TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Kzoppistan]

Sun Tzu didn't play Cybernations.

No, Cybernations plays Sun Tzu's game.

The principals are the same.

Classic strategy in the Art of War is relevant today and here is why:

If one takes a step back from this immediate impasse, they will see that it is prudent to end the war now rather than later for the alliances in conflict with TPF.

The quickest way to get an entrenched alliance to surrender is to offer them a way out that preserves at least a shred of their dignity. Forcing humiliation on them will only cause their resolve to harden and to continue resisting.

TPF actually has the advantage in the waiting game because they have nothing left to lose. You can't completely vanquish a foe here. Their nations may be squashed but nothing can cause them to quit unless they choose to. The nations fighting them will suffer more in the long run because even if they grind every last TPF nation to zero infrastructure won't be able to extract the money, time, effort, and mental drain from them. Meanwhile, TPF's beleaguered status will begin to garner public sympathy.

Now taking the longer view you will see that people have a tendency to do two things, 1. take the side of the underdog and 2. forgive them if they fight hard enough and long enough. FAN proved that. So what will happen is that TPF will take this war underground and those alliances who continue to pursue them will eventually lose public support and the community will turn against them. No one will get any reps. Even if the alliance disbands, the members will disperse to become the next Vox or worse (or better depending on one's perspective). A strategist does not make plans to resolve problems now, they make plans to outmaneuver future problems before they even arrive.

Sun Tzu talks about being on 'death ground'. That is land where there is no escape and the only choice is to fight to the bitter end. A wise general who is outnumbered places is troops there and avoids cornering a smaller enemy in a reversal of the situation. Instead a general with foresight and compassion for the lives of his own troops, concludes the battle by arranging terms that will cause the enemy to put down their weapons and return to the path of peace rather than fight to the end causing unneeded bloodshed.

One solution would be to just transfer the reps owed to PC to another alliance, and then that alliance can spend it helping PC rebuilt. Since they're all such good friends, that is. TPF gets to save face, the alliances arrayed against them get a clear honorable victory, and PC will have the satisfaction of beating their nemesis plus aid from a new ally.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[deth2munkies]

No, Cybernations plays Sun Tzu's game.

The principals are the same.

Classic strategy in the Art of War is relevant today and here is why:

If one takes a step back from this immediate impasse, they will see that it is prudent to end the war now rather than later for the alliances in conflict with TPF.

The quickest way to get an entrenched alliance to surrender is to offer them a way out that preserves at least a shred of their dignity. Forcing humiliation on them will only cause their resolve to harden and to continue resisting.

TPF actually has the advantage in the waiting game because they have nothing left to lose. You can't completely vanquish a foe here. Their nations may be squashed but nothing can cause them to quit unless they choose to. The nations fighting them will suffer more in the long run because even if they grind every last TPF nation to zero infrastructure won't be able to extract the money, time, effort, and mental drain from them. Meanwhile, TPF's beleaguered status will begin to garner public sympathy.

Now taking the longer view you will see that people have a tendency to do two things, 1. take the side of the underdog and 2. forgive them if they fight hard enough and long enough. FAN proved that. So what will happen is that TPF will take this war underground and those alliances who continue to pursue them will eventually lose public support and the community will turn against them. No one will get any reps. Even if the alliance disbands, the members will disperse to become the next Vox or worse (or better depending on one's perspective). A strategist does not make plans to resolve problems now, they make plans to outmaneuver future problems before they even arrive.

Sun Tzu talks about being on 'death ground'. That is land where there is no escape and the only choice is to fight to the bitter end. A wise general who is outnumbered places is troops there and avoids cornering a smaller enemy in a reversal of the situation. Instead a general with foresight and compassion for the lives of his own troops, concludes the battle by arranging terms that will cause the enemy to put down their weapons and return to the path of peace rather than fight to the end causing unneeded bloodshed.

One solution would be to just transfer the reps owed to PC to another alliance, and then that alliance can spend it helping PC rebuilt. Since they're all such good friends, that is. TPF gets to save face, the alliances arrayed against them get a clear honorable victory, and PC will have the satisfaction of beating their nemesis plus aid from a new ally.

