Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Caliph]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1292823151' post='2545794']
The mutual defence clause does not apply here. NEW are the aggressors.
[/quote]
That view changes depending on if the alliances involved want to get involved or not.

I have seen treaties used both ways. If you declare offensive war on alliance A, then alliance's A's allies declare on you, your allies then jump in to hit alliance A's allies due to obligatory defense in the MDoAP.

That is how most wars turn global.
When wars stay small, its because people do not use their obligatory defense clause, or chose not to make much of it.

[Omniscient1]

This move makes sense. I can understand the hard position you guys are in right now. Good luck moving forward.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1292823491' post='2545844']
Oh really?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56818
[/quote]

Yes, really.

[joracy]

[quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1292823491' post='2545844']
Oh really?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56818
[/quote]

This is completely relevant, and shows how NEW's war is totally rational.

[Chiumiento]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292823222' post='2545806']
I assume you want me on the air? You got a station for me? lol

OOC: Sorry bud, RL is in the way atm.
[/quote]

I knew you are not doing live shows anymore. I kind a maybe thought you might still have a chance of throwing one on some how. If I had a way to do it for you real quick I would. Let me just ask this of you then. Can I get some info on this in your next episode? Like what hapened why and when and how all that good stuff. I mean most of it is obvious. But I want to hear some good co hosts opinions on it. Like some people from these alliances at war maybe? Anyway. I will be tuning in on this for as long as it is alive.

[AirMe]

[quote name='rabonnobar' timestamp='1292823400' post='2545831']
Alritey then. Pretend I said it.
[/quote]

Too late, can't be unseen. If you had said it, it would have been a valid statement.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1292823416' post='2545835']
I like the fake support of NEW in the OP as well. "Oh look at us, we will defend NEW against other people who attack them, but not these ones." Yeah right, like there is any chance of other alliances attacking NEW if this gets set off.
[/quote]You know full well other alliances would have bandwagoned in if it weren't for this announcement.

But they won't now, because they're just as cowardly as they portray the OPs as being. It has served its purpose. Insult away.

Edited December 20, 2010 by JT Jag

[Locke]

Exactly what I expected, sadly.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1292823463' post='2545840']
So what you're saying is that if some alliance defend a random tech raid victim against GOONS, that their Mutual Defense pacts won't apply? Interesting.
[/quote]

You are really stretching here. This wasn't a random tech raid. This was NEW screwing up every step of the way.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292823569' post='2545851']
If NEW were attacked out of the blue, then they would be. And if you read this announcement, you would see that is what iFOK and PC are guaranteeing. However, as NEW initiated the attacked they are not bound to join in their war of aggression.
[/quote]

Thats completely not the point.

The point is that members of PC were very vocal in their bawwing over NSO's treaty partners not becoming involved when they got attacked, then they turn around and aren't involved when their own treaty partners get attacked. At the least, I'd like a little consistency in their beliefs.

Your labeling things war of aggression, while perhaps true, isn't an incredibly solid argument, as the people that declared war on NEW aren't the people NEW attacked, but that goes further down the wormhole.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292823382' post='2545829']
the only part that i think is !@#$%^&* is PC and iFOK stating that any other alliance who joins in is a bandwagoner. sorry but more alliances did have treaties with DF than just 3 and they should most assuredly not be called bandwagoners. i doubt if this occurred to someone on PC's or iFOK's side, they would agree to limit the number of alliances that can defend the disbanded AA.
[/quote]

Three alliances held MDP's or above with DF (four actually, but nemesis disbanded). Also, those three alliances have NEW more then covered and certainly have the ability to dole out the justice that they deserve.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Banksy]

[quote name='joracy' timestamp='1292823619' post='2545857']
This is completely relevant, and shows how NEW's war is totally rational.
[/quote]
No, 6 month old CBs might be poor form, but apparently 1 1/2 year ones are totally legit.

