Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

[img]http://images.wikia.com/cybernations/images/d/da/Flag2b.jpg[/img]

Fulfilling bureaucratic procedures. Something something war. Peace mode, peace mode.


MK, we are coming for you. Probably not for a while though, I wouldn't worry about it.


Following this announcement, CD is a puppet state of NSO and its leader Ivan Moldavi. There will be no further announcements from myself, or CD's "leader" ( haha!).

We'll probably also ditch the flag and like put a lightsaber on or something. Nobody in CD even likes ponies.


Also we're not going to fight you guys until you give away your tech.

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1299477801' post='2655097']
very interesting announcement Cairna.
[/quote]

Mogar, don't even try.

I first'd this thread.

Posted

[quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1299477879' post='2655100']
Mogar, don't even try.

I first'd this thread.
[/quote]
OP can't inb4, obviously, learn the rules of the internets!

Posted (edited)

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299478328' post='2655106']
this is dumb
[/quote]

Do you know who I am?

Nobody outstupids CD.

Nobody.

Edited by Cairna
Posted

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1299478661' post='2655113']
Lay off of the hard drugs.
[/quote]
<&Cairna> i need to lay off the liquor but it would get in the way of my cocaine habit

I thought it was bad advice anyway.

Posted

I can't figure out which is dumber, this declaration, NSO's fake DoW in your name, or the fact that you are breaking surrender terms.

Posted (edited)

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299481681' post='2655200']
I can't figure out which is dumber, this declaration, NSO's fake DoW in your name, or the fact that you are breaking surrender terms.
[/quote]
We didn't brake terms as you guys had nations attack NSO with out being at war with them (as not DoW was posted in defense of anyone against NSO), and just like they (NSO) posted a week or two ago, those attacks made this a Defensive war for NSO as MK war the aggressor in attack NSO nations........ So that means we followed the terms to the letter and will defend our allies in this unwarranted attack by MK, any alliances have a problem with it please feel free to come to our IRC Channel and talk to me about it and the rest of CD Gov. will get your message as well, I will be on for another 2 hours, after that you will have to wait till Bionic redhead gets on

Edited by The Last Imperial
Posted

[quote name='The Last Imperial' timestamp='1299482608' post='2655209']
We didn't brake terms as you guys had nations attack NSO with out being at war with them (as not DoW was posted in defense of anyone against NSO), and just like they (NSO) posted a week or two ago, those attacks made this a Defensive war for NSO as MK war the aggressor in attack NSO nations........ So that means we followed the terms to the letter and will defend our allies in this unwarranted attack by MK, any alliances have a problem with it please feel free to come to our IRC Channel and talk to me about it and the rest of CD Gov. will get your message as well, I will be on for another 2 hours, after that you will have to wait till Bionic redhead gets on
[/quote]

[quote name='your surrender terms']The parties of NV, GLOF, WAPA, Colossus, Quantum, AB, CD, TFD, NATO, TNG, TPC, and DDM agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO.[/quote]

Say what you want about not posting a declaration of war but you're either incredibly stupid or being deliberately obtuse if you really believe that our attacks on NSO nations weren't a part of the conflict surrounding NPO. I'm going for deliberately obtuse though your other actions could suggest just being stupidity.

Posted (edited)

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299483130' post='2655213']
Say what you want about not posting a declaration of war but you're either incredibly stupid or being deliberately obtuse if you really believe that our attacks on NSO nations weren't a part of the conflict surrounding NPO. I'm going for deliberately obtuse though your other actions could suggest just being stupidity.
[/quote]
I see you took only a part of what it really said, the part that makes you look right, it also stated that if one of our allies in this war still is attack after the date it was signed that we are free to re-enter on behalf of our allies, which is what we are doing.

If MK was including NSO in there original DoW then why was NSO not stated in it..... what it looks like to me is your trying to bend the truth to be in your favor, when we both know that your attack on NSO were in the wrong, and maid MK the aggressor in this war, which lets us enter the war with out braking terms, if you didnt want to fight us you should of stuck to attacking those alliances you DoW on and not NSO

Edited by The Last Imperial
Posted

[quote name='The Last Imperial' timestamp='1299484970' post='2655247']
I see you took only a part of what it really said, the part that makes you look right, it also stated that if one of our allies is in this war still and is attack after the date signed that we are free to reenter on behalf of our allies, which is what we are doing, if MK was including NSO in there original DoW then why was NSO not stated in it..... what it looks like to me is your trying to bend the truth to be in your favor, when we both know that your attack on NSO were in the wrong, and maid MK the aggressor in this war, which lets us enter the war with out braking terms, if you didnt want to fight us you should of stuck to attacking those alliances you DoW on and not NSO
[/quote]
It said nothing about "in this war still", it pretty clearly meant conflicts not pertaining to this one.

As for NSO, what difference does it make if we posted a declaration of war or not? It makes no difference in your argument, declaration of war or no the attacks on NSO were obviously connected to the conflict surrounding NPO. And we would be the "aggressor" either way.

Posted (edited)

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299485766' post='2655256']
It said nothing about "in this war still", it pretty clearly meant conflicts not pertaining to this one.
[/quote]
If the clause was intended to refer to conflicts not pertaining to this one, then why was it added to the same clause? Further, why was it even necessary to specify something that would have been obvious anyway (i.e. that alliances can defend their allies against unrelated attacks)?

Edited by Sir Humphrey

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...