This is all rather true. It held the same for the NPO, which is why I was banking on them holding out for much longer than they did, but there's a problem with applying military tactics to the military involved in alliance warfare: freedom of choice. People can choose which alliance they are a part of, whereas if you put your military on "death ground", there is no way for them to escape or desert, while the opposite is true here. They can change their AA to a POW or another alliance at any time.

Not only that, but the entire conflict here is based upon the grudge of a few key members against an alliance where there has been mutual bad blood for some time now. TPF tries to say one should not hold their past transgressions against them, then cites past transgressions as reasoning for not accepting the terms. For the members of TPF that want to get on with their lives or don't really care about the Poison Clan or the bad blood between them (read: most of them) all this is doing is working to their detriment.

[lakerzz8]

If they used my presence afterward to demand a pricey reward, I'd definitely have a problem with it. If our enemy said 'no' to that reward and fired back, I'd have to consider whether it's really worthwhile to keep fighting just for the sake of this random bloke who helped me out in a firefight.

TPF isn't exactly firing back. And this pricey reward is still quite fair in terms of TPF's ability to get it done and in terms of reps given out in previous wars. Also, as stated in the OP of the other topic, there will be no more concessions made. Signing a separate peace agreement that excludes PC would definitely be a concession. Karma's stance seems to be that these terms are fair and acceptable and the ball is in TPF's court to accept them or keep fighting.

I wouldn't want my reputation to hinge on someone else. Not now, not ever.

But by standing besides those who have stood besides you during the fight is a way of deciding your own reputation. They are showing that even if they are not allied to you, if you help them, they will help you. Everything you do decides your reputation. Whether it is acting alone to end a war, or standing beside a friend.

I wouldn't be discussing the amount of the reparations if it hadn't been spelled out as "10k per Million NS lost". By assigning that 'price' to TPF and TPF alone, you are assigning the sole blame for that damage to TPF when that most certainly was not the case. I'm sure TPF would like to think that they had inflicted that much damage, but Avalon, Zenith and the others who counter-attacked PC might want to have the 'credit' that's due them.

While I agree that TPF isn't solely responsible for all that damage, PC is still free to ask TPF to cover the reps for all of the damage. I'm not sure if they received reps from anyone else, but if not this could be a reason for making TPF pay for all the damage. It is not the fair way to assign reps, but once again, to the victors goes the spoils.

[Xavii]

snip

But TPF has an opening, reasonable terms are offered, and individual surrenders are still viable.

FAN and TPF is not comparable, FAN was never offered terms, when they finally did they were very hard and harsh and NPO betrayed them at the last hour and re declared when they were already down.

TPF however are offered easy terms in comparison to FAN, but they refuse to accept because of their "pride". If they wanna doom their members over something so trivial then so be it, but it looks like a desperate attempt of martyrdom and the community are not buying it.

also what deth said.

[deathcat]

I've been silent for way too long

It angers me to see this and therefore I speak up

I for one appreciate your support of TPF if for only this particular situation

Be well..

oo/

DC

[ChairmanHal]

This is all rather true. It held the same for the NPO, which is why I was banking on them holding out for much longer than they did, but there's a problem with applying military tactics to the military involved in alliance warfare: freedom of choice. People can choose which alliance they are a part of, whereas if you put your military on "death ground", there is no way for them to escape or desert, while the opposite is true here. They can change their AA to a POW or another alliance at any time.

Then that makes TPF Texans and this final battle the Alamo. Yes, I know how the Alamo ends. No, I don't expect Moo to rally the Continuum and defeat Karma at San Jacinto. The analogy only goes so far, work with me.

What's left of TPF are volunteers. Indeed, they've actually had people *join* the alliance the past three months, which means they knew they were getting into a fight and joined anyway.

The only thing nastier to fight than a cornered army is a cornered army of volunteers.

Not only that, but the entire conflict here is based upon the grudge of a few key members against an alliance where there has been mutual bad blood for some time now. TPF tries to say one should not hold their past transgressions against them, then cites past transgressions as reasoning for not accepting the terms. For the members of TPF that want to get on with their lives or don't really care about the Poison Clan or the bad blood between them (read: most of them) all this is doing is working to their detriment.

So since the war began there is been absolutely no new reasons for TPF to hate PC? Of course there have. The California Incident comes to mind but there have been many more just on an individual level given the nature of the fight.

