Stetson76
-
Posts
906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Stetson76
-
-
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='16 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1266310152' post='2185292']
Why do you think we give something about a senate seat? It is PU that is crying havoc each time we obtain such a seat, not us. Also to your previous statement about us wanting PU to change to accommodate us. That is just incorrect. You can do w/e floats your boat and we will do w/e floats our boats. No one here should feel the need to bend to another.
Unlike most of you think, our war on purple didn't have anything to do with purple itself or the alliances on it. We were requested to help out on this front, and we did. If we needed to attack another front, that would have been fine to us as well. Don't make this about purple when purple has nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
The senate seat seemed to be a big deal when you cited it as one of your major reasons for moving to purple. I said it was symbolic but as has been the case at every point since you moved to purple, you've cast aside any attempt at working together and blame it on us.
That's fine, I guess it's all a matter of interpretation and you can call it whatever you want, but saying that you didn't want to hit Purple sure seems a stretch after the lengths you had to go to get there. That chain couldn't have been longer if you tried. Much like MK's repeated "jokes" about rolling TOP turned into this ugly reality, when you say enough times that you want to see a group of alliances (Purple Unity), or a single alliance (Invicta) dead it becomes kinda hard to say after the fact, "I don't know where you would get the idea we want to fight you!" LOL -
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='16 February 2010 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1266309467' post='2185281']
We are giving them a nice clean way out, including their allies. It seems to me like you are either ill informed or you are just trying to garner sympathy for Invicta.
I hope Wolfpack agrees with this statement, they are the alliance that is getting even more beaten up than you. And that is pretty impressive.
[/quote]
If it's so clean why won't you and your allies agree to the same terms? I mean, it's not like you're doing so hot yourself, at least I assume so since you're calling in PC members to ghost your AA and help you attack a nation with 7000 less tech than you. LOL -
[quote name='magicninja' date='16 February 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1266302927' post='2185083']
There's a few things I don't get about TOP/IRON/Whoever's dow on C&G in the first place.
How was opening a new front on uninvolved parties that, up until that point, had no intention of entering the war going to help the Polaris Coalition at all? It wasn't going to help NSO fight off everyone they were engaged with. It wasn't going to help Polaris. Who were they helping by hitting C&G?
I'd like to hear the answer to that one before I draw any final conclusions.
[/quote]
I believe that your first assertion that C&G had not intention of entering the war can be answered by this quote:
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them.
[/quote]
Now, he's not saying that they necessarily wanted to enter it but it is clear that if TOP/IRON had followed the treaty line, which everyone on the C&G side insists would have been find and dandy, they would have been countered by C&G. Does that make preemption smart? No. Does it make it tactically correct? At this point it is obvious that it wasn't. Was the premise of their thought process sound that no matter in what manner they became involved in this war they would end up fighting C&G correct? Absolutely, and the King of the leading C&G alliance admits it right here.
So, draw what conclusions you must, the final decision was flawed, but the reasoning behind it had merit. -
Is that why you stood beside \m/?
-
[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='15 February 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1266295678' post='2184523']
How about this? As a member of a Purple alliance, I'd like to get the ball rolling towards Purple Unity (not the treaty) that includes the Stickmen.
Hi, my name is KageTheSecond and I think the Stickmen are pretty cool. They do stuff differently than most other purple alliances, and that's okay. I accept them for who they are. I hope we can be friends.
PU alliances, try and follow my lead.
[/quote]
Kage, I'm actually 100% in agreement with you on this despite my public disagreements with the Stickmen. The problem is that they expect Purple Unity to change to acomodate them. It has to be a two way street. So, in that vein as the senate issue seems to have been a visible symbol of our lack of understanding, I will make this proposal as the leader of SNAFU that I will take back to the rest of PEACE for discussion:
At the conclusion of the present hostilities, PEACE will include the 3 Stickmen alliances in our senate rotation. No obligation to join the treaty, or work together other than for the general sphere benefit i.e. trading together. In this manner, we will all be working towards a common, if not somewhat symbolic, goal and we all get an equal seat at the table. We might have to work on our what we consider a valid reason for a sanction would be
but at least we'd be communicating while working it out.
