berbers

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1299549272' post='2656069'] I don't consider our CB to be 'flimsy', though there seems to be some disagreement on this across CN. Attacking someone for spying on you is [i]use[/i] of power, not abuse. If you've actually been reading the boards instead of trying to score cheap points you'll see that at no point have I supported the attack on NPO. But even there, it's Doomhouse's own power that they're abusing, which while not a good thing is still better than abusing someone else's power. I don't believe that the CSN's strength, such as it is, was a major factor in the decision to go to war with Polar. PB's strength, yes; [b]we're not suicidal and do take strength into account before taking action on a CB, however good it is.[/b] The use of quite a bit of PB's strength on another front changed that somewhat and did bring SF into play on the Polar half of the war, but (obviously) the decision to go in had already been made before then. [/quote] Oh, funny thing I thought there was some tie between doomhouse and PB, now what could it be...hrmmm, oh yeah, you guys share two members in common. So when I said PB was abusing their power, I think you just agreed with me. Considering that most alliances would have solved the issue diplomatically unless they had an overwhelming advantage to prosecute the war, I believe that would qualify as abuse of that overwhelming advantage. As to the bolded part, I like it! It's very strategically sound, even if it does suggest PB's collective testicles are cowering up in your body cavities and only drop when you outnumber your opponents drastically. One example of course being PC/iFOK when faced with odds that weren't so stacked in their favour. (NEW war)

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1299579867' post='2656576'] That's a shame, they'd been around for a while too. [/quote] Oh wow, forced disbandment talk, threats of EZI/PZI, this thread has it all! Here's how I see it: Considering Doomhouse can just randomly attack anyone they feel like whenever they feel like it, what's the point of adhering to terms? They can just wait a few months after this war and attack CD anyway, just because CD didn't put "enough effort" into bootlicking. So good luck CD, better to go down swinging with your allies than get picked off for some imagined slight in the future.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299548506' post='2656050'] Well then he should have no problem losing all of his infra. And all of his tech, over and over, to MK after the war. [/quote] That reasoning certainly turned out well for NPO in the long run...

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299547297' post='2656021'] Pardon me, but the Commonwealth did what we did by the might of our own nations and those of our direct allies. Never at any point did we attempt to use Pandora's Box as leverage in any way, why would we need to? If you want to share some of the responsibility go ahead, but you really had nothing to do with it. On a related note, refusing to surrender when you are beaten is not honor, it is foolishness. [/quote] Didn't you guys lose a couple million NS? I guess that was just corporate downsizing since it was obviously PB's NS that you were using to fight with.

[quote]I've always suspected that some of you were waiting to [b]abuse[/b] any [b]power[/b] that eventually came your way, and we're seeing that now.[/quote] Wow... Aren't you involved in a huge demonstration of abuse of power as we speak right now? Flimsy CB's, unequal firepower and from what I understand from your PB friends, GOONS and Umbrella, reps on an unforseen scale? I keep a kettle here for just such an occasion.

[quote name='Pyroman' timestamp='1299545501' post='2655982'] With terms, broken or not, there is nothing we can do to change the perceptions of MHA/Umbrella and co. who feel that we violated them. You guys are bigger and have more fire power, therefore you are automatically "right" in everything that you do. How hegemonish of you MK. And if we lose I fully expect surrender terms with reps of hegemonic proportions. Good job Hegemony. I have but one thing left to say to you: [b]FRIENDS > INFRA[/b] [/quote] well said.

I just don't see why PC is being so obtuse with it's "no equal peace treaty clause" that it won't just sign a peace treaty without anybody surrendering. I don't think PC is being fair to it's allies by holding up that entire front of the war, especially when MK needs more people to dogpile NPO. For shame PC, your eventually going to peace out anyways, why delay the inevitable?

