Treaty Cancellation

[Homura]

[quote name='Diego Rivera' timestamp='1297994704' post='2637149']
The actions of SOS after the cancellation only confirm that we made the right decision.
[/quote]
What did they do this time?

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298000761' post='2637248']
INT and SOS団 are allies? This is news to me.
[/quote]

I'll clarify myself.

Before the treaty was cancelled.

Done.

:3

Edited February 18, 2011 by Jgoods45

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Diego Rivera' timestamp='1297994704' post='2637149']
The actions of SOS after the cancellation only confirm that we made the right decision.
[/quote]
There's not been a single post by an SOS団 member in this thread, which as far as I know is the only relevant one.

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1298004711' post='2637313']
I'll clarify myself.

Before the treaty was cancelled.

Done.

:3
[/quote]
Right. Does "before the treaty was canceled" include all that time when INT was threatening to cancel on them if they didn't comply with INT's demands? Or the period which included Craig's harassment of SOS団 government when someone [i]not even in the alliance[/i] at the time, Bernkastel, made his position known about INT's entering C&G? How about the time including Muted Faith's [i]lovely[/i] conduct, which as has been pointed out, was a violation of the treaty?

Yes, [i]SOS団[/i] is the rotten side of this pairing

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298005903' post='2637335']
There's not been a single post by an SOS団 member in this thread, which as far as I know is the only relevant one.


Right. Does "before the treaty was canceled" include all that time when INT was threatening to cancel on them if they didn't comply with INT's demands? Or the period which included Craig's harassment of SOS団 government when someone [i]not even in the alliance[/i] at the time, Bernkastel, made his position known about INT's entering C&G? How about the time including Muted Faith's [i]lovely[/i] conduct, which as has been pointed out, was a violation of the treaty?

Yes, [i]SOS団[/i] is the rotten side of this pairing
[/quote]

Yes. Yes they are indeed. I'm glad you agree with this fact. :3

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1298006101' post='2637337']
Yes. Yes they are indeed. I'm glad you agree with this fact. :3
[/quote]
Please, address my points or shut up. Just because you're a master at ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make your doing so any less transparent.

[dragonknight1000]

[quote name='Diego Rivera' timestamp='1297994704' post='2637149']
The actions of SOS after the cancellation only confirm that we made the right decision.
[/quote]

been there, experienced that, moved on....and I'll left it at that

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Comrade Mao' timestamp='1297985793' post='2637027']
LOL, I get it, you're making a Stalin joke! That was clever, I bet that gave you a little snicker, to stick it to those commie !@#$%^&*, cause they all love purging dissenters. Good one, bro


In any case, I'm sorry, Arrnea, that things ended up like this.
[/quote]


Cool your jets man, don't go Russian to conclusions on what the guy meant by that.


-------------------

Anyway, SOS is a terrible alliance, has anyone considered that as the reason why it was cancelled? Not everything is a large conspiracy.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298006362' post='2637342']
Please, address my points or shut up. Just because you're a master at ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make your doing so any less transparent.
[/quote]

No idea how that all went down in the back channels between SOS and INT. So I can't comment on the matter.

But I'm still happy you agree with me. :3

[Fyfe XIV]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298006362' post='2637342']
Please, address my points or shut up. Just because you're a master at ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make your doing so any less transparent.
[/quote]

Please, don't be so terrible or shut up. Oh wait, neither of those are going to happen. Well, one can dream

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1298007283' post='2637367']
But I'm still happy you agree with me. :3
[/quote]

JGoods, it's not good to insult new members of CnG

Edited February 18, 2011 by Fyfe XIV

[Comrade Mao]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298005903' post='2637335']
There's not been a single post by an SOS団 member in this thread, which as far as I know is the only relevant one.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he's referring more to the "let's leak screenshots of embassy conversations to Schatt, and tell him everything, so he can more effectively troll INT" more than SOS posts, or lack thereof, in this thread.

[Matthew Conrad]

It's never too late to take out the trash. Congratulations INT.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Comrade Mao' timestamp='1298008746' post='2637393']
I'm pretty sure he's referring more to the "let's leak screenshots of embassy conversations to Schatt, and tell him everything, so he can more effectively troll INT" more than SOS posts, or lack thereof, in this thread.
[/quote]
Actually, The International has been more helpful than SOS and that jerkwad Dan.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='ShotgunWilly' timestamp='1297983379' post='2636996']...Oh, and lets not forget that SOS apparently refused to support Int against MXCA, despite the fact that Int never even asked for help.

.....I just know that Int has clearly shown a lack of class against our new allies in SOS by belittling and attempting to vilify them in this matter when

.....speaking from as neutral a point of view as I can, both sides have at least a little fault to spread around[/quote]
1. Help was requested I do believe.

2. Given the stance many Invicta members are showing here that is mighty rich.

3. lol, how the $%&@ can you claim to be talking from a neutral point of view. Your bias is plain to see on your post

...like i said before Invicta are welcome to SOS, so ain't we both content.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298005903' post='2637335']
Right. Does "before the treaty was canceled" include all that time when INT was threatening to cancel on them if they didn't comply with INT's demands? Or the period which included Craig's harassment of SOS団 government when someone [i]not even in the alliance[/i] at the time, Bernkastel, made his position known about INT's entering C&G? How about the time including Muted Faith's [i]lovely[/i] conduct, which as has been pointed out, was a violation of the treaty?

Yes, [i]SOS団[/i] is the rotten side of this pairing
[/quote]
Right, so SOS are angels and never $%&@ed anything up....never...not ever , perhaps you might want to investigate further before lumping all the !@#$%^&* on INT's shoulders alone.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Cataduanes

[Mogar]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1298013690' post='2637436']
Right, so SOS are angels and never $%&@ed anything up....never...not ever
[/quote]
exactly, SOS are awesome.

[Michael von Prussia]

/me looks up at Jgoods' post

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1298013690' post='2637436']
Right, so SOS are angels and never $%&@ed anything up
[/quote]
Glad you agree with me

No, but seriously, every alliance has made errors. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way you !@#$ all over your treaty with SOS団 and then have the nerve to claim that they're in the wrong.

[ShotgunWilly]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1298013690' post='2637436']
1. Help was requested I do believe.

2. Given the stance many Invicta members are showing here that is mighty rich.

3. lol, how the $%&@ can you claim to be talking from a neutral point of view. Your bias is plain to see on your post

[/quote]
Cataduanes,
1) Somehow... just somehow, I don't believe you. Logs please? Private message is acceptable if you don't want it publicized.

2) hm.... dare I say it? You guys started it.

3) my statement that you yourself quoted said "...speaking from as neutral a point of view [b]as I can[/b]..."

Also, a late response to the statement refuting my point about the intel clause. In case you haven't noticed, no CnG member is exactly our friend, and you guys obviously are no exception. In that case, then I'd say that info about you guys probably pertains to alliance security.

Edited February 18, 2011 by ShotgunWilly

[Gobb]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298014636' post='2637448']
No, but seriously, every alliance has made errors. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way you !@#$ all over your treaty with SOS団 and then have the nerve to claim that they're in the wrong.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, what exactly are you saying here? That INT can't say POS Brigade was in the wrong because they themselves were at fault too?

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1297908507' post='2636221']
How hegemonical of you INT!I disagree, INT has a lot of friends. I would know, MCXA had to fight them all last war
[/quote]

Sadly not all of them

[quote name='Jacob the Malignant' timestamp='1297910668' post='2636261']
This thread is not about Invicta. Stop acting like it is. Nobody cares.
[/quote]

Let them have their moment to feel special

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1297938614' post='2636577']
Thas like endorsing GODs decision to ditch GOONS.
[/quote]


Well this topic is so full BS...

A treaty does not equal friendship. Yes without friendship you shouldn't have a treaty! That does not work the other way though, there are enough alliances out there i consider friends that we don't have treaties with nor who i would be interested in having treaties with.

I dont know the exact reason INT cancelled on SOS for (though i could take some guesses). But even if it was because of the invicta treaty alone it would be their right and perhaps the smart thing to do.

If we have a chaining treaty with someone and we don't like the company they keep anymore you can be sure as hell that i would drop them. You can be friends without a treaty but you cannot be a loyal ally when you're treaty linked to every corner of the web. Nor would i want to have to guess what way my allies swing every war, call me oldfashioned but i like it when i know allies end up on my side.

And then you have the random smartasses that start about political maneuvring and how bad it is.. Maybe instead of crying about it you should take notes. Trust me if you don't sign a treaty with every alliance that is equally crappy or even worse you wont have to cry about being on the losing end of a war 2 times a year.

So lesson 1
Being allied to someone without being friends = bad.
Being allied to everyone you like even a little without considering anything else = even worse.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1298028612' post='2637500']
I'm sorry, what exactly are you saying here? That INT can't say POS Brigade was in the wrong because they themselves were at fault too?
[/quote]
They can say whatever they want. What [i]I'm[/i] saying is that it is my belief, having considered the evidence presented, that the SOS Brigade was [i]not[/i] in the wrong whatsoever, and that any mistakes they made pale in comparison to the way INT treated them and treated the relationship between their alliances in the past weeks.

[Finnish Commie]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298031590' post='2637511']
They can say whatever they want. What [i]I'm[/i] saying is that it is my belief, having considered the evidence presented, that the SOS Brigade was [i]not[/i] in the wrong whatsoever, and that any mistakes they made pale in comparison to the way INT treated them and treated the relationship between their alliances in the past weeks.
[/quote]
How is this a matter of someone being in the wrong? One alliance decided to cancel on another alliance, that's pretty much all there is to it.

[Stefano Palmieri]

Congratulations on no longer being treatied to the to the weeaboos INT.

