Jump to content

i would like to offer peace talks for woto


Mister black

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 514
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Terms have not been officially presented to NPO, maybe informally, but even then oA Coalition has been more than cagey on terms for NPO.  So, no, the war is continuing because you refuse to offer peace terms....plain and simple. 

 

Even if you consider the terms official, they that amount to over $20 BILLION in reps for an alliance just honoring a treaty?  I guess the Hegemony wasn't so bad.

 

Its almost as if most alliances in your coalition and NPO have fought differently in this war, and NPO is trying to get special treatment, again, while hiding in peace mode.  Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its almost as if most alliances in your coalition and NPO have fought differently in this war, and NPO is trying to get special treatment, again, while hiding in peace mode.  Again.

 

Tell us, how is "NPO trying to get" anything? They're being shoved with suggestions of terms, being told they get no 'official' discussion till they're the last bloody corpse being kicked around the field, then they can 'talk'; and the 'talk' that's being suggested - as pointed out already - was to that tune of approximately $20 billion. NPO's allies are telling y'all 'fuck you' to such a situation and looking for some legitimate discussion of something realistic -- NPO isn't 'trying to get' anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tell us, how is "NPO trying to get" anything? They're being shoved with suggestions of terms, being told they get no 'official' discussion till they're the last bloody corpse being kicked around the field, then they can 'talk'; and the 'talk' that's being suggested - as pointed out already - was to that tune of approximately $20 billion. NPO's allies are telling y'all '$%&@ you' to such a situation and looking for some legitimate discussion of something realistic -- NPO isn't 'trying to get' anything.

 

Its almost like actions have consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed they do. 

 

I have a feeling there will be a lot of long term consequences across Bob from this war. 

 

You a prophet or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its almost as if most alliances in your coalition and NPO have fought differently in this war, and NPO is trying to get special treatment, again, while hiding in peace mode.  Again.

 

NPO has lost something like 2/3rds of its total nation strength, as well as close to 2/3rds of its nations above 100k ns. To try and claim that they are simply hiding in PM while the rest of us fight is completely disingenuousBesides that, they entered this war on a defensive treaty and we have repeatedly been told that NSO, not NPO, is the main target and reason for this war. To try and levy this ridiculous penalty on NPO is petty, underhanded, and not something that NPO's allies are willing to allow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost 3 months you say? Forgive me, I live under a rock, in a sewer, surrounded by my pet turds, but I am pretty sure this war kicked off October 31st did it not? Let me do some math...

 

herm 30+31+4... carry the one, subtact the extra apples, factor in who the hell this steve guy is... Ok I guess i see it.. wait..

 

 

Nope I am still at right around two months. I am probably wrong though. Anyways CHEERS TO 4 MORE MONTHS OF WAR!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its almost as if most alliances in your coalition and NPO have fought differently in this war, and NPO is trying to get special treatment, again, while hiding in peace mode.  Again.

We are all laughing at your attempts to spin this as NPO not pulling their weight.  They have.  If you want to charge insane punitive reps, then I guess that is your right.  It's also our right to reject it and keep nuking you.

 

When are you guys going to get over this NPO bogeyman complex that you have?  I know I did several years ago.  Maybe you should try it?  Or you could keep this boring "roll NPO every war" mentality that will kill off our world.  Or why not grow a pair and make NPO disbandment your terms for ending this war as I know you'd like to.

Edited by Steve Buscemi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all laughing at your attempts to spin this as NPO not pulling their weight.  They have.  If you want to charge insane punitive reps, then I guess that is your right.  It's also our right to reject it and keep nuking you.

 

When are you guys going to get over this NPO bogeyman complex that you have?  I know I did several years ago.  Maybe you should try it?  Or you could keep this boring "roll NPO every war" mentality that will kill off our world.  Or why not grow a pair and make NPO disbandment your terms for ending this war as I know you'd like to.

 

The irony coming from someone who was/is part of the "roll Polar/XX/SF every war" team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how some of the alliances at the head of the coalition spoke about "abolishing reps" it is very disappointing to see such terms bandied about. They may not be officially reparations, but the purpose is the same. To weaken the opponent at the benefit of yourself. 

 

We all know that warfare is not about the numerical number you have on yourside. It is about the number you have in comparison to the other side. So gaining whilst your opponent stands still has the same impact as gaining as your opponent moves backwards, you still end up ahead. Given the inefficiencies of reparation gathering the difference between the two is really not at all great, if in existence at all. 

