silentkiller Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Yes it is an act of war, No I don't see C&G supporting GOD in extracting reps from NPO(atleast not publicly) so I don't understand where the hypocrisy claims come from :S Edited February 17, 2010 by silentkiller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 It's okay, guys, I have a solution. You can send your tech to the NSO, since GOD is perfectly fine with nations-at-war receiving aid, and we can either hold on to it or transfer it out to TOP for you. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='janax' date='17 February 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1266444527' post='2188082'] GGA and Valhalla. Citadel (Including TOP) and your allies in Rok and Fark attacked Polar for unrelated reasons. [/quote] I forgot, they were entirely different wars. One just happened to be declared on the allies of current combatants while the other was going on. I [I]wonder[/I] what that sounds like? Tell me, are the NpO-\m/ and TOP-C&G wars the same war, Janax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Bilrow' date='17 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266444555' post='2188083'] Hahaha....double standards in CyberNations....never [/quote] Simple question here. Did we force you to pay the reps during this war or did we let you put them on hold until we see peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='17 February 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1266444599' post='2188088'] And it's the sovereign right of TIFDTT to do something about it! [/quote] An interesting foreign policy. I hope that taunting certain alliances to stop you from doing your tech deals while simultaneously threatening another party with violence for doing tech deals sits well with you and your allies. Is this "do something about it" stance one that Bob will continue to see from you for the foreseeable future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1266444991' post='2188103'] An interesting foreign policy. I hope that taunting certain alliances to stop you from doing your tech deals while simultaneously threatening another party with violence for doing tech deals sits well with you and your allies. Is this "do something about it" stance one that Bob will continue to see from you for the foreseeable future? [/quote] When a state of warfare between us and another alliance exists, we will use almost any means necessary to win (sanctions and spying being obvious exceptions). You don't expect equality in a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Everyone who is lumping C&G in with GOD should probably stop, seeing as GOD is not part of C&G, nor are we even allied to any of their signatories. Believe it or not, alliances on the same side don't always go by the same procedures. Shocking, I know. Edited February 17, 2010 by Mixoux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266444374' post='2188077'] I guess not. MK's aid screen: http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Mushroom%20Kingdom&anyallexact=exact I'm seeing quite a lot of tech dealing going on in there. [/quote] Hey newsflash. MK is not neutral in this conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Delta1212' date='17 February 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1266444882' post='2188098'] I forgot, they were entirely different wars. One just happened to be declared on the allies of current combatants while the other was going on. I [I]wonder[/I] what that sounds like? Tell me, are the NpO-\m/ and TOP-C&G wars the same war, Janax? [/quote] Don't know. I'm not a fan of either war, personally. In one, I followed orders, in this one, I'm helping an ally. Someday someone will start seeing some sense and it will blow over. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='17 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266444599' post='2188088'] And it's the sovereign right of TIFDTT to do something about it! [/quote] Happy to see that there is honor left with those who have power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Craig' date='17 February 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1266444840' post='2188095'] Bullying? It's long standing not to send out out during a war, it's supplying the enemy. We are handling it nicely and asking for it not to happen, i think it's quite fair [/quote] Yes, inserting one's self into the affairs of another party simply because they are doing business with an enemy is bullying. I'm not a fan the appeal to tradition argument, as it is what restrains progress. Instead of dictating the affairs of another by the threat of violence, why not, instead, just do deals with this third party yourselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1266445217' post='2188110'] Happy to see that there is honor left with those who have power... [/quote] I'm not trying to claim MK is "special", our enemies have the ability to stop our tech deals as we do theirs. Anything otherwise would be hypocritical. Edited February 17, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1266445222' post='2188111'] Yes, inserting one's self into the affairs of another party simply because they are [b]selling weapons to[/b]an enemy is bullying. I'm not a fan the appeal to tradition argument, as it is what restrains progress. Instead of dictating the affairs of another by the threat of violence, why not, instead, just do deals with this third party yourselves? [/quote] I corrected it for you. It makes sense to cut off the supply of technology that supports our enemy's weapons. See a blockade. Edited February 17, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 I'm really giggling at all the replies here, and the parallels to the NPO situation. Thanks for the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='lebubu' date='17 February 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1266443300' post='2188023'] Your contractual obligations can be put on hold until after the war. [/quote] Tell that to GOD. Double standards here, boys. Double !