Note that I'm not saying here that TPF should walk with white peace (that is for those fighting them to decide), nor do I am I saying that there is particularly anything rational about it. It is what it is.

[Sir Wellington]

And yet you're going to have to deal with me asking for proof that they in fact weren't planning on using those terms in the way I stated. They're asking for the same thing I am, just they're asking for proof that they were, and I'm asking for proof that they weren't.

It's also not unreasonable to ask for someone in my position to ask them to prove they did not do as I have claimed.

Wanna go in circles some more?

You obviously lack the mental capacity to win this argument.

[Vanadrin Failing]

TPF isn't exactly firing back. And this pricey reward is still quite fair in terms of TPF's ability to get it done and in terms of reps given out in previous wars.

Don't worry, my friend... this isn't another discussion about the fairness of the price with regards to repayability. It's simply a matter of 'credit where credit is due'.

Also, as stated in the OP of the other topic, there will be no more concessions made. Signing a separate peace agreement that excludes PC would definitely be a concession. Karma's stance seems to be that these terms are fair and acceptable and the ball is in TPF's court to accept them or keep fighting.

I understand your point. I would hope, however, that the 'no more concessions' statement doesn't translate into 'no more discussions'.

But by standing besides those who have stood besides you during the fight is a way of deciding your own reputation. They are showing that even if they are not allied to you, if you help them, they will help you. Everything you do decides your reputation. Whether it is acting alone to end a war, or standing beside a friend.

Yes, but those would be MY choices. I wouldn't want the choices of someone else to determine my reputation. If I determine that an 'ally's' choices might reflect badly on myself, then I would either work in private to discuss those unsavory decisions or make it clear that I do not support their actions. I'm the type of person who'd rather have a friend tell me when I'm screwing up than mindlessly back me when I make a mistake.

While I agree that TPF isn't solely responsible for all that damage, PC is still free to ask TPF to cover the reps for all of the damage. I'm not sure if they received reps from anyone else, but if not this could be a reason for making TPF pay for all the damage. It is not the fair way to assign reps, but once again, to the victors goes the spoils.

Sadly, this point is not in dispute.

[Kzoppistan]

People can choose which alliance they are a part of, whereas if you put your military on "death ground", there is no way for them to escape or desert, while the opposite is true here. They can change their AA to a POW or another alliance at any time.

Not only that, but the entire conflict here is based upon the grudge of a few key members against an alliance where there has been mutual bad blood for some time now. TPF tries to say one should not hold their past transgressions against them, then cites past transgressions as reasoning for not accepting the terms. For the members of TPF that want to get on with their lives or don't really care about the Poison Clan or the bad blood between them (read: most of them) all this is doing is working to their detriment.

Do you have so little faith in people to believe that when facing dishonor they won't fight to the death? Of course, not everyone will but ask yourself this, would you fight until ZI and beyond for what you felt was right? What about your friends and allies, will they? Regardless if you felt your previous actions were right or wrong, would you lick the boot of the opponent that stands over you if he told you to?

When gauging another group's probability of action, you have to look at the situation as they see it, not whether you think it's right or wrong. If TPF says that paying PC is a grievous despicable insult, then regardless of how any one else feels about it, regardless of if they are right or wrong, they will continue to operated under that frame of mind and continue to resist. In the long run that will be more detrimental to their enemies than to them.

Sure some people will quit, but nothing drives membership like being the underdog in a guerilla war. In the end, if TPF does not give up, they not only will be hardened by continuous conflict and sharpened by continuous strategizing, but others- agent provocateurs, spies, warriors, -will come to their side because they like the thrill, respect the resolve, so on, ect.

However, there is a solution, it can be found, it may already have been mentioned in one form or another. It could all end right now if people agree to reach out and see each other in a new light. But pointless debate won't make that happen.

Personally, I advocate the suggestion I provided above. Everybody wins.

Good luck to all parties involved.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[astronaut jones]

You obviously lack the mental capacity to win this argument.

That's a nice, roundabout way to call me an idiot, don't you think?

You know I think much, much worse of you. I'll tell you on irc in a minute.

[Lord Emares]

Just curious. If PC and TPF no longer deemed themselves allies and PC wanted to end the treaty. How else could they have ended the treaty whose sole cancellation clause is breaking the treaty? Wouldn't breaking the treaty be there only way of following the terms of the treaty to end it?

