Sulmar Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 No, we're striving towards peaceful red relations I lol'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Wow; this is the first foreign agreement between a Red alliance, aside from the NPO, and another community! This is awesome; my avatar is doing cartwheels, seriously. Congrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Dont worry, your still the worst. glad to hear we have something. you're not very bright are you?I do believe the predecessor of FIRE already played its part in the war and did a damn fine job of it too. nice try though Ah, i see they came from the syndicate now. I was confusing this with the original FIRE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 You are actually correct Rajistani. From what I've read on here, most of the parties at war with NPO have claimed this is strictly a defensive war due to NPO's aggressive actions towards OV. That of course caused the Mutual Defense portion of a series of treaties to chain, in this case an attack on OV was an attack on VE was an attack on RoK which as of now is an attack on FIRE. Through that chain, RoK is currently being attack by Pacifica. Therefore the mutual defense portion of this, which is not optional, should be activated and FIRE is technically at war with NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 You are actually correct Rajistani. From what I've read on here, most of the parties at war with NPO have claimed this is strictly a defensive war due to NPO's aggressive actions towards OV. That of course caused the Mutual Defense portion of a series of treaties to chain, in this case an attack on OV was an attack on VE was an attack on RoK which as of now is an attack on FIRE. Through that chain, RoK is currently being attack by Pacifica. Therefore the mutual defense portion of this, which is not optional, should be activated and FIRE is technically at war with NPO. Ragnarok entered the war with a DoW, making it aggression. Regardless, if RoK needed are help they'd undoubtedly have it. Stop your e-lawerying, your reasoning is failed. It would make sense if this was IRON we were talking about, as they actually dow'd on RoK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishnokof Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 You are actually correct Rajistani. From what I've read on here, most of the parties at war with NPO have claimed this is strictly a defensive war due to NPO's aggressive actions towards OV. That of course caused the Mutual Defense portion of a series of treaties to chain, in this case an attack on OV was an attack on VE was an attack on RoK which as of now is an attack on FIRE. Through that chain, RoK is currently being attack by Pacifica. Therefore the mutual defense portion of this, which is not optional, should be activated and FIRE is technically at war with NPO. Shall we leave the activations up to those alliances involved? kthxbai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rommelgrad Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Glad to see our allies renew a relationship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Shall we leave the activations up to those alliances involved? kthxbai. Article III: Mutual Defense In the case of an attack upon one of the signatories it will be considered an attack on both. Should one of the signatories become involved in a defensive war the other alliance will set forth all means possible to help the defending signatory; including but not limited to, political support, financial aid and military intervention. The alliances involved wrote that in their treaty. So I can see two options here. Option 1: RoK used the oA in their pacts with VE to declare an aggressive war towards NPO, thereby refuting all the claims that they are in a defensive war vs NPO. Though technically that isn't even possible, due to their multiple mutual defense treaties with VE that automatically trigger, they were attacked by NPO as soon as NPO attacked OV. Option 2: RoK was attacked by NPO due to treaty chaining with wording as above. Therefore by the wording agreed to from both parties in this announcement, FIRE should by all means possible be helping RoK with political support, financial aid, and military intervention as they have been attacked by NPO as well. The clause makes it clear that this isn't optional. Technically this clause puts FIRE at war with NPO as of now. This kind of thing happens when you sign a MDoAP with an alliance who is currently under attack by another alliance. This would mean that Rajistani's question was legitimate and those who called him "not to bright" etc are the ones who weren't exactly lighting up the night themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jekalle Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Shall we leave the activations up to those alliances involved? kthxbai. No, of course not! How else would be get our laughs in? Option 1: RoK used the oA in their pacts with VE to declare an aggressive war towards NPO, thereby refuting all the claims that they are in a defensive war vs NPO. Where did we ever say that we're in a defensive war with NPO? Option 2: RoK was attacked by NPO due to treaty chaining with wording as above. We DoW'd on NPO... There is no defense of Ragnarok involved here. In the future, it'd be nice for you to review this stuff before trying to troll. o/ FIRE o/ RoK Best of luck to Carter, TimLee and the rest of the gang at FIRE! Edited June 9, 2009 by jekalle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Ragnarok entered the war with a DoW, making it aggression. Regardless, if RoK needed are help they'd undoubtedly have it. Stop your e-lawerying, your reasoning is failed. It would make sense if this was IRON we were talking about, as they actually dow'd on RoK. If elmo can count to 10, how many alliances does that make in the last 6 months? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Congratz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Article III: Mutual DefenseIn the case of an attack upon one of the signatories it will be considered an attack on both. Should one of the signatories become involved in a defensive war the other alliance will set forth all means possible to help the defending signatory; including but not limited to, political support, financial aid and military intervention. The alliances involved wrote that in their treaty. So I can see two options here. Option 1: RoK used the oA in their pacts with VE to declare an aggressive war towards NPO, thereby refuting all the claims that they are in a defensive war vs NPO. Though technically that isn't even possible, due to their multiple mutual defense treaties with VE that automatically trigger, they were attacked by NPO as soon as NPO attacked OV. Option 2: RoK was attacked by NPO due to treaty chaining with wording as above. Therefore by the wording agreed to from both parties in this announcement, FIRE should by all means possible be helping RoK with political support, financial aid, and military intervention as they have been attacked by NPO as well. The clause makes it clear that this isn't optional. Technically this clause puts FIRE at war with NPO as of now. This kind of thing happens when you sign a MDoAP with an alliance who is currently under attack by another alliance. This would mean that Rajistani's question was legitimate and those who called him "not to bright" etc are the ones who weren't exactly lighting up the night themselves. /me presents Vol Navy with a Juris Doctorate in pointless bickering. Run along now, Slayer99 will want to get a picture of you in that cap and gown. Don't forget to smile. Good luck to FIRE, we look forward to working with you. Edited June 9, 2009 by Gen Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Interesting alliances. Good Luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Arguments about defence notwithstanding, treaties signed after the initiation of hostilities don't traditionally trigger unless a new war is declared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Congratulations, you've gained a fine ally in RoK, FIRE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Well played sirs... well played... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Good luck to our RoK brothers and FIRE. o/ Mad dogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cable77 Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Congratulations to our new little buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecha Sheikh Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 hiiiiiiii Carter o7 ROK ROK ROK o7 FIRE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Great new Flag FIRE. Also, Hi Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ying Yang Mafia Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 You're a good guy Carter. Glad to see we're still allied with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Congrats on this treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gambona Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Congratulations to our friends in ROK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool3atool Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 o/ RoK - o/ FIRE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 This is not surprising. I have many thoughts on this, and the people who matter may ask if they wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.