Ernesto Che Guevara
-
Posts
2,720 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Ernesto Che Guevara
-
-
You guys have been retiring for years. I'm sorry you got re-elected, I know you just want to be able to relax.
I'll keep the recliner, hard candies and Murder She Wrote Dvds ready. -
DBDC is certainly an alliance. DoE sometime just before either DAVE or GRUDGE.
MQ's case is a bit more iffy -- no real DoE from a long time MK splinter who DoWed 2 minutes after MK's disbandment.
But they did DoW. What I cannot find anywhere is a DBDC DoW on TDO. I found the "Recognition of Hostilities" between DBDC and GOP buried in some other thread (shame on you both -- lazy lazy lazy). But I find no DoW on TDO from DBDC. Can someone direct me, since it has been mentioned a few times and the wiki needs updating...
Dude DoW's are so two years ago. All the cool alliances just attack people without declaring these days because an attack on one is an attack on all.
-
I find it funny that MQ members are talking about freedom for all nations, after declaring a Jihad against all neutrals for being neutral.
I find it funny that you still post.
Not really.
-
MQ threatened to set a precedent, which left unpunished, would have lead to weakened global stability. As a lulz alliance Mushroom Kingdom was personified by this last action, and they were completely shut down within two weeks. I've noticed there were others endorsing warfare with neutrals, but with the overwhelming response by the international community, these would-be war criminals must stick to raiding only nonaligned nations.
How does it feel to have been subservient to what you call a "lulz" alliance for over three years? Also, why are we being charged with the crime of being you/coalition leaders?
-
Does anyone else out there laugh and roll their eyes when someone calls anyone child on here? It could be Dajobo calling Steve Buscemi child and I would be like "god, what an idiot."
I didn't mean it as an insult, to clarify. It's one of those things that would have to be verbalized to be understood as a joke with the mannerism I intended. But I agree. haha.
-
I wasn't talking about the treaty response from CCC or TTE. I'm talking about the secondary, non-treaty response, which amounts to a police action with the mandate of protecting global stability. Their unopposed entrance indicates the will of the international community in condemning the actions of terrorists.
Pretty sure TTE and CCC weren't tied to TDO, but okay.
-
If that was the case, why didnt those secondary alliance strike until about a week later? It took time for people to realize that this was an attempt to destabilize the globe. A popular reaction against the 'shrooms rose up, and was represented by the several alliances who struck in defense of neutrality and stability. Meanwhile, very few nations or alliances rose to fight for Allachron in the first place.
By every political and in-game measure, and other than a few biased friends of the Mushroom Kingdom on the OWF, the global consensus is that Mushqaeda is "bad, very bad indeed" in the words of the Great Ubuntu.
This wasn't a war at all, but rather a police action against a handful of terrorists who thought they had more power than they do.
As somebody who was once closely allied to CCC, I can safely say that despite what I may think of their current military prowess, they're not stupid. In an event such as this, wherein they are facing (on an individual basis) a militarily superior foe, taking about a week to prepare your nations for combat is actually SOP. Build up improvements, buy up nukes if you don't have enough, etc. They weren't rooted on by popular opinion, and again, as much as it goes against my IC persona to speak kindly of our opponents, I must say that I highly doubt the actions of CCC, TTE and the others were motivated by popular opinion on these boards. That motivation came from within, whether it be for moral reasons or opportunistic "strike 'em while they're unprotected" reasons. You're not only an MQ/TOP detractor, but you're making the people you speak for seem like imbeciles who only act when "the public" wants them to.
Again, I was allied to CCC. I may be on opposite ends of the world with them right now, but I know their motivations and I know their structure. They don't do what random posters tell them they should do. They do what they think is right or what is right for their allies. That's something nobody can really dispute. -
If popular opinion was with the Mushrooms, then where is the popular response to the popular response? Where are the masses counter-attacking TTE, NATO, TPF? Where are the crowds chanting down the efforts to preserve global stability?
It is easy to measure the popular response against Mushroom Kingdom, you need only look at the war screens. But I see absolutely no evidence of any popular support for the Mushrooms in-game. Just goes to show Mushroom Kingdom ruled out of mass fear of their military might, rather than from any source of legitimacy, and that their most recent action was striking out against the world at large.
I seem to recall retracting some of my statements about TOP and conceding that TOP was not attempting to help the Mushroom Kingdom's plots, and even engaging in tech deals with TOP members, and reaching out to TOP govt privately. So where exactly is this evidence of hatred for TOP, an alliance I once served with in Citadel?
MQ is being hit by alliances. Retaliating would invoke a military response from those alliances and their allies, touching off what would likely be a global war. CCC/TTE and them can hit MQ without fear of retaliation because MQ is not an established alliance with treaty ties. Stop being so dense.
-
For starters...none of the alliances you mentioned had a significant number of members go rogue afterward or jump on a faux protectorate's AA and attack a random neutral alliance.
