WileyXero Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I love karma. But then agian i love cake to so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakeshott Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I'm out. Got whipped good, no money left. Resign from TPF immediate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lafiel Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I have no issue buying rounds, but next time you feel the urge to clear out our ghosties I'd prefer you just ask for a list instead of going whole hog into it :lol: ok just send the name of the one who are in my range (as we are now showing our power to each other ,i can assume you know what's my range) and i assure you i'll deal with them swiftly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lafiel Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Neither does it say they have no obligation. It only says that if the NPO is attacked (which it was) then they must come to their aid. The idea you are running on (that this was an offensive war and thus, Echelon did not need to come to the NPO's aid) is precisely the reason why chaining clauses such as the one below were invented.The 1V treaty was never amended with a non-chaining clause therefore any attack on one signatory, be it from a defensive war or an offensive war, makes every other signatory obligated to defend them. The signatories of 1V were well aware of the presence of non-chaining clauses in treaties and, since they opted not to include or add a non-chaining clause, in effect agreed that they would ride in defense of each other upon ANY attack. but also there was nothing in it to declare that they must participate in wars if an alliance of the treaty like to attack other alliaces . all the people who signed the traty well knew that if one of them attack another alliance those alliances are bound to call on their allies .but they never put an article in the traty to make any obligation for them to enter the war in such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 You know maybe you guys wouldn't get attacked if you actually messaged your attackers saying you surrendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Rooney Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I will give Karma credit for offering terms that are equivalent to individual white peace. That's really quite generous of you all and I will stand down for a moment to salute you. o/ Karma That said, I now have some work to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 You know maybe you guys wouldn't get attacked if you actually messaged your attackers saying you surrendered. Logic and common sense FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
count dracu1a Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 i surrender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tra Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 i'm not fighting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJacobs Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 I may not be French, but I surrender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Also, I bet if you JUST finished launching attacks at someone and followed it immediately with a surrender, you just might get hit anyways.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 i surrender i'm not fighting Did you follow ALL the terms in the OP? 1. Peace out of all wars. 2. Decommission soldiers down to no more than 50% of your working citizens for the duration of the terms. 3. Decommission all tanks for the duration of the terms. 4. Decommission all Naval vessels for the duration of the terms. 5. Decommission nuclear weapons for the duration of the terms. 6. Decommission military Improvements except for those needed to keep an SDI. 7. Post your resignation from your alliance in the public resignation thread on the OWF here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213 8. Switch your AA to Karma POW until the conflict is over or you are released, whichever comes first. Time spent as a POW shall not exceed 1 month in the event of extended conflict. 9. Do not re enter the conflict, including spying on Karma nations, or send aid to anyone fighting in the conflict for its duration. 10. Failure to comply with terms will result in a resumption of hostilities. PM your attackers and you should be fine. I may not be French, but I surrender I'd be tempted to keep you in a state of war just for that remark. Lucky it's not my call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmsbmck Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I may not be French, but I surrender Q: You know how to tell if you're dealing with a French soldier? A: The sunburnt armpits from walking around with his hands in the air! Oh yeah, I surrender too. JMSBMCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) ZI FTW! p.s: I came into this war with no aid and no warchest but I've still anarchied three out of five of your RIA nations! LOL! Edited May 5, 2009 by Dexter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drugsup Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 You can suck my %^&** if you think I'm going to surrender to such !@#$ terms. ZI FTW! p.s: I came into this war with no aid and no warchest but I've still anarchied three out of five of your RIA nations! LOL! Anarchy means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 ZI FTW! p.s: I came into this war with no aid and no warchest but I've still anarchied three out of five of your RIA nations! LOL! Your amazing skill at war is amazingly amazing. Let me be amazed by your amazingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Instr Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 in a nuclear war that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymatty Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Did you follow ALL the terms in the OP?1. Peace out of all wars. 2. Decommission soldiers down to no more than 50% of your working citizens for the duration of the terms. 3. Decommission all tanks for the duration of the terms. 4. Decommission all Naval vessels for the duration of the terms. 5. Decommission nuclear weapons for the duration of the terms. 6. Decommission military Improvements except for those needed to keep an SDI. 7. Post your resignation from your alliance in the public resignation thread on the OWF here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213 8. Switch your AA to Karma POW until the conflict is over or you are released, whichever comes first. Time spent as a POW shall not exceed 1 month in the event of extended conflict. 9. Do not re enter the conflict, including spying on Karma nations, or send aid to anyone fighting in the conflict for its duration. 10. Failure to comply with terms will result in a resumption of hostilities. If this is the case how come I still see 10 G.C.'s 16 Nukes 10 Navy 832 CM's Over 17K's tanks I think some of these people need to get to Decoming pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceremony Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 While I am amused by 832 CMs, I also note that the terms you quoted don't actually mention CM's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octovanyo Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 While I am amused by 832 CMs, I also note that the terms you quoted don't actually mention CM's. actually when you look at it he's right there isnt any CM's in there I'm astounded that nobody noticed this beforehand :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 As far as I'm concerned they can have all the cruise missiles they want. It's not like they're more dangerous on the field than in the warchest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 actually when you look at it he's right there isnt any CM's in there I'm astounded that nobody noticed this beforehand :lol: Let's be honest, holding on to CMs you aren't about to fire hurts you more than decomming them would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Let's be honest, holding on to CMs you aren't about to fire hurts you more than decomming them would. This sort of thing should be encouraged. 50 CM's per nation!! DO IT NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octovanyo Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Let's be honest, holding on to CMs you aren't about to fire hurts you more than decomming them would. Thats true, it's just a little comical that they require the decom. of aircraft,navy, tanks ect. ect. but they forgot CM's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 This sort of thing should be encouraged.50 CM's per nation!! DO IT NOW So the new strategy is to force an alliance to operate a max military at all times? I think its brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts