Jump to content

TIR war update


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Auctor said:

I certainly see people that attack us and our allies as threats that need to be beaten or effectively neutralized and my allies and other that defend us as requiring completely different treatment, yes.

Except you go even further than that and think that changing AA's when you want is fine when your allies do it but find the same things so reprehensible that you must implement terms to force others to not do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Auctor said:

Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective.

 

I think this is the only part worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective.

Let me know when you're done channeling your inner Ramirez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a giant chunk of NS that supposedly strangles the whole world agrees with my position but I'm the crazy prophet in the wilderness. That's how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Auctor said:

Yeah, a giant chunk of NS that supposedly strangles the whole world agrees with my position but I'm the crazy prophet in the wilderness. That's how it works.

Well they did implement terms on defeated alliances that fall in line with what you are preaching, so ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-06-30 at 6:58 PM, Auctor said:

The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too.

It wasn't an option. It was made clear to us that Kashmir would not get peace unless we accepted this term. We were fine with continuing to fight for our own members, but we didn't see why Kashmir should be forced to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Auctor said:

Early in the talks, yall refused individual terms for these guys. Which is why this neither fish nor fowl compromise got concocted.

Your coalitions policy of not giving Kashmir peace until LC also accepted the peace terms worked in that we didn't think our buddies in Kashmir should be kept at war if they needed the out.  I'm sure the spy ops on me were passed around and you know I have the cash to fight for months.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean its the best course of action.  Especially when its not just you, but your buddies who are coming along for the ride like it or not.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30 June 2016 at 11:58 PM, Auctor said:

Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective.

 

When people (who I believe has recent come out of inactivity) and switch AA's to avoid attacking or being attacked by your allies, you have no problem attacking them for being absolutely no threat to you:

 

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=555412

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Haflinger said:

It wasn't an option. It was made clear to us that Kashmir would not get peace unless we accepted this term. We were fine with continuing to fight for our own members, but we didn't see why Kashmir should be forced to as well.

 

Pretty much this .... Some "big picture" that Caustic kept going on about in his disappointment that I didn't see nor share ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Auctor said:

Early in the talks, yall refused individual terms for these guys. Which is why this neither fish nor fowl compromise got concocted.

No, the reason was that Last Call was still doing significant damage while Kashmir had been effectively neutralized, and Non Grata and Polar didn't want to let Kashmir peace out because then that would have made it apparent the war was about the Doom Kingdom, not Kashmir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Haflinger said:

No, the reason was that Last Call was still doing significant damage while Kashmir had been effectively neutralized, and Non Grata and Polar didn't want to let Kashmir peace out because then that would have made it apparent the war was about the Doom Kingdom, not Kashmir.

 

Did you read the post or just feel like making some other unrelated point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2016 at 10:56 PM, Rayvon said:

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ...... Every single time you do this TIR gets attacked ... Have you not figured out yet? When you take your alliance, the one that was not hit, then you are acting in aggression not defense ... Doesn't matter if your protector got hit, their actions then become defensive. You, not being them, are acting in aggression to go in defense of them. 

 

YOU are leading Defense gov; Ace is second-in-command of TIR -- your gov status makes your movements a TIR-condoned action, and just like nearly every other ghosting alliance you get hit. 

 

TBF, Sengoku and others protectorates have done the same thing as TIR yet are held to different standards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Unknown Smurf said:

 

TBF, Sengoku and others protectorates have done the same thing as TIR yet are held to different standards. 

 

There's nothing else to complain about us from the other side, is the reason ghosting is an issue. We knew the possible consequences of our actions, proof is the nations in PM that went before we declared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...