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. It figures that it is my AA and its involvement in this war that really bothers you in misinterpreting what I have said (I have repeatedly acknowledged the parts that have merit), given my views are actually very similar to others like Roadie, who you are happy to agree with. Indeed, I have used similar arguments to defend Polar in embassy discussions with third parties, back when it was being targeted. NATO played a small role in setting up EQ by being one of the few alliances willing to reach out to the Beerosphere via R&R (which had a key role in organising for the C&G front) prior to the Dave War. The EQ War did not end the way I hoped for either, but it is a sunk cost now (albeit rather large for NATO, particularly given the significant upper tier updeclares in the first wave), and I don’t have the luxury of dwelling on it like you do. Instead, I accept there were mistakes, but I also accept responsibility for NATO’s role. Our involvement in this war reflects that, albeit not in the way I would have preferred.
  2. All I stated was that those dynamics meant the coalition was "less effective than it otherwise might have been". It seems you are not even disputing that, and all you have done is provided your (clearly self-serving) perspective on points I broadly conceded in the post you quoted, which was not intended as an in-depth critique. I find it ironic that NPOs opponents in this war are divided between those that wish to eliminate NPO as a rival partly due to its role in starting the war (the TOP sphere) and those that blame NPO for the way the war ended (the Polar sphere). The latter view has merit, but I didn't feel there were many alliances which came through with enhanced reputations based on those dynamics (IRON is one notable exception which comes to mind), and in a position to apportion blame without accepting some themselves.
  3. Schatt, I am flattered you have chosen my words to spin into your narrative for this war, but you appear to be arguing a point I was not disputing. My post was intended to acknowledge that NPO made mistakes as highlighted by Hal in his post and Roadie in here, and admitted to by NPO in its DoW. They are well documented, so I didn’t see the need to address them. But you have ignored the point that there were divergent interests and and/or different levels of commitment among many alliances and on multiple fronts. Again, I realise the point does not fit well with how you want to characterise this war, but it is still true. As you highlight, a claimed coalition objective for the war was to neutralise Umbrella/DH as an ongoing threat, but not everyone was committed to this goal, and in fact many alliances were there simply to honour the treaties by which they entered (or to honour treaty commitments triggered during the war, in the case of Polar/Legion). That is their prerogative and I do not take issue with their stance, but it significantly reduced the probability that the coalition would have a large enough upper tier to deal with the core alliances. Perhaps that is the fault of NPO for setting an objective that not everyone agreed with, but if so, no one should take issue with the war ending when it did (i.e. because it closed down their fronts as they wanted). There was also clear animosity between various coalition partners (resulting in you forcefully defending TPF at one point), which was not just NPO’s fault. There was also different levels of commitment. The stats showed there was a significant gap between those that were doing the heavy lifting, and those with little or minimal involvement. Heck, you even admitted at one point that CoJ was not pulling its weight. As I commented at the time, I hoped alliances would assess their own performance before calling others out, but it is much more convenient to sweep that all under the rug and blame NPO by default. I am at a disadvantage to you in arguing this because I don’t think it is classy to call out specific coalition partners. But this is my objective view of the dynamics within the coalition.
  4. Fair enough. My point was just that I don't see how that is any different to the any of the other grudges or rivalries, which only matters if one claims a moral superiority or exceptionalism for their particular cause. Not at all. Other than Berbers' and my responses to RV (which weren't aimed at NSO), I am not aware of any other posts targeting NSO. We don't turn against old friends that easily
  5. My remark was aimed at RV, not NSO, but your response raises another point: RV's moralism (for want of a better word) has previously been a distinguishing characteristic of his posts, and one associated with NSO (including via The Moldavi Doctrine). More recently, however, it seems that he is more interested in using his moralist platform as a justification for prosecuting old grudges, which is really no different to all the other posters out there, or to other alliances (particularly Xiph and GOD, ironically).
  6. So, it's all aboard the anti-SF/XX bandwagon now for RV? I'm sure there are plenty of places for you to catch the anti-Legion bandwagon again.
  7. With respect, this statement suggests you don't understand the public justification provided by your leaders for this war: Thus, you cannot possibly state that your cause is solid, because you do not even understand what that cause is.
×
×
  • Create New...