Jump to content

Sir Humphrey

Members
  • Content Count

    540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sir Humphrey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Greater Oceania
  • Alliance Name
    NATO
  • Resource 1
    Lead
  • Resource 2
    Water
  1. Sir Humphrey

    PSA RE: IRON Deficiency Anemia

    Not sure how these supplements work, but I'm feeling better already.
  2. Sir Humphrey

    You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling

    Save some for me! Thanks ODN, great to have you alongside us. Just a shame I can't find Vitsen anywhere
  3. Sir Humphrey

    Time to say goodbye

    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 :|
  4. Sir Humphrey

    Possibly Interested in A Treaty

    I blame Berbers.
  5. Sir Humphrey

    A Non Grata Announcement

    I, for one, congratulate R&R's diplomatic team for its continued ability to latch on to such strong alliances/spheres :D
  6. Sir Humphrey

    Little Red Raiding Hood Goes to Tywin's House

    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.
  7. Sir Humphrey

    Invicta Declaration of War

    I blame Berbers.
  8. Sir Humphrey

    This Week in the Network

    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.
  9. Sir Humphrey

    This Week in the Network

    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.
  10. Sir Humphrey

    ODN Government Announcement

    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.
  11. Sir Humphrey

    Glorious Peace

    *Polar, Sparta, Fark, MHA :|
  12. Sir Humphrey

    Ambition

    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 :|
  13. Sir Humphrey

    4000 Nukes

    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.
  14. Sir Humphrey

    4000 Nukes

    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.
  15. Sir Humphrey

    4000 Nukes

    I for one am shocked that Polar would bandwagon in against alliances half its size which are already engaged against alliances twice their size.
×