Of course I can't make a unilateral change to a treaty, but if the Stickmen are willing to work on a compromise such as this, I'm willing to be the advocate from within PEACE. -
[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1266294804' post='2184466']
Well MK hadn't attacked anyone at all but was attacked by TOP and IRON anyway. That's a positive light?
[/quote]
No, the TOP/IRON attack was not positive, and I don't think anyone at this point thinks it was. It could be argued that it made sense, but hindsight has clearly determined that it was the wrong move even should they miraculously turn the tables and win. I was referring to Neneko's comment that suggesting MK had an obligation to defend NpO would have made TOP/IRON's decision look even worse, and I had to agree that yes, preempting a member of your own coalition would indeed be worse. LOL -
[quote name='neneko' date='15 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1266294165' post='2184437']
Putting aside the fact that the issue betwen \m/ and the alliance you claim polar had a paperless FA with (not even polar have claimed this) was already resolved since that will lead down a line that doesn't belong in this topic.[/quote]
Were resolved [b]after[/b] the actions addressed in the OP occurred you mean...carry on...
[quote]
Are you really sure you want to argue the point that we had an obligation to join in polars defense? Because that doesn't really shed a positive light on the actions top&c/o took.
[/quote]
So, this would be a poor thing to argue because, had MK defended NpO from FOK, IRON and TOP would still have attacked C&G? Wow, you're right, if TOP and Co. had attacked an alliance that was in the same coalition they were that would really shine a less than positive light on them. LMAO -
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292733' post='2184348']
I'll address these two. We're not stopping peace talks, they are. They have said "either white peace or nothing." They have an unwillingness to budge, and thus they are stopping progress from occurring.[/quote]
The statement quoted below while well said, is in direct opposition to what you've just stated. You say that they are not willing to budge in one breath and in the other that you're not willing to even begin discussing the matter. Would you care to clarify?
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
I can state, unequivocally, that the Union has not even begun to contemplate terms of surrender to offer to the TIFDTT alliances. This is not out of any desire to prolong the war, or to keep the TIFDTT alliances in a state of warfare akin to that seen in the VietFAN war, but rather it is because we are busy [i]fighting the war[/i]. The martial prowess of TIFDTT...well, some of TIFDTT, is such that we are by no means nearing a decisive victory, and as such any talk of surrender terms would be not only premature, but an unnecessary and harmful distraction to the much more pressing matter of war planning and execution.[/quote]
[quote]As far as C&G being on the fence, we had not had any allies attacked at that point, and thus our only entry would be via optional aggression. We had not decided on that.
[/quote]
And as far as this, I was under the impression that NpO was an ally of MK? And yes, I know they said they didn't want any any help with \m/ or the expected counter from PC however, as soon as FOK escalated the situation, your obligation was the same as NSO's. And no, NpO was not the aggressor, \m/ aggressively attacked another alliance and NpO used paperless FA to defend them...I heard somewhere that you were familiar with that concept, so I won't explain it for you.
And you really have no response to the first two points? -
I'm sorry, I'm a peripheral player in this whole drama but I have to ask for clarification:
1. TOP/IRON were paranoid because they listened to your members. (Who I appreciate thought they were kidding, but none the less WERE threatening.)
2. Because they were mis-informed i.e. paranoid, and made a poor decision based on that, they need to be removed as a threat. Instead of just convincing them that your members were indeed just joking around.
3. You're not stalling peace talks, just not letting them start.
4. The assertions that C&G was on the fence as to whether they would enter the NpO-\m/ front are false. -
I'm very sorry to see this happen Invicta, but your resolve makes me happy to share the battlefield with you.