@#$@#$ standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) This thread has served it's purpose in my opinion we have the basics of where people stand on the issue. I please ask that that those who are the ones with power in this conflict, and the heads of those powers (whomever they may be) contact me on the issue via our forums www.voc-concord.net where we can arrive at a peaceful solution, obviously it's likely certain demands will have to be met on our part...) [b]Requesting a Lock Please.[/b] (unsure if I can do that here in this forum) Edited February 17, 2010 by Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='astronaut jones' date='17 February 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1266445616' post='2188127'] Tell that to GOD. Double standards here, boys. Double !@#$@#$ standards. [/quote] Are we involved with that, in any way shape or form? Have we not given them time to get their contractual obligations over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrotskysRevenge Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 The irony of this thread in light of our recent thread about this very issue is mindboggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266445222' post='2188111'] Yes, inserting one's self into the affairs of another party simply because they are doing business with an enemy is bullying. I'm not a fan the appeal to tradition argument, as it is what restrains progress. Instead of dictating the affairs of another by the threat of violence, why not, instead, just do deals with this third party yourselves? [/quote] When the third party is aiding our enemy the third party is no longer neutral. Interesting footnote here is that it's 20 days since TOP started the war tomorrow. Any tech deals that was not started during the war should have sent their last batch of tech by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offler Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Do y'all whine about everything? Last I checked we're outnumbered like 2 to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266445689' post='2188130'] Are we involved with that, in any way shape or form? Have we not given them time to get their contractual obligations over? [/quote] If you have not publicly denounced GOD for their behaviour, then you have no place here to demand one alliance honour their tech deals just because they receiving alliance is at war with you. I'm certain NpO and NSO don't happen to like the fact that an allianceon your side of the conflict is accepting aid, but they're dealing with it. Man the $%&@ up and deal with it. [edit:] all I see from MK right now is "waaaaah! waaaaaah! only our allies are allowed to do this! waaaaaaaaaah!" Edited February 17, 2010 by astronaut jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='TrotskysRevenge' date='17 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1266445724' post='2188132'] The irony of this thread in light of our recent thread about this very issue is mindboggling. [/quote] Again, please show me where MK/CnG are on the same side as GOD, or when we demanded NPO keep sending us tech. GOD is still fighting NSO I thought, a carryover from the last conflict, and is not involved in the defense of CnG at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='astronaut jones' date='17 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1266445616' post='2188127'] Tell that to GOD. Double standards here, boys. Double !@#$@#$ standards. [/quote] GOD = C&G? Reasonable request from C&G here, there should be no uncompleted deals that were started before the war remaining, therefore EIC has no reason to be sending further aid to TOP & co. unless they've started deals during the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='astronaut jones' date='17 February 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1266445829' post='2188137'] If you have not publicly denounced GOD for their behaviour, then you have no place here to demand one alliance honour their tech deals just because they receiving alliance is at war with you. I'm certain NpO and NSO don't happen to like the fact that an allianceon your side of the conflict is accepting aid, but they're dealing with it. Man the $%&@ up and deal with it. [/quote] So we need to publicly denounce GOD, like no other alliance has done? Plus, what relationship does GOD hold to us? And we have given them time to honor their deals. We just don't want them starting new ones. I explained the timeframe earlier on in this thread. Personally, I disagree with GOD's decision. Edited February 17, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1266445394' post='2188119'] I corrected it for you. It makes sense to cut off the supply of technology that supports our enemy's weapons. See a blockade. [/quote] It also makes sense to remember that the standards you use on others may some day be used on you. If you want to give others carte blanche to interfere with your economic interests, keep on with this stance. You cited two things in your earlier post that you wouldn't do to win this war? Why not? If it makes sense to do so and it will help you win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts