Crymson Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299397192' post='2654235'] As far as I know, NoR's partners are fine with it. As for the non-treatied engagement, that wasn't really the intent. I thought it was explained exhaustively how that came about. If anyone's curious, they're free to ask me. [/quote] I think they're more interested in having some cheese to go along with what they're drinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299387733' post='2654132'] Only on your side of the treatyweb. Over here, we actually try to think forward instead of living in the past. [/quote] As someone who spent a considerable time "over there", I can tell you flatout that you are lying. The entire NPO sphere politics consisted of burying your head into the ground and praying things worked out for you. There was no moving forward, and there was no attempt to change the course at all, just a constant desire to move back into a time when big daddy Pacifica took care of things for you. Edited March 6, 2011 by Jacapo Saladin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299391853' post='2654177'] It was intended simply to point out the obvious: that the decision by one alliance to effectively activate an optional aggression clause of an informal treaty "co-opts" (for want of a better word) the defence obligations of its formal treaty partners in that decision. If NoR's formal treaty partners are happy with that, then it is obviously none of my business (except to the extent that I respect a number of NoR's MDP partners). However, I do find it ironic that my alliance came to the defence of NoR's formal treaty partner in NV following the non-treatied engagement by Sparta, which was apparently designed to prevent NoR from entering (through NOIR) by other alliances alongside which NoR is now fighting. Edit: link fixed. [/quote] I'm not sure I'm really understanding what you're saying here with respect to "co-opting" treaty partners. As far as I know, NoR does not have any MDAPs, nor does it have any chaining defensive clauses. Therefore, any treaty partner's involvement in this would fall under either, optional aggression, or optional defense. There is effectively no difference between paperless and papered treaties with respect to how they impact other treaty partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluestrike Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Quick! A dog laying down! Kick it before it gets up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysol Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Good job going with what you feel is right NoR. It's not like the people speaking out against you have your best interest at heart anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299390565' post='2654162'] I heard in another thread that the other side is using coalition warfare and doesn't need treaties or CBs to declare war, so can't we just apply that here and stop asking NoR what their reasons were? [/quote] I heard in a thread a long time before that one from your side that this was acceptable behavior in coalition warfare and that treaties weren't needed. Here are a few examples from the Sparta DoW on NV after UMB told em to hit NV. [quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1295900418' post='2597001'] Honestly people who complain about coalition warfare seem to often find themselves on the wrong side of one. Seriously, stop complaining about the use of strategy. [/quote] [quote name='King Chill I' timestamp='1295916236' post='2597425'] When will people get this through their heads. You attack whoever you want and whoever needs to be attacked. [/quote] [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1295919733' post='2597539'] And please, stop being so naive as to think that people aren't treating this as a coalition war - it has been a coalition war since day 1. [/quote] [quote name='King Chill I' timestamp='1295923823' post='2597716'] I pray to the gods that we have more CBless declarations in the future. This whole "you need a treaty to declare war" things is just plain illogical and counterproductive to an overall victory. [/quote] [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295856332' post='2596253'] The attacks on Sparta for not having a bunch of ghost declarations so their could be an official treaty link for this is pretty silly. They picked their side based on who their allies and friends are, and now they are helping that side win. I have no problem with this. Good luck Sparta! [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299391853' post='2654177'] However, I do find it ironic that my alliance came to the defence of NoR's formal treaty partner in NV following the non-treatied engagement by Sparta, which was apparently designed to prevent NoR from entering (through NOIR) by other alliances alongside which NoR is now fighting.[/quote] Saying 'tsk tsk tsk' publicly is not quite the same as coming to the defense of an alliance, but alright. As to your latter point, we are very much aware of that. We're not the only alliance to have been put in this kind of position. You'll recall that RIA declared war on alliances on both sides of the VE-NpO war. [quote]. It's also not clear whether NoR considers itself to be in coalition with Doom House.[/quote] We are no more tied to Doomhouse than we were tied to The International in the so-called 'Bi-Polar' War. We fought side-by-side, but we were not and are not tied to one another. The web moves in mysterious ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1299419733' post='2654390'] Saying 'tsk tsk tsk' publicly is not quite the same as coming to the defense of an alliance, but alright.[/quote] Um, I think what we did is to come to the defence of an alliance (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97707). [quote]We are no more tied to Doomhouse than we were tied to The International in the so-called 'Bi-Polar' War. We fought side-by-side, but we were not and are not tied to one another. [/quote] Thanks for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1299370912' post='2653886'] Uhhh...you're kidding right? [/quote] I leave the interpretation to you alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1299376607' post='2653972'] [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1299375555' post='2653962'] So in your opinion, if your wronged by any alliance or bloc, you have the right to attack them in the future? [/quote] This has generally been common CN thinking whether in private or public for as long as I can remember. Anyways, I doubt NoR entered this for that particular reason. [/quote] Normally I would think it's expected that you want to hit them, but you still have to put together some sort of excuse. Nordreich and FAN weren't just "wronged" though, they are obviously exceptional cases. Of course then this provokes the "slippery slope" argument - if them, why not a few more, and a few more, till the thin veneer of international civility on this planet cracks and crumbles. And in the end both sides had some good points and more hot air, and that thin veneer hasnt gotten any stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299420735' post='2654400'] Um, I think what we did is to come to the defence of an alliance (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97707).