 

I am greatly saddened that this means that I, like many others in this coalition, are now fighting for such a bullying and disgraceful tactic, whether we would want to or not, bound by our honour to fight for those that are so dishonourable. It sickens me and is a black mark against my name to be a part of this. 

Edited by Icewolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how some of the alliances at the head of the coalition spoke about "abolishing reps" it is very disappointing to see such terms bandied about. They may not be officially reparations, but the purpose is the same. To weaken the opponent at the benefit of yourself. 

 

We all know that warfare is not about the numerical number you have on yourside. It is about the number you have in comparison to the other side. So gaining whilst your opponent stands still has the same impact as gaining as your opponent moves backwards, you still end up ahead. Given the inefficiencies of reparation gathering the difference between the two is really not at all great, if in existence at all. 

 

I am greatly saddened that this means that I, like many others in this coalition, are now fighting for such a bullying and disgraceful tactic, whether we would want to or not, bound by our honour to fight for those that are so dishonourable. It sickens me and is a black mark against my name to be a part of this. 

 

Where do you stand on the position of using Nukes, CM's, Ground Attacks, Blockades, Battle Support, and/or Bombing Runs? Those are also designed to weaken your opponent - most would agree that that is kind of the point of war in the first place.

 

I guess the part that confuses me(correct me if I'm wrong) is that this 20 bil doesn't even technically exist yet. There's a fundamental right being asserted to future revenues that NPO would be forgoing in any case if they choose to continue this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how some of the alliances at the head of the coalition spoke about "abolishing reps" it is very disappointing to see such terms bandied about. They may not be officially reparations, but the purpose is the same. To weaken the opponent at the benefit of yourself. 
 
We all know that warfare is not about the numerical number you have on yourside. It is about the number you have in comparison to the other side. So gaining whilst your opponent stands still has the same impact as gaining as your opponent moves backwards, you still end up ahead. Given the inefficiencies of reparation gathering the difference between the two is really not at all great, if in existence at all. 
 
I am greatly saddened that this means that I, like many others in this coalition, are now fighting for such a bullying and disgraceful tactic, whether we would want to or not, bound by our honour to fight for those that are so dishonourable. It sickens me and is a black mark against my name to be a part of this.


While i feel for ya knowing you had no control on the path, at the same [perhaps because of] i've gotta say - you all need to give your own government a strong look as well. They proudly "arranged a brawl between TOP and NG" behind NG's back, planning and enabling this war for months with Polar and TOP and allowing IRON to be used as a tool to achieve this goal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how some of the alliances at the head of the coalition spoke about "abolishing reps" it is very disappointing to see such terms bandied about. They may not be officially reparations, but the purpose is the same. To weaken the opponent at the benefit of yourself. 

 

We all know that warfare is not about the numerical number you have on yourside. It is about the number you have in comparison to the other side. So gaining whilst your opponent stands still has the same impact as gaining as your opponent moves backwards, you still end up ahead. Given the inefficiencies of reparation gathering the difference between the two is really not at all great, if in existence at all. 

 

I am greatly saddened that this means that I, like many others in this coalition, are now fighting for such a bullying and disgraceful tactic, whether we would want to or not, bound by our honour to fight for those that are so dishonourable. It sickens me and is a black mark against my name to be a part of this. 

Talking about dishonourable alliances, sup IRON?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least they're trying to do something right, get everyone to peace out and leave only one alliance like was a possible conclusion to the previous war.

Though this war is a bit different as they the alliance they're trying to screw was not the main target of the war as NSO was the main target so it is weird that NSO has to leave before the NPO.

Some people are never happy and I wouldn't mind but most of the people on the !@#$test end of the NPO tactics stick in EQ are not fighting the NPO.

What's the big deal about the NPO? 

At this rate Buckaroo could negotiate better than these kids.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, but I always thought negotiations involved a counter offer, rather than a tantrum.  So far, all the logs I have read simply show a tantrum.  It is a rather dignified tantrum, but a tantrum, nonetheless.  Nobody is a victim here.  AAs made beds they have to lie in.  If they don't like the bed, they have two options:  cry about it or do something to make it better.  Thus far, there are just a whole lot of tears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about fighting is Peace Mode? Really? 

 

If TOP ever fought its own battles outside of Peace Mode I would have a heart attack, I really would. 

 

This is *really* not the war IRON should be trotting this line out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is *really* not the war IRON should be trotting this line out.

Well I suppose an entire fifty percent of TOP is out of peace mode in the closing stages of a war they are on the winning side of so they are really throwing their weight in for once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...