Affluenza Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Or maybe some people don't like the friends we side with? Well your definately siding up... we actually have a NAP with TGE via SNOW. There was a time when a NAP mean't something...that was a long long time ago though. The fact that TPF don't sign anything below an ODP shows the importance of PIAT's, ToA's and NAP's as treaties. The fact that your passing off generic wording which every economic treaty in existence has as being a NAP is laughable. If your saying you can honour some wording in an economic treaty then you can sign NAP's too...but as we have already established TPF don't sign NAP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I love this topic, It starts off with a simple non-cancelled treaty and gone on to who will stand with who LMFAO. We all know what's happens when a war starts, CB Reason: been sent to every main alliances leader in private channels. Alliance leader: Treaty cancelled, notice was given in private channels and time has passed. CB Reason: posted publicly War starts. How ever I do not see war coming, TPF felt they no longer had a reason to hold a treaty with TGE, and NDAC felt the same maybe due to the same reason that TGE maybe is ignoring them, I do not know. But war only happens when a CB is posted, so move one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 There was a time when a NAP mean't something...that was a long long time ago though. The fact that TPF don't sign anything below an ODP shows the importance of PIAT's, ToA's and NAP's as treaties. The fact that your passing off generic wording which every economic treaty in existence has as being a NAP is laughable.If your saying you can honour some wording in an economic treaty then you can sign NAP's too...but as we have already established TPF don't sign NAP's. Just because they dropped a treaty with an alliance, and now maintain a lesser treaty with them, does NOT mean they are attacking them, or ever plan to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KADUUK Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Goodmorning Vietnam! FOK! Edited February 8, 2009 by KADUUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Just because they dropped a treaty with an alliance, and now maintain a lesser treaty with them, does NOT mean they are attacking them, or ever plan to do so. CN doesn't have coincidences... If TPF and NADC both cancel treaties in the same space of time...than TPF is guilty at the very least of having information regarding TGE and potential harm/aggression towards them. On a more serious note it shows TPF is siding up to whom ever is against TGE. Both these things are indirect aggressive actions taken against TGE by TPF and mean they are not honouring their "Aggression" article in SNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descendent Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Treaties treaties, and more treaties. Can't remember when we dropped one without a very good reason, and that's something some alliances can't say without being dishonest. (pleaaazzze don't bother me with 'and what about the LSF treaty in the very very past?' crap... we had very good reasons back then) We like TGE still very very much and they must really do something aweful and shameless to make us drop this pact. But I'm sure they won't. Edited February 8, 2009 by Descendent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 CN doesn't have coincidences...If TPF and NADC both cancel treaties in the same space of time...than TPF is guilty at the very least of having information regarding TGE and potential harm/aggression towards them. On a more serious note it shows TPF is siding up to whom ever is against TGE. Both these things are indirect aggressive actions taken against TGE by TPF and mean they are not honouring their "Aggression" article in SNOW. You are reading way too much into this. I thought we already had established that neither TGE nor FOK were getting hit anytime soon. If not, then it's established now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 CN doesn't have coincidences... I believe you're wrong, there are precedents. E.g.: some time before the BLEU-Coalition war we (MHA) canceled our treaty with the NpO, together with several other old treaties with Alliances we hadn't strong bond with any more. Some time later the war broke out, but that was purely coincidental (in regard to our moves). Now, you can not believe me, of course, and that's perfectly acceptable. More on topic, "congrats" to FOK for their fair announcement; it doesn't change anything, but I guess that it's just FOK nature to be fuzzy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) CN doesn't have coincidences...If TPF and NADC both cancel treaties in the same space of time...than TPF is guilty at the very least of having information regarding TGE and potential harm/aggression towards them. On a more serious note it shows TPF is siding up to whom ever is against TGE. Both these things are indirect aggressive actions taken against TGE by TPF and mean they are not honouring their "Aggression" article in SNOW. Seriously? The time between the two treaties being dropped is WEEKS. It's not as if this a flurry of cancellations all in the same night. edit: Treaties treaties, and more treaties.Can't remember when we dropped one without a very good reason, and that's something some alliances can't say without being dishonest. (pleaaazzze don't bother me with 'and what about the LSF treaty in the very very past?' crap... we had very good reasons back then) dry.gif We like TGE still very very much and they must really do something aweful and shameless to make us drop this pact. But I'm sure they won't. happy.gif You realize you didn't drop the treaty? This is more of a statement of support. Edited February 8, 2009 by youwish959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 So you're saying that SNOW means... nothing? I don't think you get it. SNOW is just like every economic treaty. The trades that were in place would be up to the individual alliances and nations if one alliance were kicked, but that alliance