[/quote] My bad. For some reason I thought you were an NPO member. (I think I just saw the 'N' and 'O' and my brain filled in the blank.) This is the second time I've messed things up like that in this thread. Earlier I referred to VE as part of Doomhouse, and didn't even notice until Impero corrected me. It's either all the cough syrup I've been compelled to take, the racking cough that has made me lose so much sleep over the last three days or, perhaps, it could be as simple as a need to get my eyes checked again. Maybe some combination of two or more. I really don't know. But, whichever it is, I regret the error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299409647' post='2654303'] I heard in a thread a long time before that one from your side that this was acceptable behavior in coalition warfare and that treaties weren't needed. Here are a few examples from the Sparta DoW on NV after UMB told em to hit NV. [/quote] Sounds great. So why is your side supporting it when they do it and then coming here to complain about us doing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299434919' post='2654528'] Sounds great. So why is your side supporting it when they do it and then coming here to complain about us doing it? [/quote] I have been going along with the whole coalition idea, thus the other thread you referred to. It's you guys who only want to call it coalition warfare when it suits you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Nemhauser' timestamp='1299360365' post='2653750'] And you're the one to tell, eh? [/quote] As a superior being, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natan Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1299450831' post='2654711'] As a superior being, obviously. [/quote] is there rust under your fine automobile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialCubanacan Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Reading about 6 pages back, I noticed something; this thread has become a waiting line at the MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration for non-Americans). Everyone is waiting, impatiently, and while waiting, everyone is noticing the stains on each others shirts and pants, bad hair, ugly glasses, pimples..... What this thread needs is a big, 'NORDREICH DOESN'T GIVE A $%&@' inserted into the middle of it, so the line can move along. Seriously, I won't bother reading anything between page 6 - 19 because I know what's in it. /me shakes head and clicks on Minecraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1299451872' post='2654735'] is there rust under your fine automobile? [/quote] What an odd thing to say. Yes, actually. I purchased a 1967 Ghibli that was just shipped in last week and the underbody is in very poor condition. A damned shame too considering all the trouble I went to in getting it. Thank you for your concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link Gaetz Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1299426972' post='2654438'] Normally I would think it's expected that you want to hit them, but you still have to put together some sort of excuse. Nordreich and FAN weren't just "wronged" though, they are obviously exceptional cases. Of course then this provokes the "slippery slope" argument - if them, why not a few more, and a few more, till the thin veneer of international civility on this planet cracks and crumbles. [/quote] What thin veneer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 The Reich likes war. Thousands shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasuda Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I cannot approve of NoR's involvement on this front. I understand that the Reich's war on Pacifica is perfectly "legal," in the sense that they have treaties with those fighting NPO. However, there is a clear lack of any real CB against the NPO. This is a blatant war of aggression that Doom House does not need any help with in the first place. NoR is merely being played by these aggressors, and is sacrificing its well-being for no reason other than to heed a poor, abstract appeal to old hatreds. As a long-time supporter of Nordreich, and a member of NV, I am eternally grateful that they heeded our call and helped us in the war against Sparta. It was an honor to serve alongside you all. It is a shame to see you being used as meatshields for the new bullies on the block, and I hope you come out relatively unscathed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299450528' post='2654706'] I have been going along with the whole coalition idea, thus the other thread you referred to. It's you guys who only want to call it coalition warfare when it suits you. [/quote] I'm looking above and below your post and I see plenty of people complaining about NoR's involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Quebec Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='the dakotans' timestamp='1299215272' post='2651987'] Congrats Nordreich on your [s]defensive[/s] agressive war. Best of luck NPO. [/quote] Ok tool do something for your partners at NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Vasuda' timestamp='1299467812' post='2654972'] I cannot approve of NoR's involvement on this front. I understand that the Reich's war on Pacifica is perfectly "legal," in the sense that they have treaties with those fighting NPO. However, there is a clear lack of any real CB against the NPO. This is a blatant war of aggression that Doom House does not need any help with in the first place. NoR is merely being played by these aggressors, and is sacrificing its well-being for no reason other than to heed a poor, abstract appeal to old hatreds. As a long-time supporter of Nordreich, and a member of NV, I am eternally grateful that they heeded our call and helped us in the war against Sparta. It was an honor to serve alongside you all. It is a shame to see you being used as meatshields for the new bullies on the block, and I hope you come out relatively unscathed. [/quote] I've been trying to find a way to say the same thing for a while, but I'm not half the poet Vasuda is. Hell, I was part of the original Nordreich, I'd like to think that I remained a close friend of not just NoR as an entity, but the members as well... and yet I just don't find it justifiable to pile on like this. Hopefully this doesn't become a habit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1299451872' post='2654735'] is there rust under your fine automobile? [/quote] potato's in another thread claiming your side isn't responsible for all the !@#$-posting in these forums. You'd better get over there and tell him to stop being an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge X Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 LOL. Kaiser lick. Is that when you lick your roll before you put your burger on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.