-
Like we've never made a mistake in an announcement or post on purpose...in fact, it's not like our entire RP is based on being a little "off". LOL
-
[quote name='master splinter' date='14 February 2010 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1266137792' post='2180636']
Snafu is my dog's name so I have a special affinity for your alliance
great DoW and good luck
[/quote]
Poor dog. LOL
Your cruelty to animals notwithstanding, we appreciate your good wishes.
-
Just make sure to have your nations let their opposites in Fark know the war is over.
An alliance that size sometimes has difficulty getting the word out until another couple of days worth of nukes have been fired.
Other than that, congratulations on getting peace. -
The historical banter is well beyond my frame of reference, but here's to fights that actually mean something to the combatants!
Good luck to you both (with a slight nod from the RNG gods to Haf). -
[quote name='porksaber' date='13 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1266127067' post='2180378']
i think you might have successfully identified the problem.
also, didn't SNAFU have more members like 12 hours ago or so?
[/quote]
We've lost 4 members since we first went into this war on our first front vs. Fark. How about you guys?
Magnum T. Gundraw doing well? -
Congratulations guys. Although honestly, you're making me feel old.
-
[quote name='Jingoist' date='11 February 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1265943138' post='2176178']
I just have to say how much i truly and honestly hate y'all's alliance name. f'real.
[/quote]
Thanks!
Love you too. -
Hmmm...bloody waters...
-
Congratulations to all the members of all the Legions involved...er...yeah, that's what I mean.
-
[quote name='Locke' date='11 February 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1265910682' post='2175084']
Because it's funny when someone else understand Hydra's theme better than they do.
[/quote]
I'm not sure where Ligs got the 5 heads from, but hydra's in general have been represented as regrowing anywhere from 1-3 heads, just as in some versions, Heracles crushes the heads before burning the stumps and in others he cuts them off first. I'm also quite surprised that a mythology buff like yourself didn't question Hydra's treaty with NSO seeing as they reference 9 heads when the Lernaean Hydra was depicted as having either 9 or 100 heads.
Anyway, sorry to derail this thread, I just hate when people find it necessary to call people out and then don't even have the decency to be right.
Hydra, as I said before, good luck and have fun. -
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='11 February 2010 - 03:40 AM' timestamp='1265881215' post='2174399']
Good luck Snafu, and Stetson in particular. You will need it.
[/quote]
Oh, I know the pain, I'm set for in 12 1/2 hours or so, don't you worry. But the fact is that if I can take a slot away from you and let someone else have a little extra breathing room, I'm happy to do it. I have successfully lost or tied in every exchange with buy one to this point and I fully expect that my odds will not improve as time goes on but hey, at least my CM's will get through! -
[quote name='Arrnea' date='11 February 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1265909152' post='2175013']
Sorry, but you only get three extra heads when you lose one. Not five.
[/quote]
Why are you e-lawyering!?!?!?!?
I respectfully submit that after the nukes start flying the number of heads they re-grow will most likely increase... -
[quote name='Micheal Malone' date='11 February 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1265875668' post='2174312']
You didn't want to jump through the hoops to have war? Is that why you waited for your ally to lose 40% of their NS before joining in? Did it really take that long to mobilize?
No matter, I hope you fight as well as you draw!
[/quote]
Sorry about the tardiness, we made the mistake of not buying the damn cookies.
[center][img]http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn59/Stetson1376/Girlscouts.jpg[/img][/center] -
Aw...they're courting you too?
Welcome to the front USN.
Invicta Passes Two Million!
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='16 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1266310496' post='2185299']
We are not the ones losing 55% of our infra, you know? It is a clean way out in the sense that they don't have to pay reparations and don't have to leave friendly purple alliances out.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, I've not been sizing you up so cannot comment on how much infra you've lost, but you have lost more than a third of your nation strength as an alliance. Of course, that damage is just for iFOK and doesn't account for the damage being done to the other Stickmen so yes, while 1/3 is less than 1/2 it's certainly not a difference worth trumpeting.