Saber

[quote name='flak attack' date='24 February 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1266977755' post='2200305'] Yes, he was indeed. MHA has been complaining about this since before your new gov was elected. [/quote] Scutterbug showed me "logs". It was a 2 line comment on aid in a semi public channel (not sure which one) and he commented that it's coalition aid. It was almost barely noticeable. I know I wouldn't have considered that as a serious complaint. Oh, and it was made 24hours before Avernite and me entered office. And we heard nothing about it later on. [quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1266977770' post='2200307'] Personally, I would like to see the logs. [/quote] I am not going to log dump without getting authorization first. Even then I'd avoid it, I'm gonna take Archon's lead and read them myself and then make my summary of events. They could have disputed it several times already. [quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1266979182' post='2200341'] If you see it as a coalition war then why cant FOK? How does that excuse give you the right to basically declare war on them, without actually doing so, while baring them from declaring war on you? [/quote] It's sad to see you trying this hard. If FOK wanted to act on it they would have. But instead they clearly stated that your treaty was activated (by you btw) and that they had to enter because of it. Bringing up the aid after the fact, especially by MK is just trying to justify your actions. Not very well might I say. [quote name='Londo Mollari' date='24 February 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1266979892' post='2200366'] Huge difference between a 1 day raid that destroys at most a few days worth of infra/warchest and a major curbstomp war that takes half a year to recover from. [/quote] I believe we were willing to peace out immediately after because the major war ended. Don't bother with responding with your party line "But it was a different war, ofcourse we'll make them pay", we heard that one thousand times. Repeating it does not make anyone intelligent believe it.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1266974406' post='2200209']Unless you have proof other wise, this is a lie. [/quote] I have proof. Logs are good enough? And no, it's not a lie, it's an unverified claim. Unverified claim is not a lie. But I have proof of it. I've said it was done by MHA (with observing and approval I presume of FOK) in an earlier thread. If they wish to challenge that we can arrange something.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147'] Can you point me to a war between GW3 and Karma where the odds were not at least 4:1 in your favor? Strength of community has nothing to do with absurdly high tech and infra levels. [/quote] It's not cowardice. Both UjW and Karma war were not really our wars. They were powerplays between groups which we did not agree with nor support. In UjW Electron Sponge was pushing his own agenda with 404 and others theirs, and in Karma we were trying to stop it only to NPO jump over us. If we had our way neither would have happened. Yes, some of us didn't get ZIed in those wars but plenty of members did while fighting for other alliances. You seriously underestimate number of new members TOP gets. Also, I think that strength of community has a lot to do with high tech and infra levels. We attract lot of prominent players who play the game for a long time. By nature their nations are bigger in NS than average one (though there are exceptions due to wars). This leads to us getting more "strong" nations on average then regular alliance. Even in this war we got some very prominent figures like Ivanelterrible and Syzygy (imagine that ). So appeal to serious long term players which TOP has and our strict entry procedures lead to community of high NS nations, not hiding out in a corner. [quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147'] Betrayals and Backstabs? You were the fools for trusting someone who historically hates you. Don't blame that on Grub, he was just staying true to his beliefs. You were also fools for attacking direct treaty partners of your allies. And you didn't just do it to FOK either. As for the other backstab I am not sure to what you are referring to. [/quote] First one = peacing out on the day of our DoW Second one= DoWing us It is our fault though. We trusted Emperor of a major alliance will keep his word. We know we won't trust him again. [quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147'] Dirty Tricks? I don't know what you are referring to there either. But TOP isn't innocent in anything.[/quote] Alliances were threatened to accept white peace immediately or suffer harsh terms down the line. Things such as that I consider dirty tricks. I don't know what kind of dirty tricks you speak for TOP, but I can assure you we threatened no one with harsh terms down the line.