would not be able to set up any new trades through SNOW, or use SNOW's Tech Center. -Bama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) and mean they are not honouring their "Aggression" article in SNOW. Lucky for them, SNOW is meaningless. Phew! You are reading way too much into this. I thought we already had established that neither TGE nor FOK were getting hit anytime soon. If not, then it's established now. Just because you keep saying nothing will happen doesn't prove anything. Repetition/=proof. I don't think you get it. No I really think I do. Edited February 8, 2009 by Tom Litler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Droz Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Yay! Good show FOK, and keep them close TGE, best of luck to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 You are reading way too much into this. I thought we already had established that neither TGE nor FOK were getting hit anytime soon. If not, then it's established now. Very good. Though the intention to do harm remains and it might be time for TGE to look for another sphere to inhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Very good. Though the intention to do harm remains and it might be time for TGE to look for another sphere to inhabit. I don't think there is any intention to do harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yinner Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 its sad that this is necessary. best of luck to both alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroicDisaster Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Good show FOK Edited February 8, 2009 by HeroicDisaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Rising Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Yep, hope TOOL sticks by FOK now. I'm not sure where that came from. I was under the impression that this thread was about FOK, TGE and, to an extent, TPF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 CN doesn't have coincidences...If TPF and NADC both cancel treaties in the same space of time...than TPF is guilty at the very least of having information regarding TGE and potential harm/aggression towards them. On a more serious note it shows TPF is siding up to whom ever is against TGE. Both these things are indirect aggressive actions taken against TGE by TPF and mean they are not honouring their "Aggression" article in SNOW. Yes, you caught us we control everyone's actions. In fact, we made you post this very statement. In all seriousness though, try reading up on cause and effect sometime. Just because two alliances, who don't really even have basic diplomatic relations between them, cancel treaties doesn't mean their is some grand conspiracy here. Very good. Though the intention to do harm remains and it might be time for TGE to look for another sphere to inhabit. So dropping a treaty is now intention to do harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Just because you keep saying nothing will happen doesn't prove anything. Repetition/=proof. Yes it does. And you just ordered yourself a 1000 liters of milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Very good. Though the intention to do harm remains and it might be time for TGE to look for another sphere to inhabit. Yes, TGE should run scared because Argent wants one less senate rival :jihad: Oh wait... (Yes, I am aware they do not currently hold a seat.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke81 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Hail FOK! Hail TGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 OK people, whats going on here? Is it so hard to understand that this topic is about FOK and TGE? Not about TPF, not about NADC, not about SNOW, no - just about FOK and TGE. Secondly, why is it so strange for an alliance to make a stance for their allies in hard times? Why is it strange to show support to your allies in times of peace, instead of a DoS during wartime? I truly don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Rising Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 OK people, whats going on here? Is it so hard to understand that this topic is about FOK and TGE? Not about TPF, not about NADC, not about SNOW, no - just about FOK and TGE.Secondly, why is it so strange for an alliance to make a stance for their allies in hard times? Why is it strange to show support to your allies in times of peace, instead of a DoS during wartime? I truly don't get it. This individual speaks the truth. I don't see the issue with FOK supporting TGE, and I don't see why TOOL/SNOW/Tin Foil Hats are getting dragged into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 OK people, whats going on here? Is it so hard to understand that this topic is about FOK and TGE? Not about TPF, not about NADC, not about SNOW, no - just about FOK and TGE.Secondly, why is it so strange for an alliance to make a stance for their allies in hard times? Why is it strange to show support to your allies in times of peace, instead of a DoS during wartime? I truly don't get it. Because I just got a shiny new tinfoil hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) In all seriousness though, try reading up on cause and effect sometime. Just because two alliances, who don't really even have basic diplomatic relations between them, cancel treaties doesn't mean their is some grand conspiracy here. Hehe. You really think anyone is fooled? Almost every single treaty cancellation accouncement made is always based on A] we've grown apart and or B] Communication issues. The amount of genuine cancellations are very few and far between. So dropping a treaty is now intention to do harm? It is when A] TGE is in SNOW and B] TPF clearly know of an attempt to harm TGE one way or another and are probably getting out of the way or were setting themselves up to stomp or help bring down TGE. Though from the looks of it FOK put a brakes on that. If TPF really cared about White sphere and TGE who are on it...they would have atleast attempted to make a reconciliation happen. Edited February 8, 2009 by Affluenza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts