Jump to content

General Scian

Members
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by General Scian

  1. Taking off the King Penchuk costume for a moment... Can you honestly fault MCXA in the slightest for not liking you? Honestly? And besides, dislike does not equate to having some sort of desire to start conflict.

    -Bama

    You know I was going to say something along those lines... but decided not to meddle in affairs that didn't concern me.

    At any rate, the point is, I can't believe we are on the same page... I need to go shower.

  2. Down with TOP... oops wrong topic >_>

    Congrats Kronos, next time you may find an alliance with half a brain... I wouldn't be counting on TOP though

    If you guys keep up this foolishness, of finding bad allies, I'll have to ask MCXA if I should go rogue on you

    <_<

    Is an alliance not having a brain a good or bad thing? Are you implying they don't think? Because I'd imagine give their history they think things through quite well. That they aren't smart? They are the number one alliance in the game right now. And furthermore, how can you classify an entire alliance by a trait like either of those? Your comment just really makes no sense at all.

    Going by your standards, Kronos should treaty with these guys: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance...nce=The%20Brain

    Get it? It's a play on context. hehehe.

  3. One might say that those that chose the stronger side as soon as it was clearly identified, even if they did it before the start of JD's arbitrary limit of five days, are more "survivalist" than those that tried to the last to help all of their friends and to avert the conflict (eventually being rejected and ill-treated by the side they finally decided to leave to its destiny).

    Fun facts: the timeline of treaty cancellations is a very rough criterion to determine the reasons behind said cancellations.

    Aye, agreed 100%. What makes an alliance that cancels a treaty 6 days prior to a war more justified then one that cancels the day before? Especially in a situation such as that stated by the esteemed gentleman I quoted here.

    Oh well. I guess watching people get upset because their alliance isn't the most "survivialy" is fun to. New version of the word "survivalist" by the way.

  4. Why do people use online dictionaries for political debate? They contain absolutely no nuance in their definitions and are often almost completely wrong. The word you have been looking for is not hegemonic, it is imperialist. Imperialism is the action of seeking to obtain hegemonic control over another state. Removing an unfriendly ruler and placing a friendly one in power so as to gain influence or control over a country is imperialist, not hegemonic.

    For this action to be imperialist, you need to demonstrate that Tito was anti-VE before he was removed and that VE has somehow arranged for the new elections to replace the old anti-VE government with a pro-VE one in order to control the alliance. Absolutely none of that has been demonstrated, and even if it had been, it would still not be hegemonic.

    VE is the new British Empire.

    o/ Imperialism

    Now... this doesn't look like anything I have any say on... so toodles.

    o/ OV. Good luck.

  5. Man =LOST= is going on a FA blitz. Congrats to both. :)

    Makes you wonder how much their new friends are really friends. Or if they're meat shields for the upcoming war. [/speculation]

    I'm Ron Burgundy and you heard it here first, MK is the New New Pacific Order.

×
×
  • Create New...