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1266971082' post='2200081'] Well if you guys had fought in wars that weren't heavily in favor of yourselves in the last 4 years you wouldn't have 60+ nations that were leaps and bounds above everyone else. Sure you can claim it is superior nation building but you guys haven't fought anything that could be considered a destructive war since GW3, while the alliances that you targeted in your initial blitz have fought wars that were decimating to them about every 6 months since the UJW. Compound that with reps and you will see that to get the necessary strategic coverage you need to bring in nations that can do effective damage against those 60+ nations. So as you can see kids, running from anything that can do damage to you for 3 years does pay off when you want to preemptively strike alliances that currently had no military involvement in the current conflict. Cowardice pays. EDIT: Clarity. [/quote] Actually you are mistaken. I think that our high NS advantage was mainly through quality of our community which brought many ex government leaders and prominent members from other alliances into our own. From Gremlins, FOK, Valhalla, NPO, IRON, ODN, VE, ONOS, FAN, GOONS, Umbrella, ... Many people joined TOP after their alliances were disbanded and/or curbstomped. Strong development projects and quality of community is reason our nations were that strong. Cowardice? Not our fault our opponents were incompetent and we soundly defeated them all. That is until this war which took two betrayals and backstabs, lot of dirty tricks and 22 alliances on us and our allies. And we still are not down.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266964688' post='2199833'] It's great to see you giving up, but attempting to claim otherwise. A+++.[/quote] I'm not giving up. You have 22 alliances, refocus 21 of them on TOP, and put FOK only on 5 remaining and voila. Problem solved. Or just try ending this war instead of piling more and more people while we wait for your "consultations". [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266964688' post='2199833'] Your own statement that you haven't been defeated or are winning means that you should be offering peace terms to us, right! In terms of how this could have been solved? You not preemptively attacking alliances, and after doing it not acknowledging it was a mistake until it failed miserably all around you. [/quote] We are not offering terms as the reason for war ended long time ago, and now it's just MK utilizing it's superior position to take us down a notch as possible future threat. Only issue here is that most of TOP does not see MK as a real threat, and would have been happy to go about their own way (and trust me, we'd put safeties in place so that we can't end up in this situation again), but keeping us in war only to destroy our nations will not help with keeping that image.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='23 February 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1266964313' post='2199819'] I've heard they're the 20th and the 21st from your members, is the stress getting to you? are you fellows losing count? [/quote] I think someone peaced out so 21 wars ongoing, 22nd overall.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1266963791' post='2199795'] Yes, it is. I like the alliance and its leadership, but goddamn are their upper ranks /incompetent/. Chain some treaties? Alrighty, show me who should have come in instead, and who would have been willing to take the heavy damage that will happen in support of an ally of an ally of an ally. FOK is a direct ally, and we (CnG) tried to call in our other direct allies BEFORE calling in FOK. I am not clear as to who else could have been involved, who isnt already engaged on some target. FOK was available enough from what it seems like, and their aid was as such requested. I /hate/ saying this, but I'm not government, I don't know the exact rationale, but I will speculate as well as I can.[/quote] I'm not going to waste my time by going through your treaties so I can prove to you you didn't need to put FOK on us. Their upper ranges are not that strong given prolonged nuclear exchange with NpO. Their help is probably minimal (4 wars so far) and could have been substituted by number of other alliances, including those already at war which still have plenty of capability left. Thank you for admitting that essentially we haven't been defeated. I guess this will go into the history books as a big draw, or even a victory against the odds. Paradox Vult! EDIT: Oh, I completely forgot. You know how this could also have been solved? By actually offering some kind of terms to alliances in question. Our intentions are known for several days now and we still have not gotten even rough estimates or suggestions.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='23 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1266963758' post='2199794'] TOP breaks 6 treaties during the war, betraying friends; only a minor outcry and its members consider everything honorable. FOK follows one treaty to the letter because of a situation that arose only because of the 6 previous treaties being violate; TOP storms thread with flames, trolling, threats, and cries of them being dishonorable. Ok got it now. [/quote] You should read better. Few TOP members were upset about it (and still are) but fact that it was MK that deliberately asked for the treaty to be activated against our 6 alliances (including TOP) is beneficial factor for FOK. Main argument I posted was that FOK should probably be more upset about MK asking them to do this, then TOP should be upset about FOK actually doing this. (FOK can be upset about us doing this in first place too, one does not exclude the other).

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1266963493' post='2199778'] Declared on by the alliance we helped build! Oh the irony! [/quote] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdc7v4vkbJI Luke, I am your father. *TOP as Vader haha, suits us :

[quote name='scutterbug' date='23 February 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1266963451' post='2199777'] We issued a formal complaint to Crymson, Crymson followed it by sending out an aid package himself to GGA. Sorry Saber but Crymson screwed things up for ya. [/quote] Was Crymson in government at the time? Respond through proper channels.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266962967' post='2199758'] Please show me another alliance MK/CnG is treatied to who could actually handle you. (Hint: Sparta..not a valid answer >_>. Already at war with you, and you see the results).[/quote] Sounds like an insult toward Sparta? To be honest they really are not that good at war. Chain some treaties. People who were fighting alliances that peaced out can join in. Kinda like FOK did. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266962967' post='2199758'] What about MHA? [/quote] I'm not going away. I haven't heard a formal complaint of any sorts. Not that I wouldn't see it as dirty trick though. It's pretty obvious that we have two major sides with my side having a NS deficit. Making an issue out of few mil thrown here and there is beneath proper allies. I have no issue if MHA aids nations we are at war with. I certainly would not complain about it if I had a 2:1 or bigger advantage.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266962308' post='2199725'] We don't need as much help with the five other alliances as we do with TOP. You could make a clear argument that we don't need the help on DAWN and TORN, and I would probably agree with you. TSO, Umbrella should be able to cover so I would agree with an argument about that. IRON, alright, maybe. TOP? No. You aren't covered, and the amount of your nations that in the past few weeks have been allowed to escape to peace mode in the upper ranks makes that quite clear. Also, what about you aiding direct enemies of FOK and your current MDoAP partner, MHA? Is that not worse then us asking them to activate a treaty, when the direct enemies have no treaty ties to you? [/quote] Twenty one (21) alliances. Our side is peacing out as we speak. The NS advantage is only getting bigger. Of all alliances in the whole world, you HAD to get FOK to declare on us. Yes, I am really going to believe this was only possible solution. But please, state it is so and I will stop posting. I will however consider that a statement that whole world could not defeat TOP and our allies. Given you had to use all the dirty tricks you have. As far as I can tell, the DoW specifically states a treaty activation. I apologize to FOK that we have aided nations they were/are at war with we feel a responsibility to people on our side given that most of them are still here because TOP, IRON, DAWN, TORN, TSO and FEAR cannot get peace. Due to that responsibility we have aided some of them who were in problems. If anyone considers that a state of war, you know where you can find us.We're not going anywhere. Let's make it to 30. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1266962541' post='2199742'] Gremlins was not "deployed" on TOP but on IRON because they roll with MHA, who is treatied to you. At least that is how I view it.[/quote] Gremlins told us they will not attack us directly, nor will TOP attack Gremlins directly. I'm sure if you cited your paperless treaty with Gremlins and asked them to declare on TOP that you'd meet a Gremlin style wall. You can't make them do things if they don't want to. I'd know, I've been their ally and bloc partner for years The fact that we waited so long to call them in shows that we tried our best to find a solution in which FOK doesn't have to declare on TOP directly, but failed. As I have stated, I apologize for that FOK, and if anyone (in FOK) wants I'll explain why via pm. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1266962541' post='2199742'] Wait, there is no relationship between Polaris and MK? ..what? [/quote] Between TOP and NpO. So NpO did not declare on their own friend directly (as we were not allies and probably not even friends) but indirectly on their own side. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not proofreading.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1266961864' post='2199701'] It is needed, as you are having many nations able to escape into peace mode because of the failure of certain alliances in the upper ranks. Yet, you /aided/ people directly at war with MHA, same with FOK. You started an offensive war, and your allies would be able to go "..." if they have the sense to have a nonchaining clause in their treaty. It is not "elawyering" to when you require aid with an alliance that has attacked you (this situation), ask for help. Did you guys need help with the massive amount of wars TJO declared on you, or are they an extremely minor problem and attacking them would also bring VE in? Do you think that MK, who has lost 40% of our score, mainly from your attacks as you dominate the upper ranks, needs the help? [/quote] Given that you have to spend so much time defending the decision to call them in, yes it is. You had absolutely need for FOK to be specifically deployed on TOP. Similar to how Gremlins was not deployed on TOP but on IRON. If you wanted to keep this clean and have understanding for position FOK is in you would have found a solution where FOK does not have to declare on TOP directly. Instead you asked them to declare and they did with a heavy heart. I hope you and FOK find it worth it after the war. [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='23 February 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1266961915' post='2199703'] I suppose TOP is a perfect example of the right way to treat ones allies right? You know how you ignored Umbrella and FOK before you declared on us. I'm aware you weren't allied to FOK at the time of the declaration but if you were such good friends following the cancellation you would've have let them know right? Oh wait no, you didn't. I don't think TOP are in any position to comment on how others treat their allies. Good luck to you FOK, o/ FOK [/quote] We did hit Umbrella's and FOKs ally yes. However we never asked them to declare on their old close friend when there were other solutions that were perfectly fine. For example FOK deploys on everyone but TOP, and rest of the alliances focus slightly more on TOP. There are 21 of you, it's not like you cannot do a bit of reshuffling to accomodate FOK. It tells a lot that you did not. And this is not first time it happened, you used the same trick on NpO although there we did not have a relationship, but NpO did have a strong relationship with some alliances on our side. In essence you made NpO declare on their own side. Hilarious that it actually worked.

[quote name='Pingu' date='23 February 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1266961104' post='2199662'] It is indeed sad that this ridiculous war pushes alliances into corners where they are compelled to make decisions like this. Good luck, FOK! [/quote] If only someone was trying to end it. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1266961320' post='2199674'] I knew /someone/ was going to come in with this line. I hope you enjoy attacking FOK's friends and current allies, and putting yourselves into this situation. MK requested a treaty activation because we needed the support, which is quite clear if you look at your upper ranks in peace mode and the amount of offensive wars on us from those dropping out. I apologize to FOK for this, completely and truly. I apologize that you have been put into this situation, and I apologize that we needed to request your aid. There is no plot here. We needed the help, we asked for it. Unless honoring a treaty is now elawyering.. [/quote] Glad to see you prepared a response in advance. Smart thinking. You can try to call it however you want, but the fact is that you did not need their support. The outcome of the war will not be changed by the fact FOK who was in a prolonged nuclear engagement for a few weeks now, entering and this has absolutely no other use than to exert power. I hope you enjoy forcing people to go against what they believe is right. As a good ally MK could have asked FOK to focus on 5 other alliances and avoid TOP while other alliances focus on TOP. But no, it's better to force FOK to attack TOP directly and spit in 3 year relationship we had. Yes, we hit their ally, but we would never hit them or make them hit their own friends, no matter how much you shout it.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1266960947' post='2199655'] Yeah.. Please insult MK instead of FOK. I don't know how, but I'm sure you can find something. FOK is honoring their treaty with their ally, after you launched attacks on them that clearly went against any friendship that you had with FOK. I can find it reasonable that TOP is upset that FOK attacked them, but realize that you put yourself into this position the second you attacked their treaty partner. You knew this could happen, yet you went ahead with it anyways. Don't let your emotions get the better of you, and let posts such as LM's regarding the situation help you understand what is going on here. In terms of FOK not having to do this, read the treaty. Its pretty clear as to what their responsibilities are in a situation like this. You put yourselves in this situation with your attacks. FOK didn't do anything but honor their treaty to the letter. I can respect that this upsets you, but understand that they are not happy about it either for the most part, as is evidenced by the majority of their posts. [/quote] I pointed out that you intentionally put them in a bad position by requesting and activation when it is not really needed. Like you did to NpO as well (and possible some others too, I didn't pay attention really). As a counter example, TOP did not ask to activate treaties that would put our allies in bad positions. One example are our MHA, Umbrella and AO treaties. All three alliances are fighting on the other side, and even while we were bandwagonned aggressively without a CB by some alliance (from top of my head TJO) we did not even consider to activate the treaty. Knowing it would be highly disrespectful and clear elaywering them into a bad spot.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='23 February 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1266959013' post='2199556'] Attention everyone: If TOP really did aid alliances at war with FOK then you effectively already declared war on them so talk of this horrible betrayal is both hypocritical and misguided. You also should have considered FOK before declaring on MK if you really cared about that friendship. Seriously, get over yourselves. [/quote] Why hello there my almost bill locked target . To all TOP members. Please don't attack FOK for this Declaration of War. I have checked with FOK high government and the truth of the matter is that MK requested a treaty activation from FOK, and given their interpretation they had to honour it. It does however bring up the question exactly how does MK treat their allies. Requesting treaty activations which put their own allies in a really bad spot (remember NpO activation MK requested and now this) does not seem like a smart way to keep their own relations strong. On other hand, it may be exactly engineered to destroy any remnants of old relations and further divide and conquer. In which case TOP members don't buy into it. I really hope MK enjoys elaywering FOK to attack their friends and former allies, in a situation where you cannot have a bigger advantage.

Happy birthday Oblivion! [img]http://www.enjoyfrance.com/images/stories/france/news/nuclear-explosion.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Krack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1266630711' post='2192764'] FARK had an aid drive once. The goal was to get it's smaller nations inflated so they could slip into Sanctioned status. It worked; they got sanctioned. It also set the alliance as a whole back six months, imho. There's a natural progression to any successful alliance in this game. And part of that progression is that the new nations sell tech to the larger nations until they are large enough to purchase tech regularly while still growing their nation properly. This is a necessary balance because if the larger nations can't buy tech, they can't defend the alliance as a whole - and wars (big wars) are fought and won at the top tier level. You aid the smaller nations into the lower-mid tier, then you dry up the available supply of tech, and your top tier can no longer grow militarily (without going outside the alliance). Your offer of cash is stupid and insulting. It actually insults your own membership more than anybody because it shows they just replaced one incompetent leader with a new incompetent leader. If their goal is to end the war, and you're their elected negotiator, and this is what you believe to be a reasonable offer likely to gain peace, then either you or your membership has failed (if not both). [/quote] Or you can actually aid your nations, grow them when they are making serious money and all the time buy tech from outside? There are plenty of sources. There is no need to hamstring your own members just so you can get more tech for your high end nations. I'm not sure what you mean by "inflating", if they burnt it on things that do not generate income ofcourse it's a stupid plan. If they utilized it in a proper way and actually created more income down the line it will pay off very quickly. TOP does it as I explained and I don't think we ever had issues with buying tech or growing our nations. You are hm, strange? if you think that aiding of your low end nations is not a good idea. I'll pass your compliment on my incompetence to my membership. I'm sure they will be really upset and disappointed over my obvious incompetence.

