IYIyTh
-
Posts
4,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by IYIyTh
-
-
You're all about to get BANG'd.
interesting decision.
-
Convenient that you suddenly grow a pair when it seemed like GOONS were finally on the losing side and that you'd have nothing to lose. Convenient that you abandon the Farkistanis who you claim to care about, and act as if you know better than they do how the GOONs view them.
Unfortunately for you, GOONS are not on the losing side.
Coward indeed. May you live forever.
lol while i agree they may not lose, they will not win.
-
NATO prove themselves both traitors and cowards. Betraying allies out of fear is NOT a valid reason.
define how you mean we're cowards in the above.
if any part of it was our unwillingness to be picked off the face of cn, save it.
-
GOONS was by far the biggest threat at any one time out of any WUT signatory imo.
they where trigger happy and could afford to be.
now that that time is over, bystanders are just weighing in on if they wanna see it again.
-
So really, what did MHA's apology achieve? In what way did it benefit Atlantis?
are you done yet? seriously.
-
If that what your treaty says, then yes. If you're not even willing to answer legitimate questions you might aswell admit defeat.
Protip: Don't sign treaties you have no intension of honoring and you won't look like treacherous cowards.
how can you ask me to admit defeat when you just pointed out the own insanity in your first point of your argument. i didn't think i would have to do it for you, but it seems you're being ignorant.
If NATO had attacked IRON, it would've been torn to shreds. Not to mention \m/ would've done nothing to our cause or maybe at best issue neutrality whilst we rode to ziville. You have to know when the piece of paper isn't worth the entire alliance being disbanded.
thus, the only comparison to this GW in my opinion is the same, although a slightly less unbalanced scale, with a little more complication. I've always liked some of those in \m/ . Mostly because they ganked quite a few of our members. It's nothing personal, but if your starting point is a complete fallacy then you have no business wasting my time at all.
-
The best path for Atlantis would have been to never get involved, given Atlantis had no treaties to honour.
But choosing the NpO side....this is total blasphemy. I do not believe that the NAAC People in Atlantis can approve of this.
This is a one in four great war. it's relatively even. All alliances are basically deciding whether they want stability or random zi's and constant change in political climate.
that's just my perspective. For an alliance to make an impact in a great war is a huge thing, especially for ones just starting to appear on the world political scene.
-
What......insanity.
What hypocrisy.
What lies, by the Atlantis leaders.
Maybe they're doing what they're appointed to do and taking the best possible course of action for their alliance.
Considering the alternative i'd say they did fine.
-
Please show me where in NATOs treaty with FAN it said if alliance X and Y attacks either of you and you have a conflicting treaty with alliance X you don't have defend each other from alliance Y.
So basically \m/ should've attacked IRON because NATO would've had to attack IRON.
right?
i'll answer what i want.
-
In the FAN war IRON declared war on FAN and NATO had no conflicting treaties with IRON, yet you did not defend FAN.
Your argument falls apart here.
any alliance that would've defended fan would've also been against the WUT, which means, against \m/.
...circular logic.
-
NATO had no problem with it in GW3. But, of course, with all the blustering from Polaris/GGA, \m/ PUT themselves in the position to cause a war.
What small, medium, large, or one-man alliances doesn't change anything. Treason is treason, regardless of who does it.
Oh, trust me, your inability to live up to your own word is definitely your problem. No one can force you not to be liars.
no problem with what in GW3? Medium alliances simply can not cancel treaties and save face like larger alliances preparing to attack them. This happens within days. most treaty cancellations and war declarations occur the second or an hour or so before the treaty expires per the endclause. Medium alliances can't walk up to gigantic ones and just go... "OH BY THE WAY WE'RE NOT YOUR FRIENDS ANYMORE" because then you upset them, and they eventually get peace, and remain in the game. It happens, always has, always will. I don't see anything treasonous going on other than deciding to honor one of our many conflicting MADPS. whether you like it or not is not our problem. I'm sure if we had done the opposite we would've received gripe from others. can't please anyone, nor should we try.
-
I think you also forgot about your MADP with \m/, but hey, you forgot about a lot of other treaties;
Or maybe they would've had faith that those alliances wouldn't put themselves in the position to be causing a great war. this is just the fallout from the medium alliances not being able to cancel treaties whilst the large ones cancel and declare war within a day. it always happens. not our problem. it's yours.
-
... you'd leave the alliance to which you were treatied to --
are you serious? really...come on now.
-
Oh yeah, I forgot, if say someone is trolling even when they are not their argument is automatically defeated. NATO failed to honor the MDP with FAN when IRON attacked them and NATO failed to honor their MADP MK and Fark tonight. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize the treaties NATO signs aren't worth the paper they are signed on, NATOs trackrecord speaks for itself.
Foremost, what the hell are you talking about? you're trolling a DoW thread, just like countless others. AMIRAI?
NATO had more than one conflicting MDP with FAN, and if you didn't notice, they got the crap kicked out of them. I think it was a wise decision, no? FAN brought itself into that position, and is completely irrellivant. Second of all, you have little knowledge of what went on between MK and NATO and i think it's best kept between our leaders, unless you're not allowed access to such... We have conflicting MADPS with FARK and MHA, which rather than stay neutral in conflict our government obviously sees a reason to be in, decided to enter. We didn't declare war on FARK. As for NATO, we have always done what any alliance would do in the situation. Did you expect us to be the only alliance to go down with FAN? seriously. get freaking real. Did you expect us to throw out eight or so treaties by entering the war on the UJP side, whilst our MOADP partner was on the other? Perhaps you're being ridiculous, I don't know. Our leadership hasn't led us astray yet, so I won't question them. Even if i would've preferred to stay neutral and rip up every treaty we had.
It's time to grow up.
-
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think NATO has your back if the s*** hits the fan?
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think speculation and trolling will do to help you win the war?
seriously, there's some cool dudes in MK, but it's time to take a shot and play some beer pong.
-
Exactly, and I suppose this is going to be the end of the game. Given the betrayals and hatred between the two sides, I'd find it highly unlikely for one side to surrender and stay around. The only outcome of this war is massive destruction followed by ~4,000 nations leaving the cyberverse, followed by the biggest power gap to ever be seen. I'm still trying to figure out who wins in that scenario.
actually i see it as a bystander as a substantial weakening or a renewal of rising alliances in the game.
Two orders and GGA are nothing compared to a complete WUT circle. that's just my opinion, but as you're seeing now, 20 million ns is easy to get out of the woodwork.
-
I'm tired of people crying. It's a game. to borrow your phrase " The lines have been drawn" .
-
interesting and beautiful.
-
as a bystander, i would rather see a broader political landscape rather than one that includes instant, random, zi's. I once had to bail a NATO member off of Goons's EoG list, and there was simply no concept of diplomacy involved. The world simply sees it as a time to remove that shadow of doubt. It's great for fun, but it's a constant slap in the face to other alliances. I see it as karma. This war was too great to stay out of, because too much weighed into its result. I look favorably upon our alliance's choice, not only because it seems wiser, but because it simply had to be done. To stay neutral would also bring upon roars of meaningless paper signing. This war has done away with that. This is the war to break up the southern web, and you're seeing it develop before your eyes. those slaps in the face surely will add up, i'm just sad to see \m/ and MK on the other side of the fence .
Let it Begin.
-
we have conflicting MADPS, one is not so public.
-
TO fking WAR BIATCHEZ
-
Anybody else think those two sentences look hilarious next to each other like that?
yes. lol. wow.
-
it's great to see that small-mediuim alliances will be playing a very large role in this war.
It saddens me to say....
in Alliance Politics
Posted
actually they would be obligated to join POLAR with NATO'S involvement.
they're staying neutral. what's tha trollin about?