Walshington

Sincere apologies. Must... use... strength.. to stop... responding.

Sigh. I don't paint them as "not a treaty". I explicitly called them treaties: What I said was, we don't activate them. Right there, in black and white. ^ In response to you posting, as fact, this: So what you said was, no matter how much you thought on it, false. Really has nothing to do with ducks. Now let's let these nice people have their thread back.

I believe it -- one look at your avatar tells me you're loaded.

Typical Hitchcock posting methodology: 1. Post not-very-well-thought-out opinion as fact 2. Get corrected 3. Respond by changing the subject or making unrelated flip remark

Actually, SRA activated the exact same amount as Kashmir did during the Oculus war: 0 (In the same war, IIRC, the Limited Coalition activated CA, MInc, aNiMaLz as well as hiring a mercenary alliance.) The backbone of the Lawyers, Guns and Money Doctrine, as well as our Manifesto, has always been the following: Our allies are sovereign and are welcome to engage in whatever wars they wish and for whatever reason – the Red Asses, however, cannot be expected to support unwarranted wars of aggression, nor support foreign policy gaffes which are being justly prosecuted on the field of battle. We expect our own CB’s to be judged accordingly – we do not want to drag our allies into any war for a cause they do not believe in. So you see, SRA never activates treaties. Our allies do, based on their own desires. As do we -- everyone's eyes are wide open when the fight for us, or we for them. If they fought, it because they wanted to. It's why SRA didn't enter the Kaskus-MI6 war, and why we did enter the Kaskus-SL War. Not as reliable as the compulsion of an MD treaty, but much better at keeping your CB's honest. Pretty sure the paperless thing of Kashmir's works the same way -- PPO wasn't summoned, they showed up. Last Call wasn't activated, they showed up. My...er, vacation wasn't cancelled, I showed up. A beautiful thing, really. As far as due diligence is concerned -- no better CB than a grudge, in my opinion. Never rankles me, not even a little. Sorry for being a pecker face again, Gibs. Revisionism just kills me.

Typically, they are silent on the issue.

Not exactly sure what you are inferring, but Xanth never applied to MI6. Pretty sure Xanth and MI6 will both reliably testify that there was no love lost between them. Which, if true, would prove my point that he doesn't shy away from activity that would have such a result. This must involve the Knights of Ni issue with PPO -- yes, I was... on vacation. But I feel we may be hijacking the thread at this juncture.

Oh yeah, that one. Have vague memories of that -- again, my decision. Something didn't add up in that one either -- I do remember Xanth showing me logs in which he felt you were misrepresenting us to MI6 or your allies or something. The details escape me, it wasn't fear of Umbrella or Sparta or whoever. I tend to like the wars that escalate unexpectedly to jolt the guys who are planning the annual curb stomps. Although they usually seem to cut them off (Beer Guzzlers War, UCR-FAN, etc.) Something struck as as not Kosher about your set up. Must have struck others that way, too, because in no way were the Red Asses the lynchpin of that coalition.

Hey, look! I read the small print. Trouble with your theory is, Xanth wasn't running SRA at that point, I was. Although no love was lost between SRA and MI6 at that point (mostly just words and !@#$%*iness between the parties), it was my decision not to enter, not Xanth's. I don't typically enter wars over slights (or perceived slights, I guess, from Mi6's vantage), and as I examined your CB I couldn't quite be convinced that all the ducks were in a row. (I try to operate with CB's that won't rankle dear Schattenmann). As I recall, I was correct, although I tried to support you on the OWF as much as I could in the circumstances. Also, to be fair, I've known Xanth a long time, and I haven't seen him avoid a war, losing or otherwise, particularly when principle is involved (as was proven quite recently). Don't recall NEW being in the mix at all, although it seems someone else was -- it all seems so long ago now.

"Order upon Order" -- what some called the Disorder War.

What could have possibly been edited in this?

I'd let him nation sit mine. If you're taking a shot at why I shouldn't, you should explain. I'm not very IRC active at this point.

Yeah, I didn't get that either.

