Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Do you blame us for being hesitant, I mean lets get serious here. If you had those that deserted your Alliance during War Time operations and jumped into another one...wouldn't you be a little aggravated that this was going on and that they deliberately left your Alliance on bad terms? I won't name names here or anything but there were several who left and that in itself does not go right with me at all.You know what they did with Deserters during the Civil War. They were Shot. Again let me just clarify that this is my own beliefs here nor do they reflect on our Alliance as a whole. I really hope you aren't calling me a deserter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Kuse Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) I really hope you aren't calling me a deserter. Could be, Cant say for certain. >.> Although im sure you would have some well thought out excuse other than the Terms we Offered NPO were harsh. Edited July 8, 2009 by President Kuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I really hope you aren't calling me a deserter. The act of resignation from an alliance during war is under all circumstances called desertion. Have you ever done such thing, Francesca? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requia Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The act of resignation from an alliance during war is under all circumstances called desertion. Have you ever done such thing, Francesca? I would hardly call it desertion to leave the winning side in a war of occupation. NPO never considered it desertion when people left during the 16 months they were at war with FAN. And it is not reasonable to expect the individual nations of karma to give up their sovereignty for the incredible amount of time it appears this war will drag on. Inb4 cries of E-Lawyering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Kuse Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I would hardly call it desertion to leave the winning side in a war of occupation. NPO never considered it desertion when people left during the 16 months they were at war with FAN. And it is not reasonable to expect the individual nations of karma to give up their sovereignty for the incredible amount of time it appears this war will drag on.Inb4 cries of E-Lawyering There is no gray area for Desertion. It is what it is. Whether or not were the winning side is irrelevant. This is VE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I would hardly call it desertion to leave the winning side in a war of occupation. NPO never considered it desertion when people left during the 16 months they were at war with FAN. And it is not reasonable to expect the individual nations of karma to give up their sovereignty for the incredible amount of time it appears this war will drag on.Inb4 cries of E-Lawyering In all honesty, I really don't care about what you'd call desertion or not. If we do not abide to the definitions that we yield to words, how do we otherwise communicate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requia Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 If we do not abide to the definitions that we yield to words, how do we otherwise communicate? Good question, you'll have to let me know how it turns out for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Good question, you'll have to let me know how it turns out for you. Communication is based on knowledge, which you do not possess when it comes to metacommunication nor Francescas unfortunate desertion for that matter. In conclusion our communique is frail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yeah, not really a shock either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yeah, not really a shock either. Spare me. So, how are the drama classes going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Sad but necessary. o/ VE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. Edited July 9, 2009 by Bilrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. The only alliance fighting for NPO: TPF Shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 The only alliance fighting for NPO: TPFShocking. Are we really going to go in to this in this thread? But hey, point me to another alliance that has stuck with an ally for three months against overwhelming odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. We cancel treaties. We don't get cancelled on. Shocking difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. hey, i provided uranium used in the development of multiple nukes delivered to your nation. on topic, why is it such a bad thing to cancel a treaty when you no longer feel it accurately describes the relationship between the signatories? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanru Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Are we really going to go in to this in this thread? But hey, point me to another alliance that has stuck with an ally for three months against overwhelming odds. I'll point out the C&G block. ---- This whole issue between FIRE and VE seems to have gotten out of hand. I understand why VE canceled and wish both alliances luck in their paths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 This was one of my major concerns as well, And I have made it known several times. When did they "desert"? Recently? With the war won, surely you're not still forcing people to stay. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 When did they "desert"? Recently? With the war won, surely you're not still forcing people to stay.-Bama they deserted after the second or third round of wars, there were still many targets in there range that they could have hit. or they could have sent aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. Bilrow makes another condescending remark, shocking. I don't blame you though, it is after all just about the only thing you have left at this point right? As for FIRE, lets not dwell on this cancellation but work towards building new bonds instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 When did they "desert"? Recently? With the war won, surely you're not still forcing people to stay.-Bama After re-adjusting to normal peace-time protocols, desertions as a subject is no longer valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 But wasnt VE supposed to have a higher criteria for establishing such a treaty other than "'Cause we like diz d00d"? However, when it comes to canceling treaties all someone has to do is ask. In case you haven't heard, MHA is looking forward to rolling FIRE. They wanted to roll BTA and FoB as well, but MK wouldn't drop FoB just because the mighty MHA asked, so now MHA is angry with C&G and is going to be angry for a long time, holding their anger in, and being angry. And they aren't afraid to let you know it. Yes, the wanted to roll BTA, FIRE, and FoB all at once, but I guess they're willing to settle with only FIRE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'll point out the C&G block.---- This whole issue between FIRE and VE seems to have gotten out of hand. I understand why VE canceled and wish both alliances luck in their paths. Which war was that that lasted for three months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) I thought so too. I guess I must have been wrong. This was the one treaty I was actually expecting we would keep. Nice to know that as soon as a little bit of internal drama happens in an alliance, everyone decides to drop treaties with that alliance. It tells you a lot about Planet Bob. You can't honestly be surprised that treaties are signed for such flimsy reasons, can you? No, I just expect better from an alliance I respect, like VE. It was hardly "a little bit of internal drama." But, you're right, we should have looked into FIRE better before carrying over the treaty. I didn't realize that "we wish to remain friends" was seen as a "$%&@ you." My bad. You are right. I was thinking it was a protectorate and not a full treaty. Sorry for the mix up there. In regards to the VE's FA stability, take a look at how many treaties the VE has signed and later dropped in comparison to other alliances that have been around for the same length of time. It's staggering. Some alliances pick their treaties carefully and stick by them. Others sign them quickly and indiscriminately and cancel the ones that were poor decisions. Seems a bit backwards to me. Really? We've been here for what, three years? I hardly think we're high on this cancellation list. Also, bud, NpO drama happened a year ago. Get over it. Edited July 9, 2009 by Smooth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Viridian Entente shreds another treaty. Shocking. I know it is easier to throw out baseless character attacks than to actually argue with facts but perhaps you can actually try to refute my earlier post which already countered your claim. I do not recall VE signing and dropping copious amounts of treaties. I recall the original incarnation of Viridia severing all ties at one point in an attempt to get a fresh start, I remember a cancellation with Polar that I still feel was 100% justified and cancellations in the build up to the current conflict which were made out of need and because of the way some of their "allies" treated them.VE is no more a culprit of canceling treaties than any other alliance. If anything I see their willingness to sever ties that they no longer feel are worth having is a good trait even if I do wish they held on to this one a bit longer. I find this funny coming from you on multiple levels considering your past with VE and how well your alliance is known for treating its treaty partners. 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.