Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hell, as Polar \m/ valiantly displayed, you apparently do not need a casus belli or any form of legal pathway to enter warfare. I've made that a little more accurate for you, Denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hell, as Polar valiantly displayed, you apparently do not need a casus belli or any form of legal pathway to enter warfare. Just because you don't like our CB it doesn't became nonexistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I'm glad to see this. Also, all they people talking about how this is opportunism obviously are either dumb or intentionally acting that way if they think Polar wasn't and we are. With the quality of the posting here i'm not surprised either way /I'm a horrible poster Just because you don't like our CB it doesn't became nonexistent. Just because you don't like our timing it doesn't become opportunism Edited January 25, 2010 by Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Congrats guys, and to our allies in Vanguard, we stand with you to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Jyrinx, so an ally of your ally attacked your ally and you and your alliance are outraged. Congratulations! Now you know how the rest of us feel! Isn't empathy great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Well, this is one of the most poorly timed announcements I have borne witness to. That said, these claims of opportunism are silly, for reasons already stated. Congratulations to Vanguard on their new union. Edited January 25, 2010 by Style #386 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowdog07 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Let's just be clear here. This announcement has as much to do with MK as it does with any other alliance not accounted for in the treaty. We still hold treaties to both sides of this conflict and to posture this treaty as a way to solidify MK on one side is ludicrous. That being said, congrats on the treaty to all involved parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Jyrinx, so an ally of your ally attacked your ally and you and your alliance are outraged. Congratulations! Now you know how the rest of us feel! Isn't empathy great? I'm assuming that's a joke from the smilie since it doesn't make sense, so ok In the event it wasn't, I'm annoyed that an ally allied a bloc mere moments after said bloc attacked another of our allies and didn't give us any notification. My heads going to explode if I use the word ally too many more times <.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Let's just be clear here. This announcement has as much to do with MK as it does with any other alliance not accounted for in the treaty. We still hold treaties to both sides of this conflict and to posture this treaty as a way to solidify MK on one side is ludicrous. That being said, congrats on the treaty to all involved parties. Okay so are you going to answer honestly when I ask whether you hold all your treaty partners in equal esteem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm glad to see this. Also, all they people talking about how this is opportunism obviously are either dumb or intentionally acting that way if they think Polar wasn't and we are. With the quality of the posting here i'm not surprised either way /I'm a horrible poster Just because you don't like our timing it doesn't become opportunism Please, link me to the post that I said your alliance were being opportunistic, and my point stands: the CB is there in our DoW if you can't read/understand isn't our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 My heads going to explode if I use the word ally too many more times <.< Tell me about it. It might be helpful if someone made a ven diagram or something to show who I am and am not supposed to be mad at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Just because you don't like our CB it doesn't became nonexistent. "We don't like your tech raiding" isn't a CB. It's a techraid. Where were 90% of the moralist people screaming for justice today when NPO was trying to push out a whole alliance and it's community out of the game? Or when alliances got !@#$ on and given the middle finger just because NPO didn't like them? Seriously, it's amazing to see how righteous people become when they don't feel an immediate boot hanging above their head, ready to step down full force. Almost makes me miss that element. To clarify i'm not against raiding as my alliance does. I am against people throwing their weight and thinking it's okay to dictate the way a certain element within planet bob should be viewed as. Anything for that matter. I know there's a !@#$ load of people who claimed that the fought in war X because alliances like m/ needed to be thrown out but in all honesty i fought my war because i didn't want people impsoing their views on anyone else through force and i didn't feel i had to obide in my raiding rules by NpO's morals for case in point here. And i'm just sick of all the posturing coming from some people when most have supported, directly or not far worse things. Get over yourselves. Edited January 25, 2010 by uaciaut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowdog07 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Okay so are you going to answer honestly when I ask whether you hold all your treaty partners in equal esteem? I believe CnG takes first precedence, but yes. Any ally of ours will get the same amount of effort and help as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 "We don't like your tech raiding" isn't a CB. It's a techraid. How is that a tech raid? If they have a problem with how another alliance conducts its affairs they have a right to do something about it. If that is a tech raid then what isn't? Do you believe all wars are tech raids? Fine. Most of us don't see things that way, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) "We don't like your tech raiding" isn't a CB. It's a techraid. I stand correct, if you don't know how read or don't understand our CB isn't our problem, I just suggest you to read it again. I will not waste my time in the rest of your post because I'm trying to ignore MK posts bashing their allies in Polaris and if Pezstar's post wasn't enough to you guys stop nothing will, so better just ignore the lack of respect. Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I believe CnG takes first precedence, but yes. Any ally of ours will get the same amount of effort and help as any other. Well, which is it? Does CnG take precedence or don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well, which is it? Does CnG take precedence or don't they? Our higher level treaties (read: CnG) take precedence over everything else, as it is in every other alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The last line wasn't really necessary and was just an unnecessary jab at Polar, but point taken regardless: this was in the works for a while and was a major foreign policy goal. Yet, did it really not occur to anyone in Vanguard that allying a bloc that just attacked our MDoAP partner would be something that STA would like some warning of? Our membership is quite angry, and I have very little to tell them because I had no warning of this at all. Sorry but you are incorrect (related to the bolded part). This treaty was signed before the attack on Polaris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 DROP EVERYTHING is equivalent to putting things on hold for a couple of weeks? Meh, there's no real telling how long this'll last. A few weeks would be surprising, and I still don't see why everyone else should just drop things because Grub had himself a baaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 "We don't like your tech raiding" isn't a CB. It's a techraid. Where were 90% of the moralist people screaming for justice today when NPO was trying to push out a whole alliance and it's community out of the game? Or when alliances got !@#$ on and given the middle finger just because NPO didn't like them? Seriously, it's amazing to see how righteous people become when they don't feel an immediate boot hanging above their head, ready to step down full force. Almost makes me miss that element. To clarify i'm not against raiding as my alliance does. I am against people throwing their weight and thinking it's okay to dictate the way a certain element within planet bob should be viewed as. Anything for that matter. I know there's a !@#$ load of people who claimed that the fought in war X because alliances like m/ needed to be thrown out but in all honesty i fought my war because i didn't want people impsoing their views on anyone else through force and i didn't feel i had to obide in my raiding rules by NpO's morals for case in point here. And i'm just sick of all the posturing coming from some people when most have supported, directly or not far worse things. Get over yourselves. It was a CB to us. Alliance X does something we don't like, we attack Alliance X. I really don't see any other way CBs would happen, unless they fit your agenda. So its OK to conspire to destroy the NPO based on morals, but its not ok for Polaris to war with an alliance based on morals? Awesome double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowdog07 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well, which is it? Does CnG take precedence or don't they? They do, but should CnG not be a direct issue, any of our other allies will receive the same support as another, CnG included. Does it make a darn difference? I can link you to our wiki page, it should list all our treaties which you can read for yourself and infer the same conclusion if it is so important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Our higher level treaties (read: CnG) take precedence over everything else, as it is in every other alliance. "Some of our allies are more important than others." They do, but should CnG not be a direct issue, any of our other allies will receive the same support as another, CnG included. Does it make a darn difference? I can link you to our wiki page, it should list all our treaties which you can read for yourself and infer the same conclusion if it is so important. "All of our allies are equal." Come on. Choose one already. Edited January 25, 2010 by Rebel Virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Our higher level treaties (read: CnG) take precedence over everything else, as it is in every other alliance. So you're affirming that political manouevering by CnG alliances can logically be taken as a possible sign of a greater strategy within the bloc, then. Just trying to clarify. If your CnG allies clearly mean more to you and are making treaty announcements further tying them to a bloc that is simultaneously waging a war against your "lower level" allies, it's not much of a leap to deduce that there is something more at work. Thus all those people, ah, bawwwwing, weren't necessarily out of line. Pattern recognition is one of the wonders of human intelligence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeru Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Now the next thing we need is a treaty between blocs and then perhaps a bloc made of blocs, then we've seen everything and can finally declare the game won, lost and over. So even though it could have been better partners, I enjoy the fact that this kind of treaty now exists. Good work, everyone! Edited January 25, 2010 by michaeru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Now the next thing we need is a treaty between blocs and then perhaps a bloc made of blocs, then we've seen everything and can finally declare the game won, lost and over. So even though it could have been better partners, I enjoy the fact that this kind of treaty now exists. Good work, everyone! Teen Titans is tied to SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts