but this argument is based on a straw man, that because it only binds the signatories nobody else is even affected by it.  The treaty makes it clear that its signatories will automatically counter and provide support against anyone who attacks a signatory, so yes anyone can declare on only one bloc member but Oculus then must counter as a bloc, making any declaration of war on one of the signatories effectively no different than declaring war on the entire bloc.  The distinction between those two actions, declaring on one signatory versus declaring on the bloc, is rendered meaningless by this.

Why are you arguing with the person who wrote the first draft of the treaty text?


You can write a treaty any which way you like and interpret it for yourselves as you intended or see fit.  You cannot write reality or define STA's actions based on your treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can write a treaty any which way you like and interpret it for yourselves as you intended or see fit.  You cannot write reality or define STA's actions based on your treaty.

Except that's not what I'm doing.  I'm saying that whatever STA does, this is a distinction without a difference.  Whether STA declares on the whole bloc or just one member, they will be at war with the whole bloc by the terms of the treaty.  And being at war isn't some thing you can just deny and interpret on your own, you're either at war or not.  If someone is at war with you due to their treaty obligations, then whether you want to believe it or not, you're at war.  For some reason, there's this notion that Oculus is under an obligation to declare war in response to this attack, but we already did ... by signing the treaty in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that's not what I'm doing.  I'm saying that whatever STA does, this is a distinction without a difference.  Whether STA declares on the whole bloc or just one member, they will be at war with the whole bloc by the terms of the treaty.  And being at war isn't some thing you can just deny and interpret on your own, you're either at war or not.  If someone is at war with you due to their treaty obligations, then whether you want to believe it or not, you're at war.  For some reason, there's this notion that Oculus is under an obligation to declare war in response to this attack, but we already did ... by signing the treaty in the first place.

 

You realize I'm not the Senate of ODN, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think we did bad, then yeah that says it all mate. How about you wipe the !@#$ from your eyes at some point and maybe Oculus could be a little bit happier without such a large tool shoved so far up their ass...

Good counterpoint. I'm glad you've argued against what I said.

Pretty interesting that people think I'm up Oculus's ass because MI6 is garbo. Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys its no use berading someone whether or not they are going to enter this war. We never asked anyone to defend us and we certainly don't expect anyone to do so out of the goodness of their heart. There are no defensive obligations to be had here. Trying to paint anyone as the bad guys for not throwing themselves into a fire they have no business being in is dumb. Chill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good counterpoint. I'm glad you've argued against what I said.

Pretty interesting that people think I'm up Oculus's ass because MI6 is garbo.

 

What argument did you actually make? You made an opinion, that is all. There was nothing valid there, there was no argument to refute. You stated your own opinion and I then stated mine. Also, pretty amusing that you think MI6 is garbo considering you tried not once but at least twice to join MI6 and failed to gain entrance. Good story brah. Literally the only true standard MI6 has for entrance into MI6 is to not be Rey, Rota, or Junka. 

 

But yeah, I was once a supporter of yours bro, but watching how easily you flip sides shows that your loyalty is sketchy at best. You make the ODN of old, hell Umbrella, looks like stellar allies and friends. So, if you think we are garbage because we would not do what you would do, well I will take that as the highest compliment possible. If MI6 ever started acting like you, we may as well disband (like you have many times over) or sell ourselves out to the highest bidder. We honestly should let Methrage lead us if it comes to that point. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...