Chalaskan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Forgiveness for what? I haven't done !@#$. Yet. I was speaking about Londo/Athens. There are usually visible elements of instability that would alert a signatory to either not sign the mutual defense pact. These elements include, but are not limited to: Acts of desperation in previous times of war, last-minutes side-switching, blatant disregard for signed treaties and being noWedge. LMAO, NW is our nemesis, we, and specifically I hated NW. You comparing us to him is an Oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Oh so in a scenario where this CB is valid they have the Option to defend TPF via that OA clause and they are CHOOSING to preseve their infra instead. So that makes the OP and subsequent posts about IRON wrong how? Are you suggesting that all treaties should be treated as MADPs regardless of what they actually say, and that anyone who ever chooses to not support their allies' aggressive actions should be called out in the same manner as the OP? Because I would strongly disagree with that assessment. There is no hive mind here. Unless you signed an MADP, you should not be expected to support the blatantly aggressive actions of your allies. That is certainly not the case today; individual MADPs are extremely rare for this very reason. That is why the OP is wrong--it presumes the basis of a relationship in an MDoAP treaty that is without precedent. The nature of these treaties is trust. When trust is broken, support should not be expected. This is all, of course, assuming that the CB is valid. Edited December 29, 2009 by Kiss Goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Well if their is a clause that says espionage makes it void? NO! But your wish may still come true. [ooc]I thought you were going to sleep?[/ooc] Edited December 29, 2009 by Ryan Greenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Man, some people relaly took this thread hook line and sinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I was speaking about Londo/Athens.LMAO, NW is our nemesis, we, and specifically I hated NW. You comparing us to him is an Oxymoron. And yet you stood by and let him get away with some ridiculous !@#$, even participated. At least MK steps up and tells its allies that they are being retards when they are in fact being retards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I was speaking about Londo/Athens.LMAO, NW is our nemesis, we, and specifically I hated NW. You comparing us to him is an Oxymoron. I have known Londo and his career as a leader since well before Athens. Not once during his time as an ally to MK have we told him he's on his own. We stood by him even in the Ni! Debacle, and took a huge punch to the face from the world for doing so. I wasn't comparing you to noWedge in any way shape or form. And I believe you have no idea what an oxymoron is if that seems like one to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 My pleasure, Grub stated if Athens and C&G didn't back down he would nail them to the floor. TOP backed him as we thought Londo was being a !@#$%. C&G back peddled and made Londo change his ways...cause if not it would be everyone VS. C&G (much like the current situation less the obvious !@#$%ness.). MK made sure that didn't happen while making a statement of being the protector. Londo scrambled, crying for forgiveness.) Answer your question? No. There are no facts here to backup your claim of Grub being the leader of STA/Frostbite. There are no facts here to backup your claim that STA was going to attack Athens. There are no facts here to backup your claim that Frostbite would look to take out Citadel and Super Friends. So actually you have provided no facts for any of the claims I specifically asked you to backup, could you try again? Also thanks for dropping the attitude towards me, I really could not be bothered replying in the way I initially did again so I'm glad I don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Are you suggesting that all treaties should be treated as MADPs regardless of what they actually say, and that anyone who ever chooses to not support their allies' aggressive actions should be called out in the same manner as the OP? Because I would strongly disagree with that assessment. There is no hive mind here. Unless you signed an MADP, you should not be expected to support the blatantly aggressive actions of your allies. That is certainly not the case today; individual MADPs are extremely rare for this very reason. That is why the OP is wrong--it presumes the basis of a relationship in an MDoAP treaty that is without precedent. The nature of these treaties is trust. When trust is broken, support should not be expected. This is all, of course, assuming that the CB is valid. Your last line is the crux of your post. I and many others (granted not my fearless leader Doitzel) do believe that the CB is a load of crap and are quite annoyed at IRON's lack of support. I may not share the motivations of the OP here but I do agree with the content of it. Edited December 29, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 And yet you stood by and let him get away with some ridiculous !@#$, even participated. At least MK steps up and tells its allies that they are being retards when they are in fact being retards. Quite the opposite, as I doubt that he would have takent that course of action if we didn't take ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Quite the opposite, as I doubt that he would have takent that course of action if we didn't take ours. And you would, once again, be very much wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) No. There are no facts here to backup your claim of Grub being the leader of STA/Frostbite. There are no facts here to backup your claim that STA was going to attack Athens. There are no facts here to backup your claim that Frostbite would look to take out Citadel and Super Friends. So actually you have provided no facts for any of the claims I specifically asked you to backup, could you try again?Also thanks for dropping the attitude towards me, I really could not be bothered replying in the way I initially did again so I'm glad I don't have to. If you believe that NpO does not lead FB, or that Grub did not make demands of Athens/Londo to not go through with that, you will be contradicted in short order. MK made Londo back down cause they knew they were going to get their $@! kicked, and Londo bent over backwards to make sure it didn't happen. As far as FB wanting to be aggressive and take out other blocs such as Cit, and SF, you are correct...it is subjective. Actually I have not provided facts, but they are available to me should I wish to research and point them out...but I am in fact a lazy SOB. Touche. Edited December 29, 2009 by Chalaskan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Are you suggesting that all treaties should be treated as MADPs regardless of what they actually say, and that anyone who ever chooses to not support their allies' aggressive actions should be called out in the same manner as the OP? Because I would strongly disagree with that assessment. Thing is, when the treaty states that an attack on TPF is to be regarded as an attack on IRON it is pretty straightforward. It does not have any exceptions or clauses. It does not say that if TPF did bad, they can opt out of it. So, IRON have two choices, really. Act as cowards and e-lawyer themselves out of this, or stand up and take the hit along with their allies. I know that I would have chosen the latter, no matter what odds I was facing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 And you would, once again, be very much wrong. Again subjective...wish we would have found out...but Londo kissed everyones $@!. Imagine Archon had something to do with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I suggest you not rely on soundbytes. Would you expect an MDP ally to back you up if you gave no warning and then attacked a third party on the CB of "I don't like you", and then the third party's allies defended them? Funny...I remember TOP participating in such a war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Quite the opposite, as I doubt that he would have takent that course of action if we didn't take ours. Given I was a part of a few noWedge Q on MK negotiations, your leadership were vocal supporters of noWedge during them and it was only a coup by Valhalla that rid the game of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) If you believe that NpO does not lead FB, or that Grub did not make demands of Athens/Londo to not go through with that, you will be contradicted in short order. As far as FB wanting to be aggressive and take out other blocs such as Cit, and SF, you are correct...it is subjective.Actually I have not provided facts, but they are available to me should I wish to research and point them out...but I am in fact a lazy SOB. Touche. I never claimed anything about Grub's threats, him frothing at the mouth was a very public display. So to summarise, you provided no facts for one of your claims, have admitted the other one is subjective, and completely ignored the part where you said the STA was going to attack Athens when I asked for facts to back that up too. Feel free to withdraw your insults towards me as I can't see how you can call me naive for failing to see the facts that have supposedly been laid out, when now you admit there have been no facts provided. I don't know what it is that's causing me to not expect this to happen. Edited December 29, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Are you suggesting that all treaties should be treated as MADPs regardless of what they actually say, and that anyone who ever chooses to not support their allies' aggressive actions should be called out in the same manner as the OP? Because I would strongly disagree with that assessment. There is no hive mind here. Unless you signed an MADP, you should not be expected to support the blatantly aggressive actions of your allies. That is certainly not the case today; individual MADPs are extremely rare for this very reason. That is why the OP is wrong--it presumes the basis of a relationship in an MDoAP treaty that is without precedent. The nature of these treaties is trust. When trust is broken, support should not be expected. There is no non-stacking clause in the treaty. An attack on one is an attack on the other, regardless of means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 MK made Londo back down cause they knew they were going to get their $@! kicked, and Londo bent over backwards to make sure it didn't happen. Funny, I remember both MK and Athens entering wars, even if they were to get their @#$% kicked. TOP on the other hand seems to have always been on the winning side, much because of their well know ability to weasel out of tough spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If you believe that NpO does not lead FB, or that Grub did not make demands of Athens/Londo to not go through with that, you will be contradicted in short order. MK made Londo back down cause they knew they were going to get their $@! kicked, and Londo bent over backwards to make sure it didn't happen. As far as FB wanting to be aggressive and take out other blocs such as Cit, and SF, you are correct...it is subjective.Actually I have not provided facts, but they are available to me should I wish to research and point them out...but I am in fact a lazy SOB. Touche. You really don't know MK at all if you think that anyone in that alliance is afraid of getting their $@! kicked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Again subjective...wish we would have found out...but Londo kissed everyones $@!. Imagine Archon had something to do with that. Tell me something: Is ignorance truly bliss? This isn't subjective. It's fact. If you spent countless hours in the private channels of the Complaints and Grievances Union, you would be better informed of the situation on which you speculate. As it were, I am certainly glad you aren't because I don't think I could deal with you on a regular basis. That said, this thread was created entirely for the benefit of discussions on why IRON has yet to join in the defense of their ally, whom they are obligated to defend during times of war. Why you keep making this about subjects in no way relevant to the thread is beyond me, and it is my sincere hope that you remain on point in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) I am JEDI IRON is pig! Do you want Infra? Do you want tech? IRON members are pig disgusting! Doitzel is our savior! Down with the Coalition of Cowards! Edited December 29, 2009 by Alter Leader Nabla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) You really don't know MK at all if you think that anyone in that alliance is afraid of getting their $@! kicked. I agree, MK does not worry about it, but they were smart enough to tell their allies to back the hell up. Londo didn't do this on his own...I can gaurantee you that. Tell me something: Is ignorance truly bliss?This isn't subjective. It's fact. If you spent countless hours in the private channels of the Complaints and Grievances Union, you would be better informed of the situation on which you speculate. As it were, I am certainly glad you aren't because I don't think I could deal with you on a regular basis. That said, this thread was created entirely for the benefit of discussions on why IRON has yet to join in the defense of their ally, whom they are obligated to defend during times of war. Why you keep making this about subjects in no way relevant to the thread is beyond me, and it is my sincere hope that you remain on point in the future. Your right, because I would say the truth, and deal with the consequences. But that may be above your head. And you may have been in a losing war yet again. Edited December 29, 2009 by Chalaskan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Signature updated to reflect my opinions of my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Why is it that everyone but IRON is getting all up in arms in a thread directed at IRON? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) I agree, MK does not worry about it, but they were smart enough to tell their allies to back the hell up. Londo didn't do this on his own...I can gaurantee you that.Your right, because I would say the truth, and deal with the consequences. But that may be above your head. And you may have been in a losing war yet again. Who cares if a war is a winning or losing one? It's about defending your allies and having fun. We showed concern for our allies in a slightly different method by helping them avoid a war. We didn't do it for our own sake. But, again, why are you constantly bringing this up? It has nothing to do with the thread at hand? And, what's all this about the truth? You haven't spoken a word of it all morning. How can I hope for any from you in the future? We deal with the consequences of every action, as we always have, as they approach us. Different methods at different times, yes, but all with the same purpose - the safety of our allies. Whether it be war or negotiations. By all means, though, continue speculating incorrectly. I don't get to post often enough as it is. Edited December 29, 2009 by Mundokiir 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.