PC is not alone in this strategy of canceling treaties prior to a war in order to remain neutral or join the side you are more closely tied to. The only difference is that PC had no cancellation clause with which to do this but to directly declare war.

Now I'm not advocating canceling treaties to avoid war/join the right side of the war. I'm just commenting on a common practice on Planet Bob.

Edit: Grammar

Gah, I spent 10 minutes typing up a response and then my browser screwed up >

Anyway, here's how I see it. I can see it both ways. PC did indeed follow the legality of the treaty, however they still broke it. Looking at the way it's worded, I think the biggest mistake was made by both alliances when they signed the damn thing. I mean, seriously, anybody can take one look at the cancellation clause and could have been able to tell that either alliance would have still been able to attack. It's one of the worst worded treaties ever pretty much. The only way to cancel it, was to brake it, so there was no point in having it in the first place except maybe as a joke. I mean, both alliances have pretty much always hated each other since PC was founded. There's much more to why TPF doesn't want to pay PC, or so I believe. I think at this point, it would be best for TPF to just pay the damn reps and start plotting their revenge. They can get PC back in the next war, twice as hard. It is the age of Karma after all.

Considering that's the only way to cancel the treaty, by breaking it, then yes it actually does.

Do go on ranting however

Read about half of the thread nad got kinds sick of people saying that there was no other way to cancel the treaty as part of their argument. Thus I present a link and the full text of the cancellation clause of the treaty:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=49552

Article 3: Cancellation

Either Party may cancel this agreement. Once one party notifies the other with their intent to cancel, the Pact stays in effect for 10 days. If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.

There was a perfectly legitimate way to cancel the treaty, by saying "I wanna cancel" followed by waiting for 10 whole days. Breaking something you signed is not a valid means of cancelling the treaty.

[Xavii]

Read about half of the thread nad got kinds sick of people saying that there was no other way to cancel the treaty as part of their argument. Thus I present a link and the full text of the cancellation clause of the treaty:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=49552

There was a perfectly legitimate way to cancel the treaty, by saying "I wanna cancel" followed by waiting for 10 whole days. Breaking something you signed is not a valid means of cancelling the treaty.

Read the last 10 pages, we already covered this.

[Epiphanus]

meh, this seems silly on your part...

[Gen Lee]

When someone's debts are so great that they lack the ability to pay them, it would be smart for the lender to decrease the price and get paid rather than receive nothing. Especially when receiving nothing costs the lender time and money.

Mhawk, you know what is possible and reasonable. In a sense you have the upper hand, if they want to get paid they will come down. If they opt for disbandment the political cost are exponentially larger to them. Good luck.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Gen Lee

[Lord Emares]

Read the last 10 pages, we already covered this.

Yes I just got caught up. I posted then the next page I read sorted it out.

In any case, on the current issue:

According to the alliances here the amount of reps decided upon were apportioned based on a "1M NS loss in the Karma War = 10k Reps" yet Poison Clan were fighting TPF, Zenith, Avalon, Valhalla and Soldier as well as conducting a Tech Raid on an uninvolved alliance simply because its protector was unable to fulfil its protecting, despite the fact that it violated their own Tech Raid Guidelines. Given all of this one could easily assume that the majority of the Damage caused to PC might not have come from TPF, particularly since TPF were in fact arrayed against a similar number of alliances as PC seem to have been. Additionally the formulaic approach taken does not take into account the fact that TPF have lost 7/8ths of their prewar NS and the majority of the Infra & Tech.

[Tygaland]

By that logic no alliance ever should be expected to uphold a surrender treaty and any alliance that forces a defeated alliance to sign a surrender treaty is dishonorable.

Surrender terms generally apply for a set period of time and are different to being forced to sign an open-ended non-aggression pact to avoid being killed. I'm pretty sure you are aware of that.

[Tygaland]

I am just curious how you feel about this Tyga:

PC promised reps to California in the tune of 120 mil

PC then raised the reps demand from us by 120 mil, to pay California

PC offered to lower the reps back down 120 mil, but only if we paid 120 mil to California.

