Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 While we're being ridiculous, I think TLR should be punished for allowing those terms to be given to their ally. I mean Brehon/Letum/NPO didn't allow EQ to give out any terms, then TLR turns around and lets NPO get terms the very next war. TLR should be ashamed. Whoever is sharing a front with TLR should put terms on TLR regardless of which coalition TLR is in. In all seriousness, the idea that defending alliances in the defensive coalition of a war started with no CB should be given any terms is an idiotic idea worthy of only the most liberally idiotic such as Rush. Only in your tiny world created by your tiny mind, is getting even a ridiculous thing. Getting even has been the majority reason behind nearly every military action ever taken in this game. Increasingly though, we have more and more "leaders" who think that terms are terrible (funny though, you didnt think any potential terms were so horrible last war, or in EQ, it may or may not have something to do with you winning those... possibly?) and that anyone (me) who suggests it is a political mistake (it is) to let the offenders of the last war off with next to no damage is being "ridiculous." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hapapants Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Recent history? Ask NPO about recent history. You can spin it how you want, until you are blue in the face, but NPO's coalition essentially ended up giving DH NO terms. You can pontificate and debate the route that took them there, but the terms were none. The reward of that none? Terms on them for entering the next war on a defensive treaty. Vengeance need not be blind. You do vengeance a disservice by adding a faux adjective to enhance your position. I also did not say anything about "good leadership" so again you interject a term to accentuate your position. This, quite simply could have been handled, as I said twice now... "2 weeks of yy nations coming out of pM, then you can walk." When you let !@#$%bags get away with !@#$%baggery, do you call that "good leadership?" You are off your rocker if you think Equilibrium is a good analogy to the current situation. There were no reps because the "Equilibrium Coalition" was so unstable that unity was impossible, and any desirable/effective reparations (targeted towards Umbrella/MK upper tiers) were basically unenforceable due to the military situation (Doomhouse upper-tier dominance, etc). But let us look at even more recent history and pose a simple question: were it not for reparations in the Disorder War, where would Pacifia have ended up in this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Giving terms is quite simply getting even. More people are more interested in warm and fuzzies, its why the political climate on Planet Bob is so Admin-Awful. Everyone wants to act like genuine dislike, grudges, vengeance are things to shy away from , I simply do no subscribe that philosophy. except, getting even means you will be rolled for it later, considering you argue that Polar enforcing the terms of last war is why they're in this situation in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) You are off your rocker if you think Equilibrium is a good analogy to the current situation. There were no reps because the "Equilibrium Coalition" was so unstable that unity was impossible, and any desirable/effective reparations (targeted towards Umbrella/MK upper tiers) were basically unenforceable due to the military situation (Doomhouse upper-tier dominance, etc). But let us look at even more recent history and pose a simple question: were it not for reparations in the Disorder War, where would Pacifia have ended up in this war? Your question cannot be answered because none of us know what would have happened to NPO this war without the terms from the last war, you have only your (or whoever else happens to reply) conjecture. The fact is, no matter how you break it down.... terms were offered to Umb. Terms were accepted by Umb. Everyone in EQ soiled their undies at the thought of having to enforce those terms, so Brehon eventually force fed a "no terms because these guys are too scared to enforce them" then you had mass elements of EQ blame Brehon for their own lack of testicular fortitude in enforcing the terms they wanted. Slice it how you want to. You cannot say "well the coalition didnt get along, so we cannot use that as an example"... We can exemplify coalition cracks in every single war. NPO ended up enforcing 0 terms on DH. Those who wanted the much more harsh terms (Valhalla and their ilk) immediately were scooped up by the same side they wanted to impose harsh terms on to punish NPO because they all wanted to pain the very thought of terms on DH as NPOs idea and NPOs idea alone. The reality is, we let this whole front out of the war with taking what amounts to next to no damage. You can be happy with that, I think you are a fool if you are happy with that. I do know that I have been in MANY coalitions. Many winners, many losers. Never have I witnessed a large group such as this getting away with so little damage, with so little fighting, with so little care. This is the political reality that our "good leadership" is delivering. But hey, at least we all got to say "it was honorable!" Edited January 9, 2015 