[Robster83]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1298029647' post='2637504']
Sadly not all of them



Let them have their moment to feel special




Well this topic is so full BS...

A treaty does not equal friendship. Yes without friendship you shouldn't have a treaty! That does not work the other way though, there are enough alliances out there i consider friends that we don't have treaties with nor who i would be interested in having treaties with.

I dont know the exact reason INT cancelled on SOS for (though i could take some guesses). But even if it was because of the invicta treaty alone it would be their right and perhaps the smart thing to do.

If we have a chaining treaty with someone and we don't like the company they keep anymore you can be sure as hell that i would drop them. You can be friends without a treaty but you cannot be a loyal ally when you're treaty linked to every corner of the web. Nor would i want to have to guess what way my allies swing every war, call me oldfashioned but i like it when i know allies end up on my side.

And then you have the random smartasses that start about political maneuvring and how bad it is.. Maybe instead of crying about it you should take notes. Trust me if you don't sign a treaty with every alliance that is equally crappy or even worse you wont have to cry about being on the losing end of a war 2 times a year.

So lesson 1
Being allied to someone without being friends = bad.
Being allied to everyone you like even a little without considering anything else = even worse.
[/quote]

The "political maneuvering" by SOS Brigade is justified. Where was INT when SOS Brigade needed them? To me it seems that there are two major concerns one is that INT simply cannot handle the drama SOS was involved in, the other being the treaty with Invicta.

At first I thought I understood. International cancelled to pursue their own foreign policy, which they are entitled to do. Now it turns out that this cancellation was already heavily considered after the SOS/SLCB debacle. If INT could not recognise that their own ally was in the right, and was in need of their support, then that says a lot about them.

Locke and several others were adamant for peace with SLCB, they even came to an agreement, that SLCB decided to break. They took the International's interests into account. Hell I can't think of an alliance that would of pushed for peace so many times so hard. They degraded themselves and made themselves look like idiots, FOR YOU! There was NO support given to SOS by Int at all.


[quote]Being allied to someone without being friends = bad.
Being allied to everyone you like even a little without considering anything else = even worse.[/quote]
1) Friendship is not solely what foreign policy should be based upon. You have to safeguard the interests of your members first and foremost. The Int clearly did not provide the security that SOS needed, and it was severely under threat. Invicta has been a friend of SOS for a long time, just because they did not sign a treaty doesn't mean they didn't get a long very well. Invicta provided more support for SOS than their own treaty partner, what does that say? Invicta was not only a friend, it made sense politically.

2) What is there to consider? The International did not provide the support they needed, JUST because it did not suit their political ambitions. They saw it as a threat to their foreign policy. So in other words, The Int ignored the request for support, just because SOS had a bad reputation.

Both parties are better off. Good luck in your future endeavours; Int can now pursue their foreign policy and now SOS can be rest assured that they have a solid ally who will support them in times of need and will preserve the security of the alliance.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1298032717' post='2637513']
How is this a matter of someone being in the wrong? One alliance decided to cancel on another alliance, that's pretty much all there is to it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but political decisions aren't made out of the blue, are they? It's cause and effect. You'd not start a war and then say, when someone questions your reasons for doing so, [i]"How is this a matter of someone being in the wrong? One alliance decided to declare on another alliance, that's pretty much all there is to it."[/i] Unless you're Doom House, perhaps.

This is the same thing: you cancel a treaty, and when someone (several someones, in fact) questions your reasons for doing so, you pull out "there was no reason"? Yeah, right, and I'm a purple hippo.

[Robster83]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1298032717' post='2637513']
How is this a matter of someone being in the wrong? One alliance decided to cancel on another alliance, that's pretty much all there is to it.
[/quote]

Because your own government pointed the finger at SOS being to blame for the cancellation. As I said it is one thing if you would of cancelled for the reason that you wanted to preserve your foreign policy, did not want that link, and this new treaty did not fit in with your political ambitions. And it is another thing when your reason for cancelling seems to be that you did not want the "negative attention" they brought upon you combined with the fact that your gov member(s?) seem to hate Invicta for no apparent reason. Also the way this was carried out wasn't particularly pleasing to see either. C'est la vie I guess.

[neneko]

SoSb have ignored this treaty on at least two occasions. They openly supported the people hitting int here on owf and they then proceeded to sign a treaty with an alliance that tie them directly to a power bloc opposing int.

Now of course these things are fully within SoSbs right to do as a sovereign alliance but can we please stop acting like we're shocked that it lead to int cancelling the treaty? Because that wasn't really a big surprise and it doesn't reflect bad on int no matter how much you people try to spin it. The things said between int and SoSb that the later leaked doesn't make int look bad either, the fact that it was leaked makes me think this was a great decision though.

A footnote for those arguing that no SoSb gov have commented on this, I think Arrnea (sp?) would count as gov since he is their leader on paper at least.