NATO/TFD/GUN/LSF/ADI/LSN Surrender

[Lord Brendan]

Treaties are never an excuse for making a bad decision. Signing a treaty is just agreeing to support someone before you know the details of the situation: you're still responsible for choosing to sign the treaty.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1266644082' post='2193045']
Good luck to our allies and their allies.

Sigh, reps.
[/quote]

Tends to happen when the same people jump to line up against us. We gave out white / extremely, extremely light reps the first time. That got us nowhere. You have aligned against us half a dozen times since then. Maybe reps will change that.

[The AUT]

[quote name='Penkala' date='20 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266684288' post='2193729']
Tends to happen when the same people jump to line up against us. We gave out white / extremely, extremely light reps the first time. That got us nowhere. You have aligned against us half a dozen times since then. Maybe reps will change that.
[/quote]

Creating a 1-dimensional Cyber Nations where going against someone means draconian terms? Where have I seen this before. Thanks for the quote.

[Archon]

[quote name='Bernkastel' date='20 February 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1266647904' post='2193230']
Why should they? Activating MD clauses are such a crime, as this war has proven.

Also, at veiled threat to roll them if they don't change their ways.
[/quote]

lol what? Hooray talking out of your $@!.

It's a simple observation that if the rest of their front peaces out, then LSF is left fighting the entire host of alliances on the other side that signed this document by themselves. And those alliances would not feel any such stress to continue the war.

Oh wait, I forgot. We're the new hegemony every action we take and word we speak is pure evil. My bad.

[The AUT]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='20 February 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1266685286' post='2193744']
lol what? Hooray talking out of your $@!.

It's a simple observation that if the rest of their front peaces out, then LSF is left fighting the entire host of alliances on the other side that signed this document by themselves. And those alliances would not feel any such stress to continue the war.

Oh wait, I forgot. We're the new hegemony every action we take and word we speak is pure evil. My bad.
[/quote]

Don't worry too much about him, Archon. No matter how much he speaks about how evil you guys are, him and his alliance will have no choice but to declare war along your side.

Besides this is about GOONS last I checked and not the entire side that GOONS is on. If you've seen what's going on, their side are being critical towards GOONS.

[lamuella]

[quote name='The AUT' date='20 February 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1266684571' post='2193736']
Creating a 1-dimensional Cyber Nations where going against someone means draconian terms? Where have I seen this before. Thanks for the quote.
[/quote]

do you really consider these terms to be "draconian"? Were you asleep during 90% of the wars this game has ever seen?

[LYDIASLAND]

Hell of a scrap there you guys kicked me down a fair lump. I salute you.0/

[The AUT]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='20 February 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1266685989' post='2193761']
do you really consider these terms to be "draconian"? Were you asleep during 90% of the wars this game has ever seen?
[/quote]

I guess the whole concept of a new CN is lost on you. Your side fought for a CN where such actions would be frowned upon, yet you guys have no troubles reviving the days that others tried to put behind them. The excuses you're using is that this is how CN used to be and therefore you are entitled to extracting reparations from TFD and NATO. You thought you could do such a thing without receiving criticism for it publicly? Then get used to more criticism. The more you pull such extorting stunts, you will be called upon it. You can get away with it now, and you want to hold onto your thug mentality. You are GOONS, after all.

[Kortal]

[quote name='The AUT' date='20 February 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1266685465' post='2193750']
Don't worry too much about him, Archon. No matter how much he speaks about how evil you guys are, him and his alliance will have no choice but to declare war along your side.

Besides this is about GOONS last I checked and not the entire side that GOONS is on. If you've seen what's going on, [b]their side are being critical towards GOONS[/b].
[/quote]
Correct, if by "their side" you mean about 3 people on that side. Don't confuse variance of opinion with widespread support or legitimacy for your argument.

And for the love of god, please don't maintain that these reps are in any way harsh. After weeks of war and many nukes I could pay them off all on my own with money to spare, and anyone with a decent warchest could do the same.

