Will MK DoW on alliances attacking the NpO?

[Venizelos]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='09 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1265734101' post='2170713']
Funny, by that line of reasoning MK shouldn't have even asked Polar to help them out with TOP.
[/quote]


we asked them to come in before they had re-entered, and were extremely surprised when they did, on the [i]other[/i] side. we expected them to come in on our side.

[Archon]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 February 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1265695558' post='2170106']
so is MK working on getting NSO peace? if so, i will cease my arguments.
[/quote]

Round the clock. Just got the latest update about an hour ago.

So, are you actually going to cease?

[auto98]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265508194' post='2165701']
If Polaris is bandwagoned on, then expect us. If we didn't come in, I'd be disappointed in our government. (Bandwagoning = declaring without a treaty)
[/quote]

So you have no problem with alliances declaring on NpO if they are treatied to one of the current people attacking NpO?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='09 February 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1265736505' post='2170769']
Round the clock. Just got the latest update about an hour ago.

So, are you actually going to cease?
[/quote]

yep. thank you for answering my question.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='09 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1265734954' post='2170730']
we asked them to come in before they had re-entered, and were extremely surprised when they did, on the [i]other[/i] side. we expected them to come in on our side.
[/quote]

Indeed, but when they re-entered on the other side to your all's surprise, why continue to ask for their help?

[Mussolandia]

MK did the right thing. It's NpO's fault they are in this position.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1265508194' post='2165701']
If Polaris is bandwagoned on, then expect us. If we didn't come in, I'd be disappointed in our government. (Bandwagoning = declaring without a treaty)
[/quote]

Excellent, so you agree that Gre and FAN are bandwagoners. I thought it was just me.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='07 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1265606066' post='2168184']
Oh, and fyi, I know for a fact that Archon has heavily invested himself in helping Polar get peace and out of the war. Do not question his resolve for his allies.
[/quote]

Well, except when he asked them to re-enter the war... O.o

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='08 February 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1265647640' post='2168802']
As lebubu pointed out, MK is literally talking about Polar more than anything else. And we have the proof of that. We care quite a bit about them, and frankly we would like to see their other front close as that front is tied quite closely to a number of alliance MK is either allied to or is friendly with. Are [s]their[/s]there other motives? Sure. Is the "OMG YOU ONLY WANT TO HELP THEM SO THEY CAN FIGHT TOP!!!!1!!1!" motive the only one? No, that claim is disingenuous. But then again, I've already covered why people are touting that party line.
[/quote]

Hey, I commend you for being able to convince Polar to basically sacrifice themselves for you, but if what your members insisted was common knowledge [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80158&st=180]here[/url] and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80158&st=200]here[/url] in the thread announcing NpO's entrance on your behalf is true i.e. that GOD hates NpO and will never let up on them, then you just played Polar like a two bit whore. When your done at least let Grub get dressed.

[BamaBuc]

You know, I'm not a huge fan of those MK guys, but I cannot blame them in the slightest for not helping NpO. First off, there's a non-chaining clause. That aside, from what I've been able to discern from this cluster$%&@ of a war (I wasn't here when it started, so be patient with me here), Polar flat-out betrayed MK. They not only knew about a pre-emptive strike against MK, they approved and supported it! If that doesn't count as tearing a treaty into subatomic particles, I don't know what does. As far as I'm concerned, when you commit an act of war against an ally, the treaty is off the table. I believe that actively plotting an attack (one that actually does come to pass, as this one did) is as good as an act of war. How can you possibly claim that MK has any obligation to Polar? Forget defending them, I wouldn't blame MK if they attacked NpO.

-Bama

EDIT: I posted that without finishing it.

I am aware that Polar did end up defending MK. But the damage was done, and not only that, but my understanding is that the outcome was already decided in CnG's favor at that point, so NpO wasn't taking much risk. If MK wants to try to rebuild that relationship, that's their business. But I think for the rest of us to claim that they have an obligation to NpO is stupid.

Edited February 10, 2010 by BamaBuc