[quote name='Krack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1266628793' post='2192745'] Wait you mean that we have all of the nations that TOP damaged (you know, the ones that would be in the range of TOP's 8,000+ infra nations) getting nothing ... and simultaneously, the winning nations get to have their small nations aided out of tech selling range? This seems to good to be true!!!1!!* [/quote] Wait you actually keep your members down so they can sell tech? No wonder TOP grew faster than other alliances. We actually have development projects.

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='20 February 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1266625407' post='2192689'] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=34051]Well of course you would, and I'm frankly shocked that anyone with the ability to be reasonable could assert otherwise.[/url] [/quote] Do you want [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE"]old school[/url][/b] or something more [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idh1yr1SJNA"]modern[/url][/b]?

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 February 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1266621065' post='2192591'] Care to comment on what you'd consider reasonable reparations to be asked from your alliance? 50k tech? 100k? 200k? 500k? Some thoughts: [/quote] I don't want to comment publicly on this. I can however state that I would find much more reasonable reparations in cash so alliances can use it to rebuild.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 03:58 AM' timestamp='1266461882' post='2188671'] No, TOP keeps saying that its white peace or nothing. Would TOP government care to comment differently? [/quote] Yes, as Grand Chancellor I will comment differently. TOP is committed to achieving peace for everyone on our side. It is unlikely that white peace or no deal will achieve that, and we are open to discussions and talks. But we will not abandon anyone or switch sides in middle of the war.

[quote name='raasaa' date='19 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1266593591' post='2192045'] Is that by choice ?? [/quote] Yes, it's by choice. While I am not ignorant to our situation it does not change the fact that regardless of circumstances we won't leave until everyone else does.

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 05:06 AM' timestamp='1266552388' post='2191322'] Obviously it's been debated out here more than inside of TOP. I still can't believe you let Crym get away with going against Heptagon and authorizing the pre-emptive strike himself without their consent. [/quote] Avernite our Grandmaster is from Netherlands and I am from Croatia. Both of us were away when you posted this and it's only reason you did not get a response so far. First of all, what Crymson did and what Heptagon voted upon and whether he abused his position is a TOP internal affair. TOP as sovereign alliance does not allow external parties to interfere in our internal affairs. Personally I do not believe Crymson abused Heptagon vote but rather that it was a case of Heptagon trusting the government not to engage in attack of this sort. There can be few interpretations, one which says everything is legal and one which says Crymson abused his position. In any case it is up to our internal bodies to determine this, and really not your concern. Given that Crymson is not government member any more I do not believe this is an important point. Oh, and it was debated heavily on TOP forums. Anyone who knows us knows that we have great debates and discussions on pretty minor points, one such as this won't get passed over. [quote name='Myworld' date='19 February 2010 - 05:35 AM' timestamp='1266554120' post='2191417'] * Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States * Death Before Dishonor * Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations * DOOM [s] * Echelon[/s] * Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics [s] * Global Democratic Alliance[/s] * Global United Nations [s] * ICB[/s] * Independent Republic Of Orange Nations * Invicta * Menotah * Molon Labe * NATO [s] * North Atlantic Defense Coalition[/s] * Old Guard * Olympus * OMFG * SNAFU * The Foreign Division * The Legion * The Order of Light * The Order of Righteous Nations * The Order Of The Paradox * The Phoenix Federation * The Sweet Oblivion [s] * United Blue Directorate[/s] [s] * United Commonwealth Of Nations[/s] [s] * United Sovereign Nations[/s] * Valhalla * Veritas Aequitas * Zenith This is getting to be a very small list. Who's next to get off the battlefield and seek peace?[/quote] I can tell you who will be the last one off. The Order of the Paradox. We won't leave before everyone on our side gets peace.

Please don't discuss whether the preemptive attack was right or not. It was debated to death in 10 other threads and let's leave this to the topic at question. For everyone wondering why I haven't responded to your questions, in Novada night fell long time ago and I am going to sleep. Good night. Paradox Vult! [img]http://ordoparadox.com/top/style_emoticons/default/TOPpatriot.gif[/img]