Virillus

Which crusade is this? ... teehee

Standing around cheering while your buddies beat the crap out of somebody makes you just as guilty as they who actually do the deed. When we were morally outraged at the terms levied upon C&G, Polaris, and GATO, where was Echelon to back us up? They spent years supporting exactly what has been placed upon them now. These terms are overly harsh, but I have no sympathy.

I'm not fan of harsh terms, never have been. But seeing somebody who perpetuated them get slapped with exactly what they tossed about so freely when the shoe was on the other foot fills me with a sense of deep seated satisfaction. Unfortunately for Echelon, the universe doesn't operate under the holy principle of "no tag-backs."

3 years in the Canadian infantry here, still currently serving.

And the last blue strings are cut.

Also, TDE has left CDT.

This makes the GR-DT-MK DeFacto Archon trifecta bloc.

This man is wise.

Your point is valid - Having post-war rebuilding nations is very necessary. However, that doesn't change the fact that we want to hurt them, and we can't do that when half their NS is in peace mode. At this point, I'm not overly concerned about how effective their rebuilding efforts will be.

You're trying to tell me that roughly 1/4 of the NPO are banks? Ignoring the fact that "bank nations" are practically useless anyway. Considering the amount of aid a theoretical "bank nation" can send won't make any difference whatsoever to a fight. - If you don't have a warchest, you're hooped.

The "natural" humour by contestants in this thread is rather amusing:P

6 Months is not long enough.

We've covered this, Nizzle. I've said many times that a certain amount of trust will be required. Because I think they will believe us when we say the terms will get harsher the longer they stay in peace mode. Whether or not they admit it on these forums. And I think that belief will serve as impetus to get the war over with faster.

Guss! Where the F have you been man?

... Because they have been? Again, you can choose to believe me or not, I don't care. No, I don't. You're trying to talk me into a corner and it won't work. What I'm admitting, is that the NPO feels that they're worthless, something that we both know to be true. Whether or not Karma cares about that is another argument I'm not getting into right now.

The difference is that I'm not judging anybody or tossing insults about because I disagree with them. I'm going "I disagree" and moving on.

I actually did read it, I was just too busy finishing a game of NHL 09 with my room mate to come up with a good response:P I tried to look witty and hip instead, maybe it didn't work. I am one man among the leadership of those fighting the NPO. For me to reveal them on my own would be a disservice to my brothers in arms. They may yet be published, but it's not for me to say - Have some patience. I think anyone that knows me can vouch for how overly trusting I am. Perhaps it's a flaw, but it's how I was born. On the contrary, I believe all diplomacy must be conducted on trust. I've never once argued the point that the "pre-terms" would be easier to accept if we showed the final terms first. I don't get where you think I was. Whether or not we *should* though, is another matter altogether.

Of course I feel you deserve it, if not - Why would I even be here? So I'm curious, what terms and dates would cause you to accept these "pre-terms," or are you just here wasting our time?

Where have I said "They are wrong?" All I've ever said, is that in my opinion, they've done the wrong thing, and I am acting in accordance with my own opinion. I've never doubted that the NPO has done what they feel is right, I'm sure they don't see themselves as the "bad guys."

MagicNinja, this is very simple. A ) I believe PZI is wrong for all situations, period. B ) I would've supported them using the same tactic on GATO, had I supported the CB against GATO, which I did not. Seeing as A ) This isn't PZI, and B ) I support our CB, the train of logic makes perfect sense.

Unfortunately, it seems you skimmed the thread and did not read my response. But I'll simplify it for ease of reading: The truth is that the sooner you drop peace mode, the easier things will be. You can disbelieve that if you wish.

I outlined the difference in a response to Bama pages ago, Magicninja. The Crux is this: I feel the tactic is valid, because I feel that the NPO deserves it. You're free to disagree with that if you wish, it is your own prerogative. But saying we're wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense.

No, I didn't. I said that I felt it would work because they have used it in the past. Thus, they would understand the thought process. That is all I said, stop reading extra words into what I am saying.

Having a bad day, Nizzle? I've been polite and respectful throughout this entire thread, would it be too difficult for you to do the same? The baseline terms have been posted for a while now, there are a variety of ways we could prove their veracity in a hypothetical future. Yes, it comes down to a certain degree of trust, and I understand why they would be wary of us. But in their position, trusting us WILL get them lighter terms. I'm not saying their point is invalid, I'm saying that I personally would act differently in their position.

If you have an issue with this tactic, you should direct it to your leaders who invented it when they decided to PZI any member of GATO who stayed in peace mode. We are using tactics that you yourself have deemed fair in a time of war. Part of the attraction of choosing them is knowing that the NPO would understand and sympathize with us, seeing as you have felt perfectly justified in acting far worse in the past.