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 except, getting even means you will be rolled for it later, considering you argue that Polar enforcing the terms of last war is why they're in this situation in the first place. This just in... you will ALWAYS get rolled for EVERYTHING later. God you say some dumb things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Only in your tiny world created by your tiny mind, is getting even a ridiculous thing. Getting even has been the majority reason behind nearly every military action ever taken in this game. Increasingly though, we have more and more "leaders" who think that terms are terrible (funny though, you didnt think any potential terms were so horrible last war, or in EQ, it may or may not have something to do with you winning those... possibly?) and that anyone (me) who suggests it is a political mistake (it is) to let the offenders of the last war off with next to no damage is being "ridiculous." Let's just all be 100% clear: Is it your, Rush Sykes, contention, that this entire war sparked by DS attacking is a large revenge operation to white knight Pacifica over the terms given to them in the last war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 This just in... you will ALWAYS get rolled for EVERYTHING later. God you say some dumb things. So, instead of attempting to mitigate what is going to be pushed on you later, you should instead be extra vindictive? You aren't seeming to get the other side of the coin here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) There aren't many posts from Rush these days where he isn't fawning over the New Pacific Order, complaining about the criminally harsh and unfair treatment they have had to suffer through, and now, how pathetic people are for not seeking revenge on the NPO's behalf. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if you understand this yet but the rest of the world isn't beholden to the NPO and whatever you think their whims and wishes are because we have our own agendas and obligations to meet. Your waning alliance might be able to squeeze continued survival and relevance out of placing all of your bets on them but wiser people would tell you it isn't all that wise to place all of your eggs in one basket.Anyway in regards to the war and this peace deal: I don't care too much about Aftermath or its signatories. It is nice to see that their part in this war is over, and that they have been given fair enough terms. I hope to see Polaris and our allies TOP and Sparta achieving a reasonably fair peace deal very soon as well. Edited January 9, 2015 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Let's just all be 100% clear: Is it your, Rush Sykes, contention, that this entire war sparked by DS attacking is a large revenge operation to white knight Pacifica over the terms given to them in the last war? Nowhere did I say that. DS or DBDC can have whatever means to whatever ends they want to for this war. The idea of proper vengeance SHOULD have been the motivation behind other people to SUPPORT whatever their initiative was. I find myself across the battlefield from people who commit what I genuinely perceive as a wrong to an ally of mine, if I am committing my forces to support someone else's initiative... the price of that support SHOULD be... the satisfaction of evening the score for myself and my allies (because if you weaken my allies, you weaken me by attachment.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 There aren't many posts from Rush these days where he isn't fawning over the New Pacific Order, complaining about the criminally harsh and unfair treatment they have had to suffer through, and now, how pathetic people are for not seeking revenge on the NPO's behalf. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if you understand this yet but the rest of the world isn't beholden to the NPO and whatever you think their whims and wishes are because we have our own agendas and obligations to meet. Your waning alliance might be able to squeeze continued survival and relevance out of placing all of your bets on them but wiser people would tell you it isn't all that wise to place all of your eggs in one basket. lol marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Giving terms is quite simply getting even. More people are more interested in warm and fuzzies, its why the political climate on Planet Bob is so Admin-Awful. Everyone wants to act like genuine dislike, grudges, vengeance are things to shy away from , I simply do no subscribe that philosophy. This. Nothing else really needs to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 So, instead of attempting to mitigate what is going to be pushed on you later, you should instead be extra vindictive? You aren't seeming to get the other side of the coin here. This "mitigation" thing does not work. That is reality. You can sit there in denial of it till you are blue in the face. But hey, we have more warm and fuzzies.. so HAIL PEACE AND THANKS EVERYONE FOR AN HONORABLE FIGHT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) There aren't many posts from Rush these days where he isn't fawning over the New Pacific Order, complaining about the criminally harsh and unfair treatment they have had to suffer through, and now, how pathetic people are for not seeking revenge on the NPO's behalf. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if you understand this yet but the rest of the world isn't beholden to the NPO and whatever you think their whims and wishes are because we have our own agendas and obligations to meet. Your waning alliance might be able to squeeze continued survival and relevance out of placing all of your bets on them but wiser people would tell you it isn't all that wise to place all of your eggs in one basket. How are those eggs in that TOP basket working out for you? Have you properly thanked Umbrella for giving you your way out of this war? Enquiring minds want to know. Edited January 9, 2015 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Nowhere did I say that. DS or DBDC can have whatever means to whatever ends they want to for this war. The idea of proper vengeance SHOULD have been the motivation behind other people to SUPPORT whatever their initiative was. I find myself across the battlefield from people who commit what I genuinely perceive as a wrong to an ally of mine, if I am committing my forces to support someone else's initiative... the price of that support SHOULD be... the satisfaction of evening the score for myself and my allies (because if you weaken my allies, you weaken me by attachment.) Why would anyone formulate terms on the basis of an issue that has nothing to do with the war at hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Why would anyone formulate terms on the basis of an issue that has nothing to do with the war at hand? Revenge. Did I not make that clear? Maybe you no speak basic? Me wanna wanga? Also, what did the terms on NPO last war have to do with NSO and NG logs revealing that dastardly plan to roll NpO ? I will wait for an answer. Edited January 9, 2015 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hapapants Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Your question cannot be answered because none of us know. That's disappointing. I was sure that someone so closely allied to Pacifia would have some insight into their political direction. But why don't we speculate? A good argument can be made that the "terms" at the end of the Disorder War set Pacifia down a path of vengeance. This is very easy to see if you look at their post-war diplomatic moves and treaties. Or better yet, why not ask the folks in Polar or TOP if they regretted pushing those terms through? The fact is, no matter how you break it down.... terms were offered to Umb. Terms were accepted by Umb. Everyone in EQ soiled their undies at the thought of having to enforce those terms, so Brehon eventually force fed a "no terms because these guys are too scared to enforce them" then you had mass elements of EQ blame Brehon for their own lack of testicular fortitude in enforcing the terms they wanted. Slice it how you want to. You cannot say "well the coalition didnt get along, so we cannot use that as an example"... We can exemplify coalition cracks in every single war. NPO ended up enforcing 0 terms on DH. Those who wanted the much more harsh terms (Valhalla and their ilk) immediately were scooped up by the same side they wanted to impose harsh terms on to punish NPO because they all wanted to pain the very thought of terms on DH as NPOs idea and NPOs idea alone. This is what I said? I'm pretty sure this is what I said. You're pointing to a situation where terms were unenforcable and saying "See, see! I told you so!" That is not a remotely comparable situation. That in fact, is a situation where "strong leadership" tried to force "terms" through while ignorant of the status of their coalition, and it backfiring terribly on their faces. ...which sort of backs up my argument... no? I do know that I have been in MANY coalitions. Many winners, many losers. Never have I witnessed a large group such as this getting away with so little damage, with so little fighting, with so little care. This is the political reality that our "good leadership" is delivering. But hey, at least we all got to say "it was honorable!" You have been in many coalitions, but you seem to have taken the wrong lessons from them. Regardless, different members of a coalition will have different incentives. It is those on the periphery of the conflict, with the least involvement and the least at stake, than can afford to talk the loudest about punishment and vengeance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Revenge. Did I not make that clear? Maybe you no speak basic? Me wanna wanga? Isn't the war itself revenge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 That's disappointing. I was sure that someone so closely allied to Pacifia would have some insight into their political direction. But why don't we speculate? A good argument can be made that the "terms" at the end of the Disorder War set Pacifia down a path of vengeance. This is very easy to see if you look at their post-war diplomatic moves and treaties. Or better yet, why not ask the folks in Polar or TOP if they regretted pushing those terms through? This is what I said? I'm pretty sure this is what I said. You're pointing to a situation where terms were unenforcable and saying "See, see! I told you so!" That is not a remotely comparable situation. That in fact, is a situation where "strong leadership" tried to force "terms" through while ignorant of the status of their coalition, and it backfiring terribly on their faces. ...which sort of backs up my argument... no? You have been in many coalitions, but you seem to have taken the wrong lessons from them. Regardless, different members of a coalition will have different incentives. It is those on the periphery of the conflict, with the least involvement and the least at stake, than can afford to talk the loudest about punishment and vengeance. Clearly I have taken the wrong lessons from my coalitions, and the current leadership have take all the correct lessons. I am glad you exist to set me straight. In fact, I have no idea how any of the old power bases stayed on top for so long with leaders who took all the wrong lessons. NPO on top 3 years by being pretty douchebaggy. MK on top for 3 years by being plenty douchebaggy... oh, you mean since then nobody has been on top for more than 1 war? Yes, wrong lessons from past wars because the current leaderships have all proven that they are really good at forward thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Isn't the war itself revenge? Not when you sit in PM in the numbers that AFM (save Invicta, and kudos to them) did. Edited January 10, 2015 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Aftermath is not New Pacific Order's enemy, our engagement in this war is a matter of circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Aftermath is not New Pacific Order's enemy, our engagement in this war is a matter of circumstance. Aftermath being your enemy is not relevant to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 How are those eggs in that TOP basket working out for you? Have you properly thanked Umbrella for giving you your way out of this war? Enquiring minds want to know. Our alliance with TOP is working out well, and everyone who needs to understands our position. I'm sure there are individuals within our allies' memberships and governments that lament the fact that we have so far remained neutral in the conflict just as you do, but when you have good friends and partners on both sides of a conflict it doesn't leave us with any good choices to make. Instead of choosing one side or the other, it is best to not work against either of our groups of friends by remaining on the sidelines. I've been retired and out of the decision making process in GOONS for roughly a year now, but if I had to guess I would say Sardonic, Ken and Milton chose the best option out of several really terrible ones available. Our long-term planning hinged on a few constants, so when a convenient political shift occurred (or inconvenient depending on who you ask) it left us in a difficult position.Have you thanked Letum for making it easier for C&G to be on the winning side of the war? And for allowing your bloc to perpetuate the tired grudge you have against XX and Polaris in particular? I'm glad it seems I hit the nail on the head hard enough to have you out here trying to, what? I'm not sure what your purpose is anymore beyond being NPO's unwanted talking head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Aftermath being your enemy is not relevant to me. Punishing Aftermath via peace terms after a sound victory achieved in war would be misguided considering all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Our alliance with TOP is working out well, and everyone who needs to understands our position. I'm sure there are individuals within our allies' memberships and governments that lament the fact that we have so far remained neutral in the conflict just as you do, but when you have good friends and partners on both sides of a conflict it doesn't leave us with any good choices to make. Instead of choosing one side or the other, it is best to not work against either of our groups of friends by remaining on the sidelines. I've been retired and out of the decision making process in GOONS for roughly a year now, but if I had to guess I would say Sardonic, Ken and Milton chose the best option out of several really terrible ones available. Our long-term planning hinged on a few constants, so when a convenient political shift occurred (or inconvenient depending on who you ask) it left us in a difficult position. Have you thanked Letum for making it easier for C&G to be on the winning side of the war? And for allowing your bloc to perpetuate the tired grudge you have against XX and Polaris in particular? I'm glad it seems I hit the nail on the head hard enough to have you out here trying to, what? I'm not sure what your purpose is anymore beyond being NPO's unwanted talking head. Congratulations Valhalla! You earned it. Also hint: I needed only the terms on NPO to perpetuate my grudge with Polar. I have no grudge whatsoever with the rest of XX. The "friends on both sides" argument is really cute. 2 must be the magic number to sit out. Edited January 10, 2015 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Punishing Aftermath via peace terms after a sound victory achieved in war would be misguided considering all. One man's misguided is another man's prudence. You do not have the omnipotence to unilaterally say it would be "misguided" just as I do not have the omnipotence to unilaterally say THIS peace was a mistake. What we both have is our divergent opinions. I have offered up reasons for my opinion. 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.