WAPA DOW

[Comrade Goby]

Good show WAPA.

[Shmeestar]

NEW makes a policy that meant that they would not come to our aid if we entered the war(which we were planning to do in defence of our allies)and were attcked NpO, \m/ war. And because they posted it on these forums it makes it legal for them to not uphold their treaty?
But when we post our policy on our own forums, that makes us not legally upholding our end of the bargain?
Soooo when FOK entered the previous war that wasnt legal because it wasnt on these forums....and yet they were still considered to be at war officially.

That sounds like one rule for some and another rule for others.

If you would also please notice that The Immortals are also friends of ours, whom NEW declared apon, and although we are only allied to The Immortals with a PIAT, we treat our friends and PIAT treaties with as much reverence as our MDPs. This in itself is a reason to be unable to justify entering this war in defense of NEW because if you think about it we could have helped out The Immortals when they were attacked by NEW, so how can we justify helpiing out NEW when their enterance to this conflict was by attacking one of our allied alliances.
And if you wish to counter that 1TF are at war with one of our allies, I don't believe WAPA said that that would be ok or were necessarily aware of the fact, I certainly wasnt, I was only aware of the NATO DoW.

I love you NEW guys and have had many chats with you. I don't mean this as an offence but more of fact stating.

I truly hope that we can remain friends, and that I will still be welcome to hang in your channel. I am into nation building more than destroying, so I cannot say that I will enjoy this war, whatever may happen.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Shmeestar

[flak attack]

[quote name='LYDIASLAND' date='05 February 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1265422791' post='2162570']
Shark war 3 wouldnt be the tech raid the first 2 were .Bring it on. The silly thing is WAPA has done nothing through the years to make us the bad fellys ,and i come here now and again to see whats being said and its the same old same old same old rubbish.

Get a life or a job or a beer or a good woman.

o/ WAPA
[/quote]
Relax. It was a joke. I've got no beef with you.

[popsumpot]

Can you say bandwagon?

[MadScotII]

tbf to WAPA with the new way of DoW and not needing a declared treaty to do so there is no longer such thing as bandwagoning. Bad form no doubt, but bandwagon died a while ago because of this war...

[popsumpot]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='06 February 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1265463692' post='2164355']
tbf to WAPA with the new way of DoW and not needing a declared treaty to do so there is no longer such thing as bandwagoning. Bad form no doubt, but bandwagon died a while ago because of this war...
[/quote]

You're talking about something else mate. Bandwagoning is jumping on the bandwagon, the bandwagon here being the vastly outnumbered alliance of NATO.

WAPA had a compulsory defensive clause with NEW, but they betrayed their word and instead opted to join the war against NATO, an already overwhelmed alliance, through an optional aggression clause. That is bandwagon in everyone's dictionary, and WAPA have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy and entirely honour-less.

[LYDIASLAND]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='06 February 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1265463347' post='2164347']
Can you say bandwagon?
[/quote]



Can you say Helmit ?

[LittleRena]

[quote name='LYDIASLAND' date='06 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1265487060' post='2164982']
Can you say Helmit ?
[/quote]

Can you say Mutual Defense?

[K1L1O]

[quote name='Hassman' date='06 February 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1265434049' post='2163085']
Oh my god. NOW YOUR MOANING ABOUT THAT. If you looks in our topic history we sorted that out and you guys were ok about it or you said you were ok about please ANYTHING relevant to NATO and this war don't change the subject.If your really that bad about it we will give it to you when you peace out.


Again. Were the hell has this come from? When you asked requested assistance unfortunately hours before our minds were already made up.
[/quote]

Are you sure? You're the one asked to help us
And i am aware with your log with coekrix, but WAPA never told us their intention to engage NATO and entered the war in opposing side

Too bad hassman, i really like you from the beginning. Guess we'll have to start from the zero.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Shmeestar' date='05 February 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1265435999' post='2163375']
NEW makes a policy that meant that they would not come to our aid if we entered the war(which we were planning to do in defence of our allies)and were attcked NpO, \m/ war. And because they posted it on these forums it makes it legal for them to not uphold their treaty?
But when we post our policy on our own forums, that makes us not legally upholding our end of the bargain?
Soooo when FOK entered the previous war that wasnt legal because it wasnt on these forums....and yet they were still considered to be at war officially.

That sounds like one rule for some and another rule for others.

If you would also please notice that The Immortals are also friends of ours, whom NEW declared apon, and although we are only allied to The Immortals with a PIAT, we treat our friends and PIAT treaties with as much reverence as our MDPs. This in itself is a reason to be unable to justify entering this war in defense of NEW because if you think about it we could have helped out The Immortals when they were attacked by NEW, so how can we justify helpiing out NEW when their enterance to this conflict was by attacking one of our allied alliances.
And if you wish to counter that 1TF are at war with one of our allies, I don't believe WAPA said that that would be ok or were necessarily aware of the fact, I certainly wasnt, I was only aware of the NATO DoW.

