Infidel Israeli Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 why not fight two sides? you're not fighting a side, you're defending an ally. As long as you don't have to attack your ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 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. thing is we have been here before 6 months ago, either we help or not, there is no in between Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halicore Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) We simply don't want treaties with alliances that oppose each other, nothing cowardice You do realise how difficult this is to uphold, right? Unless you're very careful or ally to very few people this will backfire eventually. Instead why not try mediating for peace between both your allies? However you've chosen to cancel on NATO when it looks very likely they'll be dragged in to defend. At least this has shown NATO who their true allies are. Edited December 27, 2009 by Halicore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 At least we know where you stand...goodbye... really a piece of work..no notification behind doors, no discussion, just post it on the OWF and then post a thread in our forums..classy, real classy...you all need to go back to FA school 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 So we're back to the treaty chaining of the Great Wars? Speaking hypothetically, If NATO were to enter a war on an MDoAP and was retaliated against, we would have every right to ask GO for assistance. However, they wouldn't have to come to our defense considering it would not be a defensive war in sense that our initial aggression led to the attacks on us. The way I see it, in the event of a war, GO could have said, "look, defending TPF is cool and all, and imma let you finish, but Fark is the greatest ally we have, of all time." Understandable, they could do what they wish, our treaties are non-chaining i believe. For instance, in the Karma war, GUN had an MDP with NATO, fought on the side of Karma, and still remained our strong friends. I can understand the reasoning behind this move, what I can't understand is the timing, and the fact that I learned of the cancellation here, since there was no warning. It is no surprise to me that GO would choose to end this considering the other allies they have, while being decent alliances and all, aren't exactly walking down the same path. Treaty should have been dissolved months ago. Fare thee well GO, it's a shame an otherwise decent relationship had to end this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Speaking hypothetically, If NATO were to enter a war on an MDoAP and was retaliated against, we would have every right to ask GO for assistance. However, they wouldn't have to come to our defense considering it would not be a defensive war in sense that our initial aggression led to the attacks on us. The way I see it, in the event of a war, GO could have said, "look, defending TPF is cool and all, and imma let you finish, but Fark is the greatest ally we have, of all time." Understandable, they could do what they wish, our treaties are non-chaining i believe. For instance, in the Karma war, GUN had an MDP with NATO, fought on the side of Karma, and still remained our strong friends. I can understand the reasoning behind this move, what I can't understand is the timing, and the fact that I learned of the cancellation here, since there was no warning. It is no surprise to me that GO would choose to end this considering the other allies they have, while being decent alliances and all, aren't exactly walking down the same path. Treaty should have been dissolved months ago. Fare thee well GO, it's a shame an otherwise decent relationship had to end this way. That's basically my entire opinion on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 GO being pansies, huh? What a pleasant non-surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I can't understand is the timing, and the fact that I learned of the cancellation here, since there was no warning. It is no surprise to me that GO would choose to end this considering the other allies they have, while being decent alliances and all, aren't exactly walking down the same path. About the notification we talked to Iskander before we posted, a few hours in advance Treaty should have been dissolved months ago. You are right there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Timing is everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) You are right there More convenient to do it now then several months earlier as the post you just quoted and agreed with Edited December 27, 2009 by Cheshire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordliam Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 FRIENDS OVER INFRA. Honour is NOT a commodity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feather Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 What is "treaty killing"? Massive cancellations of treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I don't understand - that happened when treaties chained and it still happens now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupremePrince Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Very disappointing GO. NATO, at least you know who your real allies are. Good luck guys, you are better off without them anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentFury Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) get nervous less ? Edited December 28, 2009 by SilentFury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilla Island Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Good show to our friends in the Guru Order. Hail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Bygones. Despite the bad feelings, we did enjoy the time we helped bring you into Aqua and share responsibilities for your protection for all that time. The bad feelings will fade, and we'll still like GO. We are both but pawns anyway. "War brings out the worst in people. Never the best, always the worst." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Sadly, I pretty much expected this for a long while.NATO This post right here proved it was in the works a long time before the latest shens started. So stop jumping to conclusions people. Not to mention the NATO members who have said as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 This post right here proved it was in the works a long time before the latest shens started. So stop jumping to conclusions people. Not to mention the NATO members who have said as such. Really, this is the truth. As I told mentor, the timing is horrible, horrible, horrible in the world's eye. Live and learn. Every alliance learns through trial and error, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmanofAus Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) It's upsetting to me that this treaty has been cancelled, for whatever reason. But, sometimes these types of decisions are made. Best of luck, NATO! I love you guys. Edited December 28, 2009 by JmanofAus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 We simply don't want treaties with alliances that oppose each other, nothing cowardice Isnt that something you should have thought about a long time back.....not at the last minute when a war is impending... 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... 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. GO isnt defending TPF. Ideally, if the treaty chains, GO will defend NATO, if NATO is attacked by someone else. To avoid chaining, there are anti-chaining clauses used in treaties. Now that GO has canceled this treaty, GO's allies can attack NATO, which would have been rude if this treaty had still been in place... 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 You basically helped clear the web a little so that your allies can plan better...without having to worry about hitting your other allies on the opposite side of this conflict. Wentworth pretty much summed it in his post......if relationships were dwindling, then this should have been canceled a while back....not when war is impending. Given the timing....it definitely doesnt look good.... Really, this is the truth. As I told mentor, the timing is horrible, horrible, horrible in the world's eye. Live and learn. Every alliance learns through trial and error, eh? you are one to talk about !@#$%* timing...my my.... so what have you learnt thro trial and error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 sad to see this canceled......always sad to see treaties canceled when a war is impending....Also, thats a pretty sad reason for cancellation. All you had to do was inform NATO that you did not wish to participate in defense of TPF.....i am sure they would have understood the sentiment. You would not have broken any terms of the treaty either i guess... It's not just sad...it's pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoXV Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I smell chicken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 If you had a problem defending TPF, I think that would have been a more respectable reason than the lie you used. Right now it just looks like you are cowards who don't want to risk defending NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 This was predictable. 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.