Finally, please note the post from the member of one of the alliances that's actually paying this money and try to follow his lead.

[KagetheSecond]

I like ODN's sigs on this. Congrats on peace everyone.

Obligitory grumbling about reps.

[Van Hoo III]

This thread was a boring read.

Good to see peace though.

[FreddieMercury]

War Reps are distasteful in every sense of the word. It's not something I would ever hand out to my opponents. It won't serve to recoup any significant damages, only to tie up sparse aid slots and slow their reconstruction efforts down.

It's really a shame that people who fought against the mentality of "might makes right" are indirectly or directly supporting the same thing. Heh.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='The AUT' date='20 February 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1266684571' post='2193736']
Creating a 1-dimensional Cyber Nations where going against someone means draconian terms? Where have I seen this before. Thanks for the quote.
[/quote]

Perhaps you missed when A) Penkala is not a member of CSN government (ad nauseum I know) and B) No reps were required for the NADC/UBD/GDA terms offered by CSN et. al. Your quote, and subsequent signature, is therefore moot.

[capitalC]

Quick front for me, but nice to see.

[Kortal]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='20 February 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1266688910' post='2193827']
It won't serve to recoup any significant damages, only to tie up sparse aid slots and slow their reconstruction efforts down.
[/quote]
To the first part, no but it can help, and for a smaller nation the money can be incredibly beneficial in rebuilding. As to the latter, I assume you're referring to the defeated parties, in which case such slowing of reconstruction is certainly not a bad thing in the eyes of the victors and more to the point, the defeated parties have no business complaining about such after launching attacks against an alliance and subsequently surrendering.

Not that the alliances in question here are actually complaining, they've taken the terms with the honor and graciousness they exhibited throughout the affair. their calm acceptance of the end result is in stark contract to the moaning and cringing of those with no interest whatsoever in this front, or in most cases with the alliances actually surrendering here.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Kortal

[Heft]

[quote name='Penkala' date='20 February 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1266684288' post='2193729']
Tends to happen when the same people jump to line up against us. We gave out white / extremely, extremely light reps the first time. That got us nowhere. You have aligned against us half a dozen times since then. Maybe reps will change that.
[/quote]
This is one of the most flabbergastingly idiotic ideas I've seen floating around here lately. Not even you can actually believe that.

Anyway, if they agreed to pay reps then whatever, I'll just make sure to not join those alliances. It is baffling that these alliances would submit to such treatment.

[Kortal]

[quote name='Heft' date='20 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1266690977' post='2193884']
This is one of the most flabbergastingly idiotic ideas I've seen floating around here lately. Not even you can actually believe that.

Anyway, if they agreed to pay reps then whatever, I'll just make sure to not join those alliances. It is baffling that these alliances would submit to such treatment.
[/quote]
I take it NSO is planning on fighting on permanently then?

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1266690131' post='2193865']
To the first part, no but it can help, and for a smaller nation the money can be incredibly beneficial in rebuilding. As to the latter, I assume you're referring to the defeated parties, in which case such slowing of reconstruction is certainly not a bad thing in the eyes of the victors and more to the point, the defeated parties have no business complaining about such after launching attacks against an alliance and subsequently surrendering. [/quote]

A measly 3-6 million spread out between nations does not help out much at all. And does much more to further exacerbate the situation of the losing party, whose nations capable of sending out aid have already been diminished.

And these wars for the large part are initiated through honoring of friendships, and these alliances in other circumstances would have no reason to fight one another. Parties have no business furthering damaging each other for little reason.

[quote]Not that the alliances in question here are actually complaining, they've taken the terms with the honor and graciousness they exhibited throughout the affair. their calm acceptance of the end result is in stark contract to the moaning and cringing of those with no interest whatsoever in this front, or in most cases with the alliances actually surrendering here.
[/quote]

You always put on a brave face during diplomacy as people tend to throw around the "stop complaining" retort often to a nauseating extent. And does simply having "no interest" on a front disbar their opinions?