[SonOfHoward]

To people calling us cowards, iFOK is MDoAP'd with FARK and NEW. So if you have a better way of dealing with this I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise put a sock in it; or better yet attack NEW.

[AvengingAngel256]

A Good choice PC and iFOK.

[Jessebelle]

/me rubs her stache

PC and iFOK may have done good, whatever. That's fine if you're a moralist.
Truth be told, myself, and many fine gentlemen I know are not.

Like I said before. Essentially, PC and iFOK are $^&%blocking the rest of CN. And that's just not on.

[rabonnobar]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292823686' post='2545862']
Too late, can't be unseen. If you had said it, it would have been a valid statement.
[/quote]

Ummmm right. It was valid regardless.

[joracy]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292823774' post='2545872']
No, 6 month old CBs might be poor form, but apparently 1 1/2 year ones are totally legit.
[/quote]

I guess toy really do have to age them. Whats a 3 year one worth?

[Banksy]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1292823772' post='2545870']
Thats completely not the point.

The point is that members of PC were very vocal in their bawwing over NSO's treaty partners not becoming involved when they got attacked, then they turn around and aren't involved when their own treaty partners get attacked. At the least, I'd like a little consistency in their beliefs.

Your labeling things war of aggression, while perhaps true, isn't an incredibly solid argument, as the people that declared war on NEW aren't the people NEW attacked, but that goes further down the wormhole.
[/quote]
Okay, I see what you're saying now.

[AirMe]

[quote name='rabonnobar' timestamp='1292823909' post='2545881']
Ummmm right. It was valid regardless.
[/quote]

Given Pacifica's ability to weasel out of defending their allies. No, it was not.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='SonOfHoward' timestamp='1292823775' post='2545873']
To people calling us cowards, iFOK is MDoAP'd with FARK and NEW. So if you have a better way of dealing with this I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise put a sock in it; or better yet attack NEW.
[/quote]
Ok, see, a conflicting treaty is actually a good reason to not declare war! If only it had been cited in the OP, maybe we'd have less issues.

[AnCapistan]

So your ally is being gang banged 5:1 and you want to sit out? Christ, does anyone have a spine?

Also, PC, I'd hate to break it to you, but you don't have a choice. The oA clause has nothing to do with it, as you are not going to declare on DF rather TIF (TPE, International, and Fark) who have attacked your ally. You can only weasel out of the war if NEW declared for an ally, which they didn't.

I await your declaration.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[TheFlyingLobster]

[quote name='Jessebelle' timestamp='1292823847' post='2545879']
/me rubs her stache

PC and iFOK may have done good, whatever. That's fine if you're a moralist.
Truth be told, myself, and many fine gentlemen I know are not.

Like I said before. Essentially, PC and iFOK are $^&%blocking the rest of CN. And that's just not on.
[/quote]



They aren't really blocking anything. People are free to jump in, they should just know it'll bring both PC and iFOK into it too.

[Sulmar]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292823734' post='2545865']
You know full well other alliances would have bandwagoned in if it weren't for this announcement.

But they won't now, because they're just as cowardly as they portray the OPs as being. It has served its purpose. Insult away.
[/quote]
Please, NEW is completely outnumbered by the TPE, Int, and FARK already, so they wouldn't need any more alliances to help. Anyone who actually just wanted a shot at NEW would be ridiculed so heavily that it would not be worth it at all, especially considering NEW would be beatdown either way.

Now, if FEAR and WFF come to the aid of NEW, this allows PC and iFok to basically wash their hands of the whole war and keeps Pandora's box out of it.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Sulmar

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1292824002' post='2545889']
Ok, see, a conflicting treaty is actually a good reason to not declare war! If only it had been cited in the OP, maybe we'd have less issues.
[/quote]

Let's be honest; no you wouldn't. You'd still be here calling them cowards.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Raffaello' timestamp='1292822973' post='2545774']
Anything to protect that precious power structure. Cowards.
[/quote]
Our apologies for not ripping our side apart for your convenience. Back in your cage, Pacifican scum.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Sardonic