Tron Paul Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So, let me see if I have this straight.On the one hand you have an alliance that has been less than cordial to us on numerous occasions and on the other hand you have basically the same thing, right? Two alliances fighting one another both of which seem to hate the NSO. On top of this there are calls from a dozen or so other alliances in this thread, many of which condemned our action against RAD and have had negative comments towards myself and my comrades for weeks now, for the NSO to step in on one side to fight against the other. It is a damned good thing I keep my own counsel close at hand when it comes to matters of state and don't listen to the whims of the fickle masses. Hypocrites. Or Ackbar. Either way, what a bunch of tools. A week ago, I was about to declare on your nation during my crusade in RAD. Now, I'm agreeing with you? This is quite strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Keep on telling yourself that. You want to point out the part of the CG charter that contradicts his claim or are you just chatting complete !@#$%^&* as I suspect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 He's asking that type of treaty you hold with IS. And to help him get his answer it's actually a MDoAP Haflinger. Which gives RAD the option of not going to war, but seem to be posting a lot of support for IS's aggressive actions. His question was posed to the scenario of someone attacking IS. That doesn't mean we need an MDoAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Keep on telling yourself that. Have you even read the CG charter? No you haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Have you even read the CG charter? No you haven't. Might want to tell your gov they can't accept peace, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Only Francesca(Or myself, when she is absent)may approve peace. Francesca has not, deSouza and Kent acted against the charter. When Francesca came online, she declined the peace and proposed a cease-fire for discussion. You know this, so please stop. I have the logs of all of this from the public channel, why did these two fellows bother knowing it was invalid and they did not have the clearance to do so anyway? That to me doesn't make any logical sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Might want to tell your gov they can't accept peace, then. We did, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) You want to point out the part of the CG charter that contradicts his claim or are you just chatting complete !@#$%^&* as I suspect? I haven't read their charter, and I wouldn't waste my time reading it. Edited August 20, 2009 by Druss the Legend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I have the logs of all of this from the public channel, why did these two fellows bother knowing it was invalid and they did not have the clearance to do so anyway? That to me doesn't make any logical sense. Because people do stupid things when the panic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I have the logs of all of this from the public channel, why did these two fellows bother knowing it was invalid and they did not have the clearance to do so anyway? That to me doesn't make any logical sense. They thought Fran was going to bend down, but they were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 His question was posed to the scenario of someone attacking IS. That doesn't mean we need an MDoAP. You were saying you are required to support your allies in their aggressive war. Sounds like an MADP to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I haven't read their charter, and I wouldn't waste my time reading it. So you comment on our charter while you haven't read it? Typical of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddog241 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 this is really nuts. and after reading all this, my head hurts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I haven't read their charter, and I wouldn't waste my time reading it. Well I'd suggest not talking about things you're ignorant of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I haven't read their charter, and I wouldn't waste my time reading it. Then you have no room to say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) So not liking a color sphere is a reason for war now? I think IS will find that CG has plenty of friends. P.S. Pink sucks, attack OV, Internet Superheroes Edited August 20, 2009 by sethb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) You were saying you are required to support your allies in their aggressive war. Sounds like an MADP to me. Druss said we'd e defending IS if they were hit. That's a MDoAP, not a MADP. So not liking a color sphere is a reason for war now? I think IS will find that CG has plenty of friends. And those friends will find IS's friends. Edited August 20, 2009 by Rey the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Then you have no room to say anything. They have made What their charter says quite clear in the Thread. However, that Doesn't account for why 2 Government members willfully violated the Charter and accepted a Peace Offer that they had no right to Make. Really, you should at least make sure your own government reads and understands the charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordAkanata Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Then you have no room to say anything. This. I can put up with ignorance, but willful ignorance is totally different. If you can't be bothered with simple facts, Druss, then why should people listen to your account of events? Edited August 20, 2009 by LordAkanata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You want to point out the part of the CG charter that contradicts his claim or are you just chatting complete !@#$%^&* as I suspect? I took the time to read their charter, and: d: The Chancellor’s signature shall immediately validate any treaty, though no such signature shall be given without the Body Politic being informed and a non-binding discussion period of 72 hours has passed. a: The Regent shall be considered the Chancellor’s deputy and therefore second-in-command of the Crimson Guard. b: The Regent shall assist the Chancellor in his/her duties, c: The Regent shall assume the Chancery should the Chancellor become unavailable. This to me reads as if they are correct in saying that only the Chancellor and Regent are able to handle a peace treaty. Oh well, at least I read the document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 [23:37] <Francesca[CG]> In your co-ordinated attacks on Crimson Guard, cruise missile attacks and bomber strikes were used, as well as spy attacks on our nukes. [23:38] <Francesca[CG]> IS stated that this was a co-ordinated tech raid..... the above strategies are not employed in tech raids. [23:38] <Francesca[CG]> Could you please clarify, then, why they were used? [23:38] <Sakura> You've never seen me tech raid, have you? Here, Sakura confirms that it was a tech raid. Now, are you(everyone saying it's for my hate for pink)saying that Sakura is a liar? Nice, calling your own members liars is very classy IS. I hope enjoy having any lack of honor and decency to say the truth. You attacked because you can attack, because you find it funny. And then you lied. Then you lid again. STICK TO ONE STORY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 This. I can put up with ignorance, but willful ignorance is totally different. If you can't be bothered with simple facts, Druss, then why should people listen to your account of events? Why would i need to read their charter, when they have made clear dozens of times in this thread what they're charter said. I never said that they are lying about what they're charter says. I am merely tiring of them clinging to the Charter which 2 of their government members now have clearly violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Wow, IS, wow.I really hope NSO uses their doctrine and !@#$ all over you. WHY should they ? the whole NSO doctrine is all about not needing a CB to attack someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Once upon a time, there was an alliance called OV, which had some complaints and grievances about an alliance called NPO.That is, in fact, what you said. Sure. It is, however like usual, you all seem to only skim a post until you can find something you can spin for whatever reason. I give up, I can't expect you all to actually think about what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nice, calling your own members liars is very classy IS. I hope enjoy having any lack of honor and decency to say the truth. You attacked because you can attack, because you find it funny. And then you lied. Then you lid again. STICK TO ONE STORY. Members always are informed of why they're raiding an alliance. Quite. 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.