Not sure you were referring to any of my posts as tears, but if you were, let me remind you of your view on these "Polar Rollings" you refer to at the time you were experiencing them: People seem to confuse any sign of passionate discussion to be someone caring too much or shedding cyber-tears over stats or some other rubbish. I prefer to view it as actually engaging, contributing and forging a narrative that allows Bob to be more than a pig pen with feces written signatures on the walls . I also recognize that alliances by and large attract certain types of people and that the certain type of person that I am will never be compatible here or elsewhere with other certain types of people. That isn't hate, it is realism. People want to be loved by everyone, I prefer to actually like people I want to without regard for what they can do for me. I do not hate NG for example, I post regularly on their forums and engage them in the same manner they engage me. I like their leadership and many of their members, but they are not compatible with how I view Polaris and its values and goals. We are natural opposites to some degree, but we have far more in common than some alliances we are actually allied directly to. I don't like the fact that we declared directly on them this war, I really did want the appearance of an issue between our alliances to be put to bed. Alas we were asked to contribute where we are and so we are. To some extent appearances can be very deceiving at times. Please accept my comments as "passionate discussion" instead of tears. Natural opposites? Seems like you found your common ground. Seemed reasonable then, seems reasonable now. I think Polaris is very clear in the fact that we have lost this war. It is blatantly obvious to everyone. It was lost before a DOW was even posted. Even our ability to resist was compromised by the continual raids on our higher tier nations. The fact that you have been in similar circumstances on a number of occasions amuses me to no end. I will take every pleasure in the world when your alliance is placed into a similar position and be guaranteed I will piss on every comment you post in the exact same manner you have here, but possibly with a little more gusto as befits a goat eating troll such as myself. Or did you forget how the world turns Comrade? The fact that our higher tier has been completely destroyed, losing a years plus worth of tech importation means we will have to face a reality of being at a certain NS for the foreseeable future. If this result in some way surprises you then you are truly beyond redemption. Unlike Pacifica we have never sought to rule the world, but apparently those who don't understand us think that is the only option. Enjoy the bed you have made for yourselves but please don't get condescending about fate when yours is only the flick of a switch away. Well, if you can't beat's, join'em, eh?

Agreed that "you win some and lose some", but the past few beat downs have been pretty excessive. No, no -- I get that war is not fair, and everyone tries their hardest to win, but it has been pretty rare that wars are literally 50M NS to 2M NS (or whatever these last two have been). And yes, I remember when all of PB was arrayed against Kaskus -- difference was, that occurred after a few months of fighting when Kaskus just couldn't be put away. That wasn't really the case in these last couple, which began, were carried out, and ended as massively arrayed forces arranged to smash a much smaller opponent.

I would have to say that these are all pretty good posters. Whether you agree with them or not, there is generally substance and some insight or point of view beyond the "no yu" or random insults.

That is a more... frank restating of my second sentence, but TBH I haven't heard anyone (on the OWF, anyway) claim that anything else is true.

I would disagree. I mean, you're right in that he was bailed out in this war by Oculus and friends and thus was able to legitimately claim victory in this war (which, to his credit, I haven't seen him really crowing about on the OWF), I don't think he would have been "done" if Oculus hadn't entered. On Planet Bob, there is no occupation of defeated nations or alliances, and thus while one can be defeated militarily, mathematically, and in every other way, if one has the will to simply not surrender no matter what the circumstances, ultimate defeat can be avoided. Proven by Rukunu in his 8 year war against GOONs, Meth has made this strategy his stock in trade: never admit defeat. Not a recipe for alliance growth, but one for survival. I would also opine that Meth doesn't simply attack targets that have less support. His wars are largely driven by slights (or perceived) slights against him, which seem to happen just as often against larger alliances than smaller alliances. I don't believe alliance size enters into his calculus when deciding to go to war or not, nor does it inform his diplomatic efforts. I'm not painting him as a hero, here -- due to the lack of growth in his alliance, he really doesn't risk much, and at the levels he fights at, alliance size isn't as much of a factor as it is with other alliances. He is fully wondered, typically fighting much weaker nations, and has external aid sources -- it operates as more more of an insurgency than an alliance war. His allies typically operate in the same milieu. They don't typically win wars against larger opponents, but rather drag things on long enough that people tire of the effort it takes to deal with them and keep them down. A long way to say that while you can criticize Meth for a variety of things, only attacking alliances that aren't connected is probably not one of them.

Good to see this up. And that's a good looking' flag as well.

Good start. For maximum points, it really should be bigger and centered at the TOP of you announcement. #graphiclivesmatter

I haven't heard anyone blame you for my disappearance, but if they have, let me dispel that right here: the only entity responsible for Walsh the Beloved's disappearance is Walsh the Beloved. Although I'd submit my role as Caustic's conscience is every bit as important as my "poor man's Rogal Dorn" role.

That is definitely a good start, but not all of LN's wars have been the result of someone trying to roll them. When he feels slighted, Meth can be quick to abandon diplomacy and pull the trigger on a DoW.

You had me until the highlighted part. C'mon man, Oculus boasts arguably the most active and enjoyed propaganda team on Bob in Actor and Hartfw. (Although they have taken the last war off, which I chalk up to the serious nature of fighting for freedom and liberty.)

Regarding this as a joke thread until such time as a flag or official government seal appears in it somewhere.