AmbroseIV

It was fun, as always. Definitely closer than it appeared... baka's not parading around anywhere near enough, though — need to fix that and up the stakes for next year.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1352959220' post='3052683'] I have always liked R&R, will likely always like R&R. Congrats on 6 years and may you have 6 more o/ Cept that bambi guy... he makes me uncomfortable in all the ... wro... right... areas [/quote] [img]http://i.imgur.com/JJYMz.png[/img] (At least, I hope it's a good thing)

Too long, do it again. >_> ... I mean: happy birthday to us, and thanks to everyone who's been involved with R&R in some way over the past six years!

I don't like the way I'm being objectified

Well overdue, and I look forward to baka's impending humiliation

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348225922' post='3032706'] Feign concern? are you kidding me? I am not concerned about GATO one iota, dont take the wrong way, I love them, there is just nothing to be concerned about. Nor do I want to undermine GATO-TIO. GATO are well aware that I think 90% of TIO are complete and utter crap. Sadly, there are about 6 members of TIO that I think are fantastic folks, its just too bad the bulk of them are pretty clueless. They try so hard to be a big fish in a big ocean. Almost too hard. It comes across as pathetic at times. It has been my opinion of them for a long time, if you find someone in GATO who is not aware of this, then they are someone who has paid no attention to me (and that is probably a PLUS for that person, cuz as you can tell, I tend to ramble alot). [/quote] That is great, and I say that without a hint sarcasm — it's a good that you have faith in them 'n everyone understands that they have an ally you don't like and people can live with that... but my point was more about hypocrisy and the extent you'll go to in order to manipulate the public perception. You might think it's fine, but most alliances don't like when other people talking about their issues (big or small) in public — it hurts that little bit more when allies start doing it too. And yes, you do ramble a lot.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348224085' post='3032690'] So then, you admit that your screenshots did not prove what I said they would not prove? Class act, standing up and admitting you not only failed to answer the gauntlet with the topic at hand, but you showed an amazing amount of class and tact to your allies in GATO by spinning off a completely different subject, Be proud sir, Im sure your gov is proud of you. [/quote] I'm near certain that GATO wouldn't be happy that an ally shared those screenshots with the world, because it undermines the integrity of their bloc, but I'm similarly certain that they wouldn't appreciate you feigning concern for them so that you have an excuse to do something similar — create a siege mentality within C&G and attempt to drive a wedge between GATO and TIO by making the latter look like a bad guy. If you were really so concerned (and I know, we spoke about this with LSF and INT... almost like history repeats) I really don't think you would be so eager to place greater emphasis on the issue and undermine the relationship between GATO/TIO so that you can divert attention away from C&G. Yes, yes — Charles started it... but it's all too rich for you to imply it's a bad thing and then talk it up so GATO turn on Charles/TIO. The way you defend your own interests is impressive, but you seem to have very little respect for your allies... or, at the very least, haven't considered that they don't need you to publicly highlight and promote issues they might have with their other allies.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222260' post='3032665'] You are right, INT were not secretive about, they are not secretive about it to this day. But the insinuation was, that their SS's showed a promise (I didnt use the word promise, Hereno did when he 1st alluded to C&G renegging on a promise to hit NoR to save LSF after MK-SF ended). People alluded to SS's existing that prove a promise was made. My challenge was to show a SS showing a C&G PROMISE to LSF to hit NoR. Instead? What do we get? SS's that show nothing of the sort. At the very least, posting these SS's was in por taste, as they did not prove what was said by Hereno, which precipitated this entire line of dicussion.. that C&G promised to save LSF after the MK-SF war, then renegged on it. Keep ignoring it, and soaking up the drama. [/quote] Okay. You win, Rush — you are completely right. You have successfully weathered the storm by disproving that C&G had any intentions of taking out NoR immediately after SF/XX were disposed of, and abated any/all criticism of C&G as a result. Congratulations. If only, right? I wasn't soaking up the drama, I was subtly suggesting that you sound ridiculous and that if you ceased posting it would probably benefit C&G a great deal more — to not have someone perpetuating the debate over something stupid and inviting people to be critical 'n dish as much dirt as possible. You've picked one half-correct statement to harp on about for being incorrect, while it wasn't a ridiculous assumption to make given how eager INT were, as if that's a battle/debate you could win... but the end result is that it undermines C&G more than it would have if you just left things alone.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348220524' post='3032647'] So he, failed to deliver on his gauntlet, and all he did was make public some C&G knowledge that blackens the eye of his allies in GATO [/quote] Beyond saying it just to fire GATO up and have them react to the criticism of C&G, perhaps even try to turn them against TIO, why would you imply GATO have anything to be ashamed about? They're not featured in those screenshots and a lot of people seem to be saying poor GATO for being associated with C&G. INT weren't very secretive about expecting to take NoR out, whether C&G promised it or not — you're arguing semantics (people knew what INT wanted and people assumed that C&G would support them whatever happened, it's common sense to expect there would have been some C&G dialogue about it or else INT would have never deluded themselves) and undermining a relationship held by one of your allies... it's the exact opposite of saving face.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348189801' post='3032519'] Im not mad at all my old friend. But you are 100% completely wrong in suggesting that there was ever any sort of plan or promise to save LSF after the MK-SF front shut down. It really is that simple, you are wrong, and that did not happen, and no level of access that you could attain could make it be true. [/quote] INT were definitely under the impression there would be — to the extent that Trot promised he would resign if INT didn't get a shot at NoR and that there's been an exodus of some long-time INT members because things never came to fruition. People must've got their wires crossed... or silly INT for assuming too much, eh?

[quote name='Dre4mwe4ver' timestamp='1344142645' post='3018724'] R&R, you are a uniquely spectacular group of individuals, and have been an absolute pleasure throughout the past weeks. I am humbled to know you, and proud to have fought you. [/quote] Cheers, and likewise — it was a fairly pleasant and entertaining war. We'll have to do it again sometime. [quote name='der Rote Baron' timestamp='1344152139' post='3018767'] Worthless war, but respect to Finnish Commie... the only upper tier RnR ruler who left PM long enough to take his lumps like a man. Respect o7 [/quote] You might not have fought them, but a third of our upper tier took their lumps in this 'worthless war' — FC just made the mistake of rebuying infra 'n getting blown up again... and again. Children starve in Africa while FC farms casualties... he doesn't deserve your respect.

Laslo — I know what you're getting at... but given some in TLR/GATO claimed NATO couldn't possibly have hit MK without thinking NPO would protect them, I think it's more than likely that we were hit by C&G to prevent INT winding up in an even more difficult position at least as much as it's a result of other people's good intentions. Not to say it's a bad thing, but... I can't see how it wouldn't've been a consideration by some parties given the political maneuvering in the lead-up. [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1342362919' post='3010471'] It was nothing to that effect. Change 'day before' to 'minutes before' and the picture becomes clearer, and if we had decided to stop and not attack, you'd be in this thread giving us !@#$ for that too. And yes, going balls to the wall and hitting the people hitting GOD with every nation we have was absolutely in spite of GOD, clearly. [/quote] [i]I[/i] haven't said anything negative about VE in public, and I doubt any R&R members have either — I actually thanked VE for putting up a spirited fight earlier in the thread and have zero interest in trying to undermine the relationship our allies hold with other alliances. One set of standards because I wouldn't want them to do the same to us, so any problems are for you and GOD to solve. Although I did try to be somewhat objective and explain why people are upset, implying that it's nothing new and not worth continued attention. That you leapt in head-first to dispute an observation from earlier and continued the public !@#$%*-fest about how ungrateful SF are... doesn't help at all and just shows how some members of VE/SF are trying to score political points over personal dislikes — it works both ways and you're one of the people who gives everyone else an excuse to complain further.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1342341740' post='3010440'] The only reason for SF/GOD to ask VE to hit MK or NG is so that VE could be used by SF to do damage without counters from Umb/GOONS/Deinos. In other words, VE was asked to be a horribly ally, and offense was taken when VE refused. [/quote] Not to be too ungrateful (at least we're fighting people we're friendly with and who aren't unreasonably hostile), but R&R being attacked by two C&G alliances was no doubt, in some part, intended to prevent INT from helping us against someone else and complicating the war - politics is a business and if that's what VE were asked... what's good enough for one side to take advantage of should be good enough for the other. It's nothing new and increasingly unavoidable in order to keep control of a war, so it doesn't deserve more attention in this instance just because parts of SF/VE dislike each other and one party didn't have any anything to gain by assisting the other. That said, there was a comment earlier in the thread where someone from VE stated "we were asked not to attack NPO the day before, but with everything ready to go we decided to do it anyway" (or something to that effect) - not hard to see why some people think VE were acting in spite of GOD whether it's an accurate view or not.

I know this wasn't an easy decision, but R&R couldn't be more grateful for your support. Enjoy your peace.

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1342114233' post='3009242'] It's hilarious to see SF/XX pissed off because they couldn't use VE like Polar used their allies in past wars . [/quote] Indeed, who would think something that happens [i]every[/i] war could still be funny? To clarify the pattern: surrendering parties who aren't at the center of the conflict are lauded by the victorious side because they're out of the fight and it's a polite gesture — a win-win situation. Meanwhile, the side losing out through the surrender are understandably bitter. Whether it's justifiable or not is another matter, but DH&Co. should know this better than most given the criticism of [s]tR this war and[/s] (okay, they deserved it) Mongols/TSA last war, all of whom (with no disrespect intended) were completely inconsequential for the broader war effort. That's even more hilarious, to be fair. VE would have expected it, as should anyone looking to surrender. It's arguably made worse by the circumstances and motivation — VE seemingly chose, against other options, to run head-first into a brick wall and they're receiving praise for it... but that's a debate I don't really care to be involved in; they can make their own decisions. It was an interesting sideshow to the main conflict and a spirited fight — congrats to all.

Free beer for life, smontag. For [i]life[/i]. Have fun, guys!

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341489349' post='3003883'] The denial is ridiculous. You were asked to play Q-B3 and you castled instead, big deal. You know what else? Its 100% ok that you played treaty chess. Everyone does it. Everyone also denies doing it, and its really quite silly. War is about making life hard for the enemy, and tbh, you did that, successfully. I dont begrudge you for what you did, I would, and have, done the same things. But if you REALLY expect to believe that conversation of "lets see if we hit MK, nobody can conceivably counter us because C&G does not want to push NPO to the other side" did not happen in some way shape or form, then your leadership is 1 of 2 things: 1) disingenuous (which is OK, we are on opposite sides, you have no obligation to be genuine) or 2) Incompetent. Ironically, Im giving you credit for NOT being incompetent. [/quote] Your disbelief that anyone could be motivated by [i]anything[/i] other than pure politics is noted, but you're still wrong. They're not on your side — sorry. They didn't have [i]any[/i] expectations in terms of support and you over-thought their involvement — sorry. I'm going to call BS on your assertion that you would have done the same thing... simply because you've been talking down the need for anyone to help LSF over the past couple of weeks — this isn't to redirect to INT or anything like that, just an observation about your current attitude and priorities. If you had a choice between sitting on your hands and waiting for victory to come to you or being proactive in supporting an ally on the losing side of a conflict, knowing it would still be a loss as in this scenario, don't pretend you would take the latter option. That said... you're being overcritical at best and trying to diminish the NATO/NPO relationship, by wrongly stating that NATO were using NPO, at worst. You have different priorities to NATO (maintaining political relevance vs. loyalty? evident by their support of NPO over the past three years, RoK over the past few months and R&R this war, at least) and so it's not even a matter of incompetence. They aren't heavily invested in the political game like TLR, but nor are they removed from it and they present as the best allies any alliance could hope to have — they're not people who will [i]ever[/i] screw you over to save themselves, for better or worse. So: stop trying to push NATO into a corner by only giving them a choice between using NPO or being incompetent. If you had a single shred of respect for them you'd instead give them credit for showing consistent loyalty and answering honestly. You think of self-preservation as avoiding a loss; NATO think of self-preservation as refusing to sacrifice their own integrity and principles — acting bitter about that doesn't do anything to help you.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1341458665' post='3003755'] But do not pollute the reality with rubbish like that sentence, for Admin's sake, man up and admit you were playing treaty web chess. [/quote] I can see how you might infer that, but you're being too cynical. NATO pledged to support us however they could, but when R&R was countered by GATO/TLR... they weren't going to be forced into hitting any of NPO's direct allies. They declared on MK because it was the only viable and least conflicted path they saw to support R&R — it was a decision made independent of anyone outside NATO/R&R government and, actually, with the expectation that someone [i]would[/i] be willing to counter them (I think we were all hoping for GOONS... who wouldn't?) and that NPO wouldn't be a factor given their numerous ties to the other side. So... to imply that NATO made a manipulative call couldn't be more wrong.

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1341417480' post='3003413'] Well when your blocs are known for shooting themselves in the foot, you can't really blame anyone for saying you probably don't know what the $%&@ you're doing. [/quote] I'll cop that (as should anyone who's been in two consecutive losing wars, though there's a line you have to walk between insulting us and giving DH credit) but for his predictions on PB and his understanding of this war... and everything in between, it seems like a fair call to say that your Pilot doesn't know what he's doing either.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1341324684' post='3002511'] I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is a pathetic attempt by SF to punish INT for not being with R&R on this conflict. [/quote] This reminds me of CNIB the other day; when you were asked what you thought XX/SF were doing by hitting MK. You laughed, said you had no idea and that we probably had no idea either... just for AirMe to say "nah, I think they're avoiding