I love you NEW guys and have had many chats with you. I don't mean this as an offence but more of fact stating.

I truly hope that we can remain friends, and that I will still be welcome to hang in your channel. I am into nation building more than destroying, so I cannot say that I will enjoy this war, whatever may happen.
[/quote]
Luckily for you Immortals and NEW are now longer at war Time for excuse c.

[tukangsate]

Well, WAPA got to do what WAPA think they got to do

so good luck WAPA, I guess..

OOC: You guys really broke my heart!

[baskan1]

[quote name='tukangsate' date='06 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1265512443' post='2165860']
Well, WAPA got to do what WAPA think they got to do

so good luck WAPA, I guess..

OOC: You guys really broke my heart!
[/quote]
Will a cookie help? *gives a big chocolaty chip cookie*

[Mayzie]

[quote name='mhawk' date='07 February 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1265501447' post='2165433']
Luckily for you Immortals and NEW are now longer at war Time for excuse c.
[/quote]

So now they wiped the floor with them, it's all good.

All I see in here is people from your side moaning like $%&@ that WAPA backed us and not you, one was optional defence, one optional agression, they made their stance clear before anyone was dragged in the same as you did.

Anyone calling bandwagon, might want to look at the TFD declaration, WAPA are actually fighting a lot more people than you think, it was not a decision taken lightly or a choice made without thought.

[Captain Canuck]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='06 February 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1265512786' post='2165871']
So now they wiped the floor with them, it's all good.

All I see in here is people from your side moaning like $%&@ that WAPA backed us and not you, one was optional defence, one optional agression, they made their stance clear before anyone was dragged in the same as you did.

Anyone calling bandwagon, might want to look at the TFD declaration, WAPA are actually fighting a lot more people than you think, it was not a decision taken lightly or a choice made without thought.
[/quote]

Optional defense? I guess that's what WAPA thinks of MDoAPs, eh?

[Mayzie]

[quote name='Captain Canuck' date='07 February 2010 - 03:25 AM' timestamp='1265513137' post='2165878']
Optional defense? I guess that's what WAPA thinks of MDoAPs, eh?
[/quote]

That's what a non chaining treaty means when an alliance enters in the defence of another or on it's own agression, yes. If this was the other way around, you'd have your nose so far up WAPA's arse right now. Seriously, read the thread rather than making us go over the same crap again and again.

If you've nothing better to say or nothing to add to the topic, don't say anything. WAPA's position has been clarified time and time again, yet you carry on.

[popsumpot]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1265515380' post='2165943']
That's what a non chaining treaty means when an alliance enters in the defence of another or on it's own agression, yes. If this was the other way around, you'd have your nose so far up WAPA's arse right now. Seriously, read the thread rather than making us go over the same crap again and again.

If you've nothing better to say or nothing to add to the topic, don't say anything. WAPA's position has been clarified time and time again, yet you carry on.
[/quote]

WAPA took a position that they refuse to join the loosing side of the war, no matter what. They clarified this position time and time again, and each time, the conclusion is still the same - they are opting cowardice over treaty obligations.

A MDoAP will rank above an optional aggression clause, no matter chaining or not, in anyone's books. They choose not only to forsaken their allies in order to not join the loosing side of the war, but they stabbed them in the back by band wagoning onto the winning side through an optional [i]agreesion[/i] clause.

Their policy was cowardice, their actions are treacherous, and it will be no matter how many times you try to sugar coat it or "clarify" it.

[Auctor]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='06 February 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1265516314' post='2165974']
WAPA took a position that they refuse to join the loosing side of the war, no matter what. They clarified this position time and time again, and each time, the conclusion is still the same - they are opting cowardice over treaty obligations.

A MDoAP will rank above an optional aggression clause, no matter chaining or not, in anyone's books. They choose not only to forsaken their allies in order to not join the loosing side of the war, but they stabbed them in the back by band wagoning onto the winning side through an optional [i]agreesion[/i] clause.

Their policy was cowardice, their actions are treacherous, and it will be no matter how many times you try to sugar coat it or "clarify" it.
[/quote]

I think you'll find WAPA has allies who aren't disappointed. NEW can't even seem to be bothered to read WAPA's own forums and is in no real position to dole out criticism about which side WAPA backs, according to its own principles, after their own "stances" on the matter.

[Jeb the Wise]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='06 February 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1265515380' post='2165943']
That's what a non chaining treaty means when an alliance enters in the defence of another or on it's own agression, yes. If this was the other way around, you'd have your nose so far up WAPA's arse right now. Seriously, read the thread rather than making us go over the same crap again and again.

If you've nothing better to say or nothing to add to the topic, don't say anything. WAPA's position has been clarified time and time again, yet you carry on.
[/quote]
Well I guess we shouldn't expect any less when playing a game with 15,000 prepubescent girls

Take popsumpot last post as an example.