That was the straw that broke the camels back for the membership. Even if Mhawk agreed to the terms, the number of nations who have absolutly refused to pay one red cent to PC is long, and includes almost all of the nations who have teh resources to pay those reps. The dog wags teh tail, but sometimes the tail wags the dog.

If you can't understand that, then you have truely changed from when I knew you during the Polar war, and I am sorry for that. I know it was a tough time, I was there too. I hope you can move past that time.

I had no idea about any of that and to be honest I have never once claimed PC were doing the right thing at all. I'm not sure why you would assume I had. My point is, and always has been, that it is in TPF's best interest to pay up and move on. As someone who has been in the position of negotiating terms with an irrational, greedy and vindictive enemy I can pass on that advice based on experience. You are not going to get reason from an enemy like that and as such you have to wear the reps and move on.

STA did so as soon as our membership was free from government bans and expulsions and I think you guys can do it too. None of us wanted to pay them a brass razoo but at the end of the day the survival of the alliance and its community trumped any aversion to selling tech to Valhalla and sending tech and money to the other vultures that circles to pick our bones clean. Valhalla won no friends for the way they behaved last war and I can't see PC winning any here. But, you have to ask yourself if you think utterly collapsing your alliance is a win for you or not. I don't think it is.

If you think less of me for that opinion then so be it.

[Shurukian]

I had no idea about any of that and to be honest I have never once claimed PC were doing the right thing at all. I'm not sure why you would assume I had. My point is, and always has been, that it is in TPF's best interest to pay up and move on. As someone who has been in the position of negotiating terms with an irrational, greedy and vindictive enemy I can pass on that advice based on experience. You are not going to get reason from an enemy like that and as such you have to wear the reps and move on.

STA did so as soon as our membership was free from government bans and expulsions and I think you guys can do it too. None of us wanted to pay them a brass razoo but at the end of the day the survival of the alliance and its community trumped any aversion to selling tech to Valhalla and sending tech and money to the other vultures that circles to pick our bones clean. Valhalla won no friends for the way they behaved last war and I can't see PC winning any here. But, you have to ask yourself if you think utterly collapsing your alliance is a win for you or not. I don't think it is.

If you think less of me for that opinion then so be it.

Tyga, I think that is possibly the one post in probably the last three months that I, well, particularly like.

Now, as it stands, this is an outcry from TPF's membership. Not the leadership. I think the leadership might be available to a compromise. So why not drop the 120mil converted to tech reps, bring it back down, and let PC pay for their own mistake, and TPF can pay the original reps asked for. I don't think any would find that unreasonable at all, and I'd hope that the Karma leaders would consider asking PC to do it. PC did something dumb, which they promised reps for, so they should pay them.

[Tygaland]

Tyga, I think that is possibly the one post in probably the last three months that I, well, particularly like.

Now, as it stands, this is an outcry from TPF's membership. Not the leadership. I think the leadership might be available to a compromise. So why not drop the 120mil converted to tech reps, bring it back down, and let PC pay for their own mistake, and TPF can pay the original reps asked for. I don't think any would find that unreasonable at all, and I'd hope that the Karma leaders would consider asking PC to do it. PC did something dumb, which they promised reps for, so they should pay them.

You are talking as though it is me deciding what the reps payments will be. I'm not.

My point of view is one looking at the big picture here. You can get welled up on issues you see as huge in the moment but if you look at things in broader terms then the survival and revival of your alliance despite the reps payments is far more useful and beneficial to the alliance membership and alliance leadership.

I have no idea if PC added 120 million to reps to cover other reps they had to pay California. I'm not overly interested. If that is true then it is poor form on PC's part but as I'm not privy to those events or discussions I tend not to bog myself down in the detail.

As I said, my opinion (and, yes, it is the opinion of just one person) is that TPF would be better served by swallowing their pride, paying the reps and getting on with rebuilding their nations and alliance. Just as my alliance did back in September. If the terms demanded members of TPF be expelled or banned from government permanently then I'd be joining you in shouting those terms down. But as I see it, financial pain is short term pain and as long as it is payable (and these reps are easily payable with outside help) then an alliance can easily move on post-terms. NpO did. STA did, TPF can too if they choose to.

[Kilkenny]

I had no idea about any of that and to be honest I have never once claimed PC were doing the right thing at all. I'm not sure why you would assume I had. My point is, and always has been, that it is in TPF's best interest to pay up and move on. As someone who has been in the position of negotiating terms with an irrational, greedy and vindictive enemy I can pass on that advice based on experience. You are not going to get reason from an enemy like that and as such you have to wear the reps and move on.

STA did so as soon as our membership was free from government bans and expulsions and I think you guys can do it too. None of us wanted to pay them a brass razoo but at the end of the day the survival of the alliance and its community trumped any aversion to selling tech to Valhalla and sending tech and money to the other vultures that circles to pick our bones clean. Valhalla won no friends for the way they behaved last war and I can't see PC winning any here. But, you have to ask yourself if you think utterly collapsing your alliance is a win for you or not. I don't think it is.

If you think less of me for that opinion then so be it.

I see what you are saying. I never really thought that you believed it was ok, but with everything else going on and the flat not likeing TPF part (although that may be more others) I just wanted to get it clarified. If you did and had I would have been very disappointed. I actually don't think less of you for your opinion now that it is laid out like that and I have my question answered, I actually think I understand what you are saying a little better now.

i would also hope you can understand we have taken a stand on principle and will continue to stand there in spite of where it may lead us.

[Shurukian]

You are talking as though it is me deciding what the reps payments will be. I'm not.

My point of view is one looking at the big picture here. You can get welled up on issues you see as huge in the moment but if you look at things in broader terms then the survival and revival of your alliance despite the reps payments is far more useful and beneficial to the alliance membership and alliance leadership.

I have no idea if PC added 120 million to reps to cover other reps they had to pay California. I'm not overly interested. If that is true then it is poor form on PC's part but as I'm not privy to those events or discussions I tend not to bog myself down in the detail.

As I said, my opinion (and, yes, it is the opinion of just one person) is that TPF would be better served by swallowing their pride, paying the reps and getting on with rebuilding their nations and alliance. Just as my alliance did back in September. If the terms demanded members of TPF be expelled or banned from government permanently then I'd be joining you in shouting those terms down. But as I see it, financial pain is short term pain and as long as it is payable (and these reps are easily payable with outside help) then an alliance can easily move on post-terms. NpO did. STA did, TPF can too if they choose to.

It was a general statement, no worries.

I was the original one that found the term channel, when I queried Archon over a mhawkonafricadrugs joke, and my NNS automatically whoises. It was a chan that kinda stuck out, and I thought it was a joke since it wasn't secret. The PC numbers were lower. I regret not screenshotting them. I think that if they added actual protection for TPF, since right now there is none, and if they took the California reps off, then these would be pretty reasonable and acceptable. Hopefully it can be negotiated to that point. I would understand that there's no reason to compromise feelings over Planet Bob Politics, [OOC](a game)[/OOC], so I think a negotiation could be reached easily, because in six months, no one will really remember this war anyway.

[Tygaland]

I see what you are saying. I never really thought that you believed it was ok, but with everything else going on and the flat not likeing TPF part (although that may be more others) I just wanted to get it clarified. If you did and had I would have been very disappointed. I actually don't think less of you for your opinion now that it is laid out like that and I have my question answered, I actually think I understand what you are saying a little better now.

i would also hope you can understand we have taken a stand on principle and will continue to stand there in spite of where it may lead us.

I understand what you as an alliance are doing, I just think you are cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Despite my general dislike for TPF I have tried to discuss this topic objectively taking into account my past experience in a similar situation.

[King Srqt]

Surrender terms generally apply for a set period of time and are different to being forced to sign an open-ended non-aggression pact to avoid being killed. I'm pretty sure you are aware of that.

If the treaty didn't have another way out I would agree with you but the treaty did have a standard cancellation clause that PC was perfectly able of using.

[Master-Debater]

If the treaty didn't have another way out I would agree with you but the treaty did have a standard cancellation clause that PC was perfectly able of using.

It also had the poorest worded instant cancelation clause in the history of CN.

I’m not defending PC just saying that TPF is just as at fault for signing a treaty this bad as PC is for breaking it.

[Tygaland]

If the treaty didn't have another way out I would agree with you but the treaty did have a standard cancellation clause that PC was perfectly able of using.

I'm not condoning how they cancelled it, I merely stated that it is not surprising that an alliance shows little respect for a treaty they were forced to sign at gunpoint.