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1299537117' post='2655814'] Are you sure you really see that on PBs end in regards to GOD or SF as a whole? Or are you referring to Bob's post, an individual who has long been recognized for speaking his own opinion. Be careful not to generalize. [/quote] Just assuming I go dig through 4-5 threads to find examples of nations in PB insulting SF, would you do anything other than say "that's individual member's opinions". Because if that's the case, I'd rather save myself the effort. Now if you say that if I find evidence you will apologize on behalf of PB, then it might be worth it

SF came into this war mostly on the side of PB/CnG/DH and are now getting insulted by those same people on the OWF. I mean PB/DH have two extremly terrible CB's and the majority of SF went along anyways due to frienship and treaty obligations, and now you repay the favour by insulting them? RV I can understand, he spews vitriol like an ur-vile (that's right, dropped a Thomas Covenant bomb right up in this !@#$%*), but to see MK and VE members jump into his thread like this is shameful.

How come people are lining up to state how honorable NoR is when they obviously peaced out early in a fight they could have gotten there asses handed to them in. Then they turn around and jump on an alliance that's already overextended because of what exactly? An oA clause in a secret treaty? Now I'm not saying they haven't done honourable things in the past, but come on... This was a cowards move to get a few licks in on NPO when they couldn't fight back. Stop whining about all the past injustices, as had you not been cowardly boot lickers, you could have attacked NPO long ago without waiting for them to be at war for a month with some of the strongest AA's in the game. Nordreich: Peacing out of tough battles and dogpiling on bloodied alliances since 2011.

Ok...division in the commie-verse! Let the purges and icepickings commence!

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,    For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,    You will find it better policy to say: -- "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,    No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame,    And the nation that plays it is lost!"

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1298973314' post='2647913'] I agree. There was a lot of posturing to show NpO, NPO, and their allies as the victims. Apparently you were all in cahoots and perhaps [b]MK should be given some credit for pulling a military coup? Much like NPO/allies used to do in order to gain victory in big wars.[/b][/quote] So MK = old NPO? Where's that really sappy Archon post that kicked off Karma when you need it...

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1298526414' post='2643592'] If you believe that a declaration against one Doomhouse alliance constitutes a declaration against its other MDoAP partners within Doomhouse, then it must surely follow that Doomhouse's original declaration against NPO constituted a declaration against its other MDoAP partners. This means that Doomhouse's allies are incorrect to activate MDPs in support of Doomhouse alliances. [/quote] Your logic has no place in this thread! Back to our regularly scheduled program of DH going full retard.

o/ TFD Here's to 4 more years of fighting side by side with you sexy beasts!

[quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1298329709' post='2641039'] Its true I walk in, ask who's winning the war, and they say they are. [/quote] Their alliance name is Ragnarok, I'm pretty sure as long as they are taking and giving casualties it's a winning situation for them. See Systemfailure for more information.

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1298328481' post='2641021'] Hard Route = defending an ally against an enemy with strong FA ties Easy Route = "errr we will like not let anyone else stomp NEW after these first 4 or so alliances... got it... we mean it... we really will step in maybe... ok we wont... lets just cancel on NEW ASAP" .... ok I better stop now before anyone calls me EMO, lets return to your intended programing where we all stare lovingly at Zooms enormous throbbing land mass. [/quote] Yeah my favorite part of this thread was then those PC guys were saying you took the easy route by attacking PC...lol.

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' timestamp='1298327195' post='2641005'] Ummm... you know Fark was three times larger than Poison Clan, right? [/quote] Exactly, you took the easy route by not attacking them. The hard route would have been attacking them... But thanks for the support...