[Heft]

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266691152' post='2193889']
I take it NSO is planning on fighting on permanently then?
[/quote]
This war has brought out some of the worst posters I've seen in awhile.

I believe the NSO position has been pretty well documented already.

[Kortal]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='20 February 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1266691263' post='2193892']
A measly 3-6 million spread out between nations does not help out much at all. And does much more to further exacerbate the situation of the losing party, whose nations capable of sending out aid have already been diminished.

And these wars for the large part are initiated through honoring of friendships, and these alliances in other circumstances would have no reason to fight one another. Parties have no business furthering damaging each other for little reason.



You always put on a brave face during diplomacy as people tend to throw around the "stop complaining" retort often to a nauseating extent. And does simply having "no interest" on a front disbar their opinions?
[/quote]
I'm sure GOONS will be sorry to hear that the money they're getting will not help them in the slightest :| They must be pretty poor nation builders. On a serious note, please remember that for smaller nations such a relatively tiny amount can in fact be quite a bit and with proper organization, sleds combined with aid slots filled by these reps can be mightily beneficial to these smaller nations.

Again, as to the exacerbating of the situation of the losing party, they should have thought of that before attacking someone. You're right, they based their DoW's on the need of friends and that's admirable, but it doesn't excuse them of the responsibility for their attacks. No one can ever be forced to declare war on someone, whether they have an MDP, MDoAP, MADP, etc. An alliance chooses when to go to war offensively. These alliances attacked others, and its ridiculous to purport that they should walk away after this without anything to make up for the attack.

If you attack an alliance, you'd better be prepared for any terms that could be imposed upon you in the event of a loss.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='20 February 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1266689227' post='2193832']
Your quote, and subsequent signature, is therefore [b]moot[/b].
[/quote]

I believe the word you're looking for is [i]hilarious[/i].

[Kortal]

[quote name='Heft' date='20 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266691690' post='2193903']
This war has brought out some of the worst posters I've seen in awhile.

I believe the NSO position has been pretty well documented already.
[/quote]
Half the alliances involved in this war claim to be willing to fight on until white peace is achieved for them or others. Some have backed down on this already, for others it remains to be seen what will happen.

I always find it amusing when people continue to maintain this bold claim as if it will actually remain true in the long run

I agree with your first point however

[Wilhelm Fuehring]

[quote name='Crazy Carrot' date='20 February 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1266679617' post='2193621']
Nice way of insulting a lot of people on "your" side of the conflict as well. Classy...
[/quote]

Speaking as the ruler of a nation that wasn't even around for Karma, I take it as a kind of compliment.
It is kind of nice to make a few new friends on the battlefield, thank you very much. And not to have to
dwell on the baggage of the past. Maybe we should be payin' them for the combat experience. Gotta run, we've
got a victory parade to put on, you see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IYnRQJas0&feature=related

WF

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='20 February 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1266672613' post='2193552']
It is a [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Foreign_Article_5"]MDoAP[/url].

As for signing a MADP relieving someone of responsibilities, I disagree. People should be aware that when they sign a MDAP they fully endorse the actions of the other alliance, regardless of what they are. With that said, having a MADPa being dragged into a war does not take the responsibility of the alliance being dragged, they signed the treaty presumably fully knowing it.

TFD does not sign treaties above MDoAP. Our treaty with NATO is special and it's as high as we go.
[/quote]

Sure, it is an MDoAP. I heard many people from TFD and NATO saying that there was never any question that the two alliances would roll together - that it wasn't even a choice. I would argue that it is foolish for any outside party to view the treaty as anything less then a MDAP when that is how it is applied.

[Heft]

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1266692029' post='2193921']
Half the alliances involved in this war claim to be willing to fight on until white peace is achieved for them or others. Some have backed down on this already, for others it remains to be seen what will happen.

I always find it amusing when people continue to maintain this bold claim as if it will actually remain true in the long run

I agree with your first point however
[/quote]
The lack of resolve of others doesn't really have much impact on us.