I'd say TOP should be embarrassed, but they allowed several people on their AA already that flew the Mushqaeda flag. We also know what would happen if the anti-MQ coalition demanded that TOP give them up for justice--request denied. If TOP does not actively support MQ/the rogues, then they damn sure don't seem to have any problem with their actions.
As somebody who actively took a leadership role in a coalition that pissed on the unofficial rules of war (An attack on one is an attack on all; undeclared wars, etc), you have no real room to speak about the "regular way" of doing things. You assume that TOP would tell you to piss off if you approached them about accepting a former MQ member, but you haven't actually done it? So you're assuming things now? With no evidence? You know what they say; when you assume, you're sort of a douche.
Almost as unimaginative and boring as hitting the neutrals.
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Woodstock_Massacre
In this post, username feanor noldrin points out that he was interested in adding something to that one thing (ostensibly one of many) that user ardus said. Following the aforementioned errata, he made a general comment about user chairman hal. He proceeds to mention that it wasn't necessary for chairman hal to quote one of his own posts as feanor noldorin wasn't directly speaking to, in a contradictory fashion or otherwise, to chairman hal. He makes the assumption that since chairman hal is an active member of this very thread (translated: autistic), he didn't necessarily need to undertake any sort of special accomodation to ensure that the attention of chairman hal would be drawn to his input into the conversation. User Feanor Noldorin will consider using elaborative decoration to the text to which he wishes to draw the attention of chairman hal in the future.
I love you so much.
To be fair, it's totally possible that the "peanut gallery" has influenced affairs to the extent that an MK reformation or reinforcements won't happen.
While it is possible, you're wrong. MK was never going to reform. In fact, I posted in our disbandment discussion thread specifically stating that I would help lead a revival of the MK old guard if anybody ever tries to reform MK with our sole purpose being exterminating those who wish to sully our name. So no, you're wrong.
If popular opinion was not against Mushqaeda, you would not have seen the response we had.
Popular opinion is actually with us. Check the MQ DoW thread. A bunch of opportunists and cowards who want to hit former MK members attacking us, along with some of our longest-standing OWF detractors posting against us, is hardly solid evidence for popular opinion being against us. Try again.
A fair analysis; you are correct that the impact of public opinion is very difficult to measure. However, if you look at the war timeline, In the first five days only TTE and CCC responded (along with a few daring but unrelated TPF raids), both for treaty related reasons. 5 days is a long time in a war, and it was obvious many were confused and even afraid of Mushqaeda and uncertain as to what would happen should they attack or criticize.
It was only after the 21st, when ZULU and GOP declared war for non-treaty reasons, and public opinion began to be openly voiced from members of uninvolved alliances, that the tide began to turn against the soldiers of Allachron.
Of course, this is just my opinion and analysis, and never claimed it to be a theory or fact. But I don't think it can be denied that the "peanut gallery" at the very least encouraged other alliances to become involved.
No, I think it can be denied pretty easily. People taking advantage of an opportunity to hit their former enemies when they aren't protected isn't indicative of public opinion.
While it perturbs me to see the disbanded(ing?) MK members like Potato giving responses such as this, I can say that I understand and have even come to expect such low-quality conversation from them.
TOP, especially government and former government of TOP, I like to hold to a higher standard. At least iamthey attempted to respond to Tywin, while you simply show a complete lack of basic respect for a fellow ruler. It's rather sad to see from an alliance I used to call home.
Respect isn't granted to everybody, especially people who refuse to even attempt to see reason. Why should we be respectful of somebody who cannot even be bothered to stop shitposting for 5 minutes?
I am convinced by TOP's sincerity and have edited the OP to reflect their recent contributions to this thread. Although I believe Mushroom Kingdom intended nothing but mischief, I am very relieved to know that TOP was not involved.
Mushroom Kingdom disbanded. Mushqaeda isn't Mushroom Kingdom.
Arrogance is the downfall of many regimes. Just look at the mushrooms. They should make an attempt to make friends out of foes, or they will not last much longer. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the highest form of warfare is winning without a fight.
Study our history, child. We made many a friend out of our foes.
-
we all gotta get our kicks somehow.
Why can't he just masturbate like everybody else?
-
I am glad to see everyone enjoying the news from the battlefront!
You just like any attention, don't you?
-
Wait, you mean to tell me an alliance affiliation fighting a suicidal jihad against overwhelming odds will lose strength when the members switch AA's to make your life more difficult?
Truly a genius of our time. My favorite part about your posting is when people on your "side" tell you to shut up.
You may think you're witty, original, a voice of opposition against our cause. Really you're just a retard going through a spurt of coherence (if we can call your posting coherent). Unfortunately, I've read the end of this book, and as much as it pains me to spoil endings (I'm not Bob Ilyani), I regret to inform you that you're going to die as you lived most of your life; sad, lonely, and incapable of dressing/feeding yourself.
-
You could have kept fighting. You chose to take the incredibly lenient surrender terms, and part of that was surrendering to all of these alliances that you deem beneath you. Of those 6 alliances, none of them disbanded.
Right, but we're smart enough to see a losing proposition when we see one. Dragging the war on would only have bored all of us even more. And I don't just mean our coalition, I mean EQ as well. The war was stagnating.
-
-
Can "Alterego, delete your nation" be a poll option?
Goddamn I think this is the first time I've ever vocally supported TPF.
-
ALLARCHONU ACKBAR.
-
Well I'll thank you (two/all) if you try to limit at a minimum the dragging of the GPA into your dispute.
As for pretending or pretending to pretend, I am not doing either. The GPA has never been guaranteed safety as all the good members of the Agency know very well. I don't know how well/bad the Agency can fight and I doubt anyone can claim they know it either, as the last test was so much long ago, but I know that we prefer not to have to.
If nonetheless we'll have to, we will do our best, and eventually we'll live on... Which is all I need to know.This is all GPA's fault.
-
That's not what it means at all, and if you read the several posts that state exactly why we're declaring war, you might understand. As much as I like TDO, if this war had been brought to them due to their faults, we would not be entering. Our sovereignty was threatened. On top of that, it was stated that more neutral alliances would be declared on. We felt it necessary to engage you to get rid of that threat. What's the matter? You don't like war?
I really like the GPA. I have some great friends that are in the GPA. My members that are fighting probably wouldn't be a good fit there.
:huh: You're really stretching there, bro.
Pre-emptive strike then?
-
I believe Tywin was talking about Mq claiming MK protection on their alliance page, still - I don't think Mq is as old as GOP was and certainly was not as big. Also, they didn't attack until after MK disbanded, effectively voiding the treaty. Mq may be a lot of things, but right now it's hard to argue that they're a leeching protectorate.
If I put "protected by BFF" on my alliance page I don't think that means all of BFF's former allies are bound to defend me.
What is the definition of a rogue? What is the difference between a rogue and an Alliance? What if they're both?
The reason I'm saying the propaganda victory is MK's is that so many have literally jumped out of their skin, seeing them as a larger threat than they actually are. Like they did during EQ. Isn't that what those TOP leaks were all about?
Death is what MQ wants, so in effect, they have not 'lost' at all. It was a reaction they wanted, and a reaction they certainly got.
Exactly what I was wondering. If we're rogues, what does that make LSF? We have as much structure as them, we post alliance announcements declaring our intent (unlike CCC), so how does that make us a rogue group?
-
Which would be why people have referred to GOP as quasi-neutral over the years. The fact that you didn't bother to know the diplomatic status of a protectorate of a major alliance doesn't make them hypocrites, it means that there are a lot of people who didn't do their fucking research.
Is quasi-neutral another word for "we want to be able to attack you, but not be attacked by anybody"? Incompetence isn't an excuse.
Also, their treaty with VE is a non-issue. They attacked us, not the other way around. You like adding meaningless things to your arguments, don't you?
Did the GPA put you up to this? :lol1:
No, GPA says they're neutral and sticks to it. That makes them a far better alliance than GOP could ever dream of being. At least they don't change their neutrality state when convenient.
How are we hypocrites? We said we would defend neutrality if it was attacked. MQ declared a "Jihad on neutrality". We defended. DBDC did not declare a war on neutrality (they declared on a neutral alliance) so there is no call to defend. If DBDC has said they are going to destroy all neutrals please point us to that so that we can talk it over among the leaders and decide what to do. They haven't that we seen so we have had no reason to defend against them. Its pretty cut and dry in our DOTM Doctrine. You call it conditional neutrality, we call it standing up for your beliefs. Sorry.
Did you fight alongside NPO's coalition in DH-NPO? You might remember "Everything Must Die"? I mean, you're clearly a part of "everything" and we had said that it "must die", ergo we were saying that your alliance must die.
See how retarded that logic is? See where I'm going with this? -
With all due respect, the pages of this thread are littered with people baaaaawing that us even hitting MQ wasn't justified and somehow "unneutral." We had a cut and dry violation of our DTOM doctrine with MQ, so MQ is who we hit. It's really that simple.
I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry.
-
What are stats if you don't ever use them to support your friends who need them? I'll happily put my nation on the line for a friend.
haha good one.
-
We are not declaring war. MQ is not a real alliance. That would be like the United States declaring war on terrorism or silly like that would never happen.....o wait...
eDIT: Welcome to the fray, brothers and sister of GOP. It is an honor to fight along side you in this righteous crusade.So you're tech raiding?
-
Goddamn we're good. Even when we disband you're all still afraid we're plotting.
DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE Terms of Service
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but didn't Doomhouse post those DoWs for legal reasons?