CylonNL Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Note: This is a cancellation of the treaty between NATO and Guru Order, both of which are not in the current wars taking place. So before you troll topics with unrelated posts, it would help to actually read the original thread We can't take precautions? You might want to re-educate your members were you exactly stand on this matter mr. Capslock. It is clear what the reasoning is behind this cancellation, you are only cutting yourself in the fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) clearly seems you have not looked at our treaty network Care to explain? You had a MDoAP with NATO, NATO had a MDoAP with TPF. Tell me what i'm missing here. I have not done much research. I'd love to hear. edit: grammar Edited December 27, 2009 by Infidel Israeli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) I think a lot of people missed this, but why should GO defend TPF? They don't have a treaty and treaties aren't supposed to chain... Edited December 27, 2009 by Arcturus Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) edit: nvm Edited December 27, 2009 by Infidel Israeli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I highly doubt that this war won't escalate in the next 72 hours. These kids'll get theirs anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Care to explain? You had a MDoAP with NATO, NATO had a MDoAP with TPF. Tell me what i'm missing here. I have not done much research. I'd love to hear.edit: grammar Look at our other treaties Sherlock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think a lot of people missed this, but why should GO defend TPF? They don't have a treaty and treaties aren't supposed to chain... They shouldn't defend TPF directly, they should defend NATO, who they gave their word to. Turns out that word is worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CylonNL Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) I think a lot of people missed this, but why should GO defend TPF? They don't have a treaty and treaties aren't supposed to chain... .. Hypothethically speaking; NATO could choose to defend the TPF and launces an offensive against one of it's attackers. Say Ragnarok. In this case, one of the Superfriends alliances could come to RoK's aid and launch a counteroffensive at NATO. At which NATO could choose to activate the defense clausule of said treaty? Right? Edited December 27, 2009 by CylonNL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Look at our other treaties Sherlock I can't find them on your Wiki page. I'm going off of Tiberius's post, maybe that's my first mistake. So you're saying because treaties aren't supposed to chain it can't be the reason? Lets face it when all of CN is in on a war, NATO is in trouble, your tiny clauses disappear. They'll probably ask for help, you just don't want to say no then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 S'alright GO, i know this treaty shouldnt have been signed... best of luck guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstills22 Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 good luck allies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 They shouldn't defend TPF directly, they should defend NATO, who they gave their word to. Turns out that word is worthless. Hypothethically speaking; NATO could choose to defend the TPF and launces an offensive against one of it's attackers.Say Ragnarok. In this case, one of the Superfriends alliances could come to RoK's aid and launch a counteroffensive at NATO. At which NATO could choose to activate the defense clausule of said treaty? Right? It's not an MADP - GO didn't promise to defend someone with NATO. They promised to defend NATO from aggression. NATO getting into a war with someone because they have a treaty with them isn't really GO's business. Superfriends, interestingly enough, is an MADP bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CylonNL Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It's not an MADP - GO didn't promise to defend someone with NATO. They promised to defend NATO from aggression. NATO getting into a war with someone because they have a treaty with them isn't really GO's business. Superfriends, interestingly enough, is an MADP bloc. I know this sounds childish; but congrats for failing your comprehensive reading exam. I don't see where my explanation is wrong, might be the wording (I'm Dutch) So if someone could enlight him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlashill Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 We can't take precautions? Normally taking precautions means not waiting until right before a certain object of rank odor hits an oscillating small appliance. This wouldn't look pathetic had this action been taken a month or perhaps even a week ago. But alas: c'est la vie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I know this sounds childish; but congrats for failing your comprehensive reading exam. I don't see where my explanation is wrong, might be the wording (I'm Dutch) So if someone could enlight him? So we're back to the treaty chaining of the Great Wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feather Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It's better than the treaty killing of pre-Karma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) .. Hypothethically speaking; NATO could choose to defend the TPF and launces an offensive against one of it's attackers. Say Ragnarok. In this case, one of the Superfriends alliances could come to RoK's aid and launch a counteroffensive at NATO. At which NATO could choose to activate the defense clausule of said treaty? Right? Correct! Thing is Fark (our main ally) happens to be in SF, we cannot defend 2 alliances on opposite sides This is all hypothetical speaking though as both alliances are not in war. Either way we did not violate any part of this treaty, if NATO was being attacked when we cancelled then it would make sense, that is not the case though, so find another topic to troll Edited December 27, 2009 by Mentor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descendent Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) Quite understandable. In times like these you have to choose between allies; and maybe GO is closer allied to some alliances who may be fighting on the other side than NATO (if they all are going to fight; which I don't see happening very soon). We at FOK also dumped some treaties lately; we had just too much of those things. Edited December 27, 2009 by Descendent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It's better than the treaty killing of pre-Karma What is "treaty killing"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 that is really lame GO. really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Note: This is a cancellation of the treaty between NATO and Guru Order, both of which are not in the current wars taking place. So before you troll topics with unrelated posts, it would help to actually read the original thread Use big letters and bold will not save your face, coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I can't find them on your Wiki page. I'm going off of Tiberius's post, maybe that's my first mistake. So you're saying because treaties aren't supposed to chain it can't be the reason? Lets face it when all of CN is in on a war, NATO is in trouble, your tiny clauses disappear. They'll probably ask for help, you just don't want to say no then? they have treaties with Fark, MHA, FOK just off the top of my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) nvm, shouldn't feed the trolls... Edited December 27, 2009 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Sadly, I pretty much expected this for a long while. NATO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CylonNL Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) Correct! Thing is Fark (our main ally) happens to be in SF, we cannot defend 2 alliances on opposite sides Sure you can, It might even be the case you don't have to defend 2 alliances in case of a war, looking at the way the treaty's could chain. Fighting on two fronts might seem odd, I'd try to help both of my friends, even if they are on opposite sides. You should've thought about such a possibility before, I do understand were you are coming from though. Edited December 27, 2009 by CylonNL 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.