Shafer

Happy Birthday, GATO! you were my first alliance, and although it's been since August 2006 since I've been apart of you, I will always be somewhat concerned about how GATO is doing.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='14 March 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1268581726' post='2225346'] So the main argument supporting your excessive reps is what we did to Polar? How does that have anything to do with this war? The only way it should factor in is if you guys are trying to seek revenge for our past actions. The funniest thing is how long you guys have complained about the excessive reps you had to pay to NPO. Now when you are in the same position as them you do the exact same thing. At least accept that you are the same as the NPO led hegemony. They too had this overwhelming OWF support at one point. Just remember that if you repeat the same actions as them you will suffer the same fate. [/quote] Essentially what you're saying is "Be the bigger man, don't punish us for our past actions." No They had a right to punish the alliances who demanded reps of them. If you subtract all the tech they had to pay to the Hegemony they really weren't asking for much, just merely getting their money and tech back.

I'd say these were pretty spot on. Nice job!

[quote name='Tushar Dhoot' date='23 February 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1266955888' post='2199425'] 21 alliances later they still need help taking us down. Epic is an understatement. [/quote] The Continuum didn't need all it's member nations to attack GPA yet they still did, maybe it's not that they need FOK, its just that FOK is following through.

Good to be fighting by your side again Polaris...and against your side?

I can respect your view, seems a lot like Josef Thorne 2.0 though.

Certainly not the most fun, interesting yes, but there is no clear bad side, no battle for survival, if peace happened then sides would be just as confusing and no one's survival would be at stake.

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='31 January 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1264960815' post='2147876'] You seem to have a far better understanding situation then those of us who we're actually there. Sarcasm aside, the person who made the decision to cancel the NPO treaty is no longer with us, and the person who posted this announcement was the very person who posted our declaration of war not three hours after the cancellation. When you consider that we were the first alliance to declare in defense of NPO (well, excluding a one-man alliance) and among the very last to leave, I think your time would be better spent making arguments that actually make sense. edit: acronym fail. [/quote] I have been playing this game since March 2006...so yes I was actually there. And I hardly believe that Echelon was going to jump in until they saw how pissed everyone was. How coincidental that all of NPO's allies did that at the same time. As for the topic at hand, I think Echelon simply should have asked the alliances who imposed the term. Being a stupid term I hardly think it would have been refused.

It can't even be said whether this is just a second front. If you want to call it the same war then do so, but it is a third side. We don't know who NpO supports, it is possible they support their allies in MK. If that is the case then TOP/IRON are a third force, not part of NpO's coalition, and thus not a second front.

[quote name='Otherworld' date='31 January 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1264952084' post='2147594'] Wait.. how is it that we are cowards? Making the most of an opportunity.. on cybernations? How dare we. But yes.. you're right, we're so cowardly.. I mean it's not like we got that term in the first place by declaring war on about 14 alliances in defence of an ally is it. No wait... it was. [/quote] After you originally tried to abandon Pacifica and then when you saw the political backlash you then declared war.

I do not disagree with that, however, I do believe there are two differing theories, both to meet certain ends. Technically IRON and TOP would not be on the Polar side anyway. They are in a front that has no combatants from the other side. It is not a second front because it is for different reasons and with two different sets of fighters. While the "two war theory" may lean more towards how CnG view it, it is also the one that makes more sense. Even if TOPs intention was for it to be apart of the same war, it is not.

It's not foreign to me at all, just generally you want your alliance to come across as unified and that means refraining from hateful comments towards your allies.

Even your ally, MK?

Well it's interesting because no C&G alliance was at war with NpO or anyone near NpO. MK is MDoAPd to NpO and so the only connection between the war is that TOP said in their declaration that they support NpO.

I'm getting too old for this.