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1298323287' post='2640952'] PC is evil. They forced RoK's 2nd largest nation to quit RoK. You are just as bad as the Hegemony!!!11!!! I know you are just trolling, but in this war we've seen an alarming trend of alliances on the losing side honor only parts of their treaties and gang-up on a very small target, already well covered. I think Airme called it the "iFOK maneuver". It's clear that this is the new way allies attempt look honorable and not lose a whole lot of infra. Which is a smart move. But were smart ends and cowardly begins is difficult to say. RoK picked what they thought was an easy target. Of course we know better and seeing RoK and PC's NS charts confirm that. So to say RoK is more honorable than PC is simply ridiculous. PC's performance this war has been amazing and their activity levels in wars are far better than most, even on our side. If you look at PC's front you would see that they were out-gunned facing several opponents. One of which, RoK, had no counter-attackers. RoK alone was bigger than PC at the start of the war. So, but purely NS numbers, PC was on the 'losing side' of it's front and clearly is winning now. RoK on the other hand joined in knowing they wouldn't get countered most likely and would have the NS advantage. They thought they could pull a fast one with conflicting treaties and now are losing. Don't know what you call that other than poor performance and the illusion of honor. [/quote] Umm, I constantly, constantly hear your side of the treaty web blather on about how the upper tier wins wars. RoK attacked an alliance with a larger upper tier and a much higher avg NS than them. Ergo, they attacked an alliance with higher military capabilities as well as putting themselves on the receiving end of the curbstomp. They could have chosen the easy road and been like "derp, NpO's spying was aggressive, derp" and bandwagoned in with GOD. But. They. Didn't. (New meme?) They chose the hard route, much harder than PC's route in the NEW conflict. So saying they chose the "Easy" target makes no sense, since they could have avoided this whole thing and attacked some micro alliance through an MDoAP. Edit: For clarity

[quote name='citizenkane' timestamp='1298321726' post='2640916'] Read: this argument has been used and argued against so many times it's unreal. PC didnt engage Fark because there would have been no point in doing so, it would have put our other allies in a harsh position. RoK, however, went totally against their supposed 'side' of the treaty web and attacked an alliance which would otherwise now be engaged in supporting their OTHER allies, such as Umbrella / GOONS / VE in their fight against NPO/NpO. RoK would also be supporting their superfriends allies, such as CSN, against DT if they hadnt chosen to hit PC. Instead of looking at the bigger picture here, RoK has chosen to take this opportunity to settle some imagined personal vendetta that their government has against PC. Stop.trying.to.re-write.history [/quote] Umm thanks for making my point, MDoAP > Treaty Web for RoK, but that nice comfortable spot in the middle of the strongest point of the web is great for PC and they wouldn't want to go out on a limb for an ally to jeapordize that position. I mean you gotta admit, bucking an entire side of a treaty web to stand up for an ally you feel was mistreated is pretty damn honorable. Of course the inverse of this, letting an ally get rolled because you "don't want to start a global war of no use" or "we didn't want to put our allies in a bad position." is not honorable.

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' timestamp='1298313192' post='2640780'] Defending NEW by official Poison Clan declaration would have spun off a global nuclear war that had no positive results. [/quote] Read: Bawwww, the odds aren't stacked so we don't go. Edit: RoK jumped into a losing war on behalf of an ally, by itself. You did not. Agree, disagree, e-lawyer, don't e-lawyer, RoK has balls the size of canteloupes and yours have retreated up inside where it's safe and warm. o/ RoK

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1298308321' post='2640706'] Rok is only at war with Poison Clan. They were at war with SLCB but that front was closed. [/quote] If you subtracted the RoK nations that weren't in range of PC nations, you'd be getting pretty close to RoK being outnumbered. RoK's avg NS going into this was what, 24K and PC's was what, 40-50?

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1298308657' post='2640717'] LOL You definately don't know the story morning glory... [/quote] Oh silly me, I must have missed the part where PC actually fought on NEW's behalf...

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1298303428' post='2640635'] Yeah I call that stupidity. I expect ROK will be all alone once the dust settles. [/quote] Oh I am pretty sure there will be many things to come out of this war, but this isn't one of them.

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1298299341' post='2640600'] Someone doesn't know what he's talking about. [/quote] Sure I do, 1) PC bailed on NEW when the stats were not in it's favor. 2) PC jumps in on aggresive "war" when stats are in it's favor.