Jump to content

Sir Humphrey

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    542

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sir Humphrey

  1. Sir Humphrey
    Does that make it the 1st war of Devo relevancy? 😐
  2. Sir Humphrey
    Treaty cancellations, in context, reveal a lot about the character of an alliance and its leadership. Much respect to Polar for choosing its own path.
  3. Sir Humphrey
    Not sure how these supplements work, but I'm feeling better already.
  4. Sir Humphrey
    Save some for me! Thanks ODN, great to have you alongside us. Just a shame I can't find Vitsen anywhere
  5. Sir Humphrey
    I blame everyone. Especially Berbers. We had a good thing going in the early days of our MDP level relationship Just a shame we couldn't build on it. You were the closest and best allies a guy can get :|
  6. Sir Humphrey
    I blame Berbers.
  7. Sir Humphrey
    I, for one, congratulate R&R's diplomatic team for its continued ability to latch on to such strong alliances/spheres :D
  8. Sir Humphrey
    Attributing "chaos" to a "hegemony" as Mogar did seems rather contradictory. Further, attacking alliances with no MDP+ treaties seems a very pragmatic strategy and thus does not seem lulziest or chaotic in nature. Rather, it would seem to promote order within the current political structure - but it may be an order you disagree with. That's not to say the order should be considered just or even desirable from an engagement perspective. I just think the rhetoric is misplaced, and potentially reflects more on SNX to the extent "chaos" is viewed as undesirable by its supporters.
  9. Sir Humphrey
    I blame Berbers.
  10. Sir Humphrey
    That's a convenient attempt to whitewash the recent history of your new champion against DBDC, but CT was not swept away by anything. He made a decision to switch to DBDC during the MQ/TDO conflict to attack nations DBDC had declared on, and was content to raid with DBDC for the past two years. He has taken no steps to rectify the same actions for which you criticise DBDC, except to return following personality conflicts when those actions threatened his own alliance. Even then, his response was to declare on Cuba and then go rogue on 3 SPATR nations to settle his own grudges rather than countering wars against WTF.
  11. Sir Humphrey
    What is puzzling is why CT was accepted back onto the WTF AA on 1/31 after going rogue against a SPATR nation and allowed to launch further wars against SPATR while on the WTF AA, in addition to his history of attacks while on the DBDC AA over the past two years. It seems that such behaviour is implicitly endorsed by WTF so long as it serves WTF's interests.
  12. Sir Humphrey
    Except the other had the opportunity to help a fellow neutral (TDO) against its current aggressor and did nothing. Instead, it was apparently content to release and accept (including with active wars against a third party AA) a member to attack other alliances on behalf of its current aggressor, contrary to its own policy of non-aggression.
  13. Sir Humphrey
    *Polar, Sparta, Fark, MHA :|
  14. Sir Humphrey
    So much this. Any claim to the moral high ground was vacated in the Equilibrium War for alliances traditionally opposed to Doomhouse. And alliances on Polar's side of the Disorder War had no problems following non-chaining or optional treaty chains to be on the winning side of a conflict when the opportunity presented itself, based an initial CB designed to manage escalation in the interests of the declaring coalition rather than any sincere moral justification. But to expand your comment, it is also easy to adopt moralism as a rallying cry when members are convinced of the moral exceptionalism of their own alliance, and conclude that any actions which conflict with their alliance's interests are therefore immoral by definition :|
  15. Sir Humphrey
    My point was that the Polar sphere could have used the resources and political capital available to it at the time to confront the threat, but it made a (presumably pragmatic) decision to pursue other objectives and no longer has the same resources or political capital now the cycle has turned. That was/is not a value judgment, it is a statement of fact which reflects a ranking of priorities for the sphere. But it is a little disingenuous for some posters to now attempt to guilt alliances such as R&R for a perceived lack of action with regard to DBDC simply because the threat has become much more immediate for Polar.
  16. Sir Humphrey
    Actually, R&R was prepared to support us during the MQ conflict when NATO/TPF fought DBDC after we countered one of its nations which had declared on Fark. That was the point referred to by Garion at which it was clear the Polar sphere was preoccupied with planning a politically opportunistic war on NPO and its allies rather than confronting a real threat, despite the involvement of a XX member. I long ago concluded that any claim to "moralist" motives (including those in this thread) are merely a rhetorical device for the masses used to achieve pragmatic political objectives. Our side demonstrated that in EQ, and the Disorder War merely confirmed it.
  17. Sir Humphrey
    I for one am shocked that Polar would bandwagon in against alliances half its size which are already engaged against alliances twice their size.
  18. Sir Humphrey
    Serious question: How is TLR entering via a MD clause with a direct ally to declare on NADC any worse than AFT alliances chaining in via oAs to hit TPF in support of a non-allied coalition partner (MI6) in the Disorder War? I don't have a philosophical issue with activating oAs per se, but there is a major risk for the declaring alliance(s) that such coalition support is not reciprocated in subsequent wars where it is not underpinned by direct bilateral relationships. In that context, TLR's declaration seems the more justifiable. I have, of course, abstracted from notions regarding the validity of the initial CB, but that is an academic debate by the time a war has escalated to the scale of coalition involvement and tactics.
  19. Sir Humphrey
    Correct response. +1 for actually using the bloc name rather than the treaty name :|
  20. Sir Humphrey
    The Pot-Kettle War Edit: I see what you did there. And I like it.
  21. Sir Humphrey
    Where was this concern for STA's interests when UPN's blocmates were piling on TPF via oA chains in the Disorder War, setting up STA to be heavily countered? I suppose that purely comes down to treaty chains as well, albeit with a couple of treaty chains in-between. But it makes ODN's activation of a MDP look a much more direct chain.
  22. Sir Humphrey
    It would have been interesting to see this policy enforced during the Disorder War.
  23. Sir Humphrey
    You are better than that, Wes. Bilateral relations between NATO and CCC had no bearing on NPO's decision to declare on SNX, just as they did not stop CCC declaring on NPO in the Disorder War.
  24. Sir Humphrey
    The demands for NPO to "nut up" are a bit rich given Polar was perfectly happy to declare on a much smaller alliance in NSO with two of its allies to kick off the Disorder War and draw in NPO. And the lectures in this thread regarding DBDC are a little tiresome given Polar's inaction when DBDC declared on its blocmate during the MQ conflict, leaving NATO and TPF to suffer the consequences when they countered.
  25. Sir Humphrey
    Tldr: This was NATO's Plan A for the Usual Suspects all along.
×
×
  • Create New...