[Mayzie]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='07 February 2010 - 04:18 AM' timestamp='1265516314' post='2165974']
WAPA took a position that they refuse to join the loosing side of the war, no matter what. They clarified this position time and time again, and each time, the conclusion is still the same - they are opting cowardice over treaty obligations.

A MDoAP will rank above an optional aggression clause, no matter chaining or not, in anyone's books. They choose not only to forsaken their allies in order to not join the loosing side of the war, but they stabbed them in the back by band wagoning onto the winning side through an optional [i]agreesion[/i] clause.

Their policy was cowardice, their actions are treacherous, and it will be no matter how many times you try to sugar coat it or "clarify" it.
[/quote]

NEW's policy on the other hand was a fantastic idea and ideal because every one of their allies was lined up on the other side. I don't disagree that the MD ranks above going in on the oA of another treaty, I don't believe I have ever said anything of the sort, other than because of the entrance of NEW, it was [b]optional[/b], however, what I have said is that WAPA made their stance clear before any allies got involved. Predicting who will be the winner then, when you're not involved is pretty good imo, so thank $%&@ I'm their ally, eh?!

Come on now Popsumpot, we could go at this all day and we wont agree, why? Because we've fell on the opposite sides this time.

[Shmeestar]

[quote name='mhawk' date='07 February 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1265501447' post='2165433']
Luckily for you Immortals and NEW are now longer at war Time for excuse c.
[/quote]

Well we're already at war so I think its a bit late.

[quote name='Jeb the Wise' date='07 February 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1265516685' post='2165983']
Well I guess we shouldn't expect any less when playing a game with 15,000 prepubescent girls

Take popsumpot last post as an example.
[/quote]

Good thing Ive already gone through puberty.

[K1L1O]

[quote name='Auctor' date='07 February 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1265516489' post='2165976']
I think you'll find WAPA has allies who aren't disappointed. NEW can't even seem to be bothered to read WAPA's own forums and is in no real position to dole out criticism about which side WAPA backs, according to its own principles, after their own "stances" on the matter.
[/quote]

I think TAN has explained it with very clear about your opinion. Did you skip his post? Check out this [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80100&view=findpost&p=2161214"]llink[/url]

[quote]
what I have said is that WAPA made their stance clear before any allies got involved
[/quote]

Really? You must ask again to WAPA, in the middle of war i queried one of their gov, and they stated that they haven't made a decision yet. Shame on me, i'm not taking any screenshot
HInt : Ask shmeestar about our log in 4th february

WAPA told us that WAPA couldn't help us, but didn't told us WAPA would declared on NATO. How did you do that to your once called 'ally' and 'friend'? This is really broke our heart.
This will be my last post in this thread, good luck for WAPA.

Edited February 7, 2010 by K1L1On1Mr4

[Mayzie]

[quote name='Jeb the Wise' date='07 February 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1265516685' post='2165983']
Well I guess we shouldn't expect any less when playing a game with 15,000 prepubescent girls

Take popsumpot last post as an example.
[/quote]

15,000? We need this war to try and drag more people back into this world then, the numbers have dropped severely since I last checked!

Pops is all good, he's just pissed off, as happens with people on either side of conflicts.

[Shmeestar]

[quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' date='07 February 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1265517184' post='2166002']
I think TAN has explained it with very clear about your opinion. Did you skip his post? Check out this [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80100&view=findpost&p=2161214"]llink[/url]



Really? You must ask again to WAPA, in the middle of war i queried one of their gov, and they stated that they haven't made a decision yet. Shame on me, i'm not taking any screenshot
HInt : Ask shmeestar about our log in 4th february

WAPA told us that WAPA couldn't help us, but didn't told us WAPA would declared on NATO. How did you do that to your once called 'ally' and 'friend'? This is really broke our heart.
This will be my last post in this thread, good luck for WAPA.
[/quote]

So I wasnt aware of who were our opponents at the time, which was the truth.
By the time I found out, I was moving and unavailable. Im also Minister for Economics so those decisions are not up to me anyway/ Im not exactly the know it all on war., Im sorry if you felt that we ignored you or that I didnt divulge information that I should have, but I didnt have the information. My apologies.

[Jeb the Wise]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='06 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1265517222' post='2166003']
15,000? We need this war to try and drag more people back into this world then, the numbers have dropped severely since I last checked!

Pops is all good, he's just pissed off, as happens with people on either side of conflicts.
[/quote]

LOL, well I was trying not to call the whole CN community prepubescent girls
just a good 60%

[popsumpot]

[quote name='Mayzie' date='07 February 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1265517222' post='2166003']
15,000? We need this war to try and drag more people back into this world then, the numbers have dropped severely since I last checked!

Pops is all good, he's just pissed off, as happens with people on either side of conflicts.
[/quote]

Pops has been pissed off ever since #LEN died and all you guys dispersed