King Mathers Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Ya they dont like RoK or TPF. Which would be both sides. No, they're talking about two completely different conflicts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Based on 1. All the counter DoW 2. Reading Aubject matter 1 of the OP (again) I therefore conclude that Gramlins can not/will not (based on this announcement) come in on TPF/IRON and any/all of IRON's allies side (multiple degrees of separation) for this war on any front. The only way Grams will now come in on this war now is if TPF/IRON and her side DoW on one of Gramlins allies on Athens/RoK's side. Please correct me if I'm wrong...but essentially TPF/IRON's side do not have the military support of Grams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I can respect that.I apologize for lashing out, the amount of idiocy on these forums lately has gotten to me. Would you look at that, a sensible and decent person on Planet Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Reasonable stance. o/ Harmlins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenwillthisend Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Based on1. All the counter DoW 2. Reading Aubject matter 1 of the OP (again) I therefore conclude that Gramlins can not/will not (based on this announcement) come in on TPF/IRON and any/all of IRON's allies side (multiple degrees of separation) for this war on any front. The only way Grams will now come in on this war now is if TPF/IRON and her side DoW on one of Gramlins allies on Athens/RoK's side. Please correct me if I'm wrong...but essentially TPF/IRON's side do not have the military support of Grams. That's one way to look at it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you're telling me that Rish has committed an aggressive act against NATO etc and that he is at war with them as an individual, ok I'll agree.I'm confused however as to why you're linking the actions of ex-government to those of the alliance. Do you consider Gremlins responsible for what Bob Janova does now that he is no longer government? (use another ex-gov still in the alliance if the fact that he's in VE changes your answer) 1. Rish spied, spying is an act of war therefore aggressive. 2. Alliances are responsible for the actions of thier members, specifically high government members. 3. Your confusion seems to based in the notion that other circumstances apply to the theory, when the theory applied in the OP is simple. Spying = aggressive act 4. What bob does now isnt relevant to Gramlins. 5. What bob did while he was a conclave member in gramlins is relevant. Hope those items clear up your confusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 That's one way to look at it Ok, thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combat Pope Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 stuck between a rock and a hard place. good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 This post is beyond my greatest expectations.They labeled who would be aggressors and defenders in point one. Nothing about jumping into the war. So, I ask again, do they hold a treaty with any of the alliances that were attacked? Not yet, ask the same question in 1 or 2 days.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 The whole war has been a game of paper-loving semantics. How is it that few see that? Our statement here is pretty clear and if you have any confusions please ask a question and I'm sure somebody will answer it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 It is pretty clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I respect Gram. I am anxiously waiting to see what happens. o/GRAM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 1. Rish spied, spying is an act of war therefore aggressive. 2. Alliances are responsible for the actions of thier members, specifically high government members. 3. Your confusion seems to based in the notion that other circumstances apply to the theory, when the theory applied in the OP is simple. Spying = aggressive act 4. What bob does now isnt relevant to Gramlins. 5. What bob did while he was a conclave member in gramlins is relevant. Hope those items clear up your confusion So you agree that the actions of an ex-government member are no longer relevant once said member is no longer in government? Are you aware that Rishnokof never participated in any spying while he was a Triumvir, and that he only attempted to infiltrate alliances after stepping down? In any case I suppose the argument is purely academic now, what with nobody declaring on Ragnarok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 At no point in your rambling, incoherent disertations were any of you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. This sounds familiar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elpadrino Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) so then The Grämlins will join their allies in the NATO/TOP/NSO/IRON vs ROK spyonage war if it is started, so this means that probably MHA is not going to jump in defense of ROK in this CB, that or we would see the Härmlins on different sides of the same war... anyway probably you will find allies in trouble in both sides, not an easy position GL also honorable response having allies in both sides Edited January 2, 2010 by elpadrino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) so then The Grämlins will join their allies in the NATO/TOP/NSO/IRON vs ROK spyonage war if it is started, so this means that probably MHA is not going to jump in defense of ROK in this CB, that or we would see the Härmlins on different sides of the same war..., if they didn´t separate from The Grämlins during the Karma war for NPO I doubt we would see it now... also honorable response having allies in both sides I think you got your points mixed up. or haven't seen why recent wars have been declared. Either one. Edited January 2, 2010 by Emperor Brutus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elpadrino Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I think you got your points mixed up. or haven't seen why recent wars have been declared. Either one. yeah I mean if ROK is attacked over the ROK spy CB, they were not attacked over the TPF "spy" CB for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziperia Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 oh nice stance grämlins I have to say unexpected, but still the best one I've seen in this war. o/ Grämlins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertyy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Oh come on. Take a damn side already. When/if we enter this war, it will be because we are right in the how and why. Considering all the great thought that went into the starting and escalation of this war, I can see why you might be confused by us firing up the old neurons. I know it isn't customary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 What's there to deny? If TOP declared war on Rok over the spy thing we would be hypocrites. TOP doesn't need to declare on anybody except to defend their ally. They are otherwise secondary to this conflict as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Which would be a stupid move because TOP isn't stupid enough to DoW on RoK over those spying issues which are unprovable as a plot from an alliance. Even mentioning defending someone going to war over such an issue is moronic. Edited January 2, 2010 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Which would be a stupid move because TOP isn't stupid enough to DoW on RoK over those spying issues which are unprovable. Even mentioning defending someone going to war over such an issue is moronic. TOP can choose to defend their allies in IRON regardless of the reason IRON finds themselves under fire, in the same way IRON can do it for TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Didn't Gremlins say they'd follow TOP if they declared on Ragnarok for the spying issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Didn't Gremlins say they'd follow TOP if they declared on Ragnarok for the spying issues? I think they said they'd defend allies who were attacked, not roll on an oA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elpadrino Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Which would be a stupid move because TOP isn't stupid enough to DoW on RoK over those spying issues which are unprovable as a plot from an alliance. Even mentioning defending someone going to war over such an issue is moronic. ROK already attacked TOP allies (IRON (with TPF)) over a worst CB so I don´t see it stupid at all (B Edited January 3, 2010 by elpadrino 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.