Lord Stark Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wow, that is opportunism at the lowest level. Pretty sure you won that award already Grub... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The opportunism claims will fall flat on the ground when we don't even enter via this treaty, much less attack Polar with it. The opportunism claim fell flat the second Polar fired the first shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Did he say "We wont be attacking Polar" or "We wont be entering in this war, on the side against Polar"? Thats what it comes down to, semantics are everything. Hmmm... What other time in Polar history did semantics mean so much. July. Sometime around the 4th of July. Something about hell and freezing. Edited January 25, 2010 by Marty McFly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I don't want anyone to think I hold any disdain for STA. Your "sarcasm" could have been misinterpreted very easily and yes I really didn't think it was sarcasm at all to be honest because it didn't seem it. Well it wasn't a serious question and I probably could have worded it better, it was a bit late after I posted it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I would agree, but they were already MDoAP'd to SLCB and could have came in anyways using that. Well I guess this just removes any uncertainty as to whether they could use their MDoAP with SLCB to get involved on \m/'s side or not. I still doubt that this is a treaty that is really signed 'on the basis of friendship' and not just for the sake of political expediency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'd have to agree if this leads to Vanguard and its allies getting involved. Par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisK Owns You Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 <Rebel_Virginia> Will MK be declaring war on Polar? <SirWilliam> RV, we're treatied to them. why would we? Fake logs... >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbolt Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I already asked you this, but I just want to see if anyone else know. Then why treaty to a bloc? Why not just stick it out with SLCB and wait to announce this after a war? because otherwise, My exact words. -omfg I think Rafael may have already addressed this. The opportunism claims will fall flat on the ground when we don't even enter via this treaty, much less attack Polar with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbeast Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Thats what it comes down to, semantics are everything. Hmmm... What other time in Polar history did semantics mean so much. July. Sometime around the 4th of July. Something about hell and freezing. I think at this time it is not appropriate for NpO to be talking semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 TBH, I take this as a statement by Vanguard and nobody else until I see something stating otherwise. (I'mma gonna take a stab in the dark and say that I am in the minority for thinking this) That said, I'm not a fan of this but what can you do? Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well it wasn't a serious question and I probably could have worded it better, it was a bit late after I posted it though. It is late. But I really do hold STA in very high regard, hence me not wanting anyone, least of all STA, that I consider them bad allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omfghi2u2 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I think Rafael may have already addressed this. Ah I see. Looks like time will tell then. -omfg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbolt Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well I guess this just removes any uncertainty as to whether they could use their MDoAP with SLCB to get involved on \m/'s side or not. I still doubt that this is a treaty that is really signed 'on the basis of friendship' and not just for the sake of political expediency. Doubts aside I believe this treaty is representative of deep friendships. Vanguard and the Stickmen have history together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It is late. But I really do hold STA in very high regard, hence me not wanting anyone, least of all STA, that I consider them bad allies. It's cool, you know what we are and what we are about. It is just the surprise of it all to some folks I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Anyone can hit NpO "because they want to' with or without a treaty, Grub set the precedent. And now we are fighting a war over that precedent(although it has been done many times in the past). If Vanguard wants to avoid the ire that is being directed at Polar ostensibly for attacking an alliance without a treaty, then they need to sign something like this. Sure anyone can hit NpO 'because they want to,' Grub attacking \m/ does not establish some grand precedent for doing that, but Grub and Polaris are reaping the rewards for attacking without a treaty. In a way, this war is establishing that you cannot attack without a treaty, because then people will start signing oA treaties with each other just to attack you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I would like to remind STA members that Vanguard are our ally and I would like any disagreements STAers may have to be made civilly. Vanguard and MK, indeed all of CnG, are in a tight spot due to the way the situation is working. We have been in communication with them both and it may end up that they don't fight with us on the same side, or may even fight on the other side of this developing war. As frustrating as it is (and trust me, I'm slightly annoyed at this treaty coming up now), Vanguard and MK deeply respect the STA and nothing is being done out of malice towards our alliance. Vanguard and MK hold STA in the highest regard and we feel the same way towards them. There's a reason we allied them after all. Again, there's no reason you can't be civil while disagreeing. Specifically, there is no need to insinuate that any of our allies are bad allies or somehow deliberately compromising our security. Edited January 25, 2010 by Jyrinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No kidding, $@!& over your own allies much? Obviously you are not useful anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) The opportunism claims will fall flat on the ground when we don't even enter via this treaty, much less attack Polar with it. Thank you for this. This makes me a lot more comfortable with Vanguard again :3 Obviously you are not useful anymore. Anyone who believes this knows nothing about STA. They are the best of allies. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wow, that is opportunism at the lowest level. Somewhat like you declaring on \m/ right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Doubts aside I believe this treaty is representative of deep friendships. Vanguard and the Stickmen have history together A history that forces you to announce an oA treaty mere hours after said bloc has entered into a war. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. In a world where every other alliance announces treaties either right before a war starts or shortly after a war ends, Vanguard strikes a bold new course in announcing offensive treaties with combatants once the war has already started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I think at this time it is not appropriate for NpO to be talking semantics. Enlighten me as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I would like to remind STA members that Vanguard are our ally and I would like any disagreements STAers may have to be made civilly. Vanguard and MK, indeed all of CnG, are in a tight spot due to the way the situation is working. We have been in communication with them both and it may end up that they don't fight with us on the same side, or may even fight on the other side of this developing war. As frustrating as it is (and trust me, I'm slightly annoyed at this treaty coming up now), Vanguard and MK deeply respect the STA and nothing is being done out of malice towards our alliance. Vanguard and MK hold STA in the highest regard and we feel the same way towards them. There's a reason we allied them after all. Again, there's no reason you can't be civil while disagreeing. Specifically, there is no need to insinuate that any of our allies are bad allies or somehow deliberately compromising our security. Thank you for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Somewhat like you declaring on \m/ right? Some really believe the cause...which you really have none other then to be opportunistic. Don't shed the BS any more please. You know you have been opportunistic for the past several months. Glad your little bloc followed your desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) A history that forces you to announce an oA treaty mere hours after said bloc has entered into a war. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. In a world where every other alliance announces treaties either right before a war starts or shortly after a war ends, Vanguard strikes a bold new course in announcing offensive treaties with combatants once the war has already started. Err.. the methods of communications have been down for a while. This could have just been a part of that tacking on waiting on rafael to get back to post it up. I don't know though. I can't speak for Vanguard. Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Anyone who believes this knows nothing about STA. They are the best of allies. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. Indeed, which is why I am shocked to see Vanguard throw them by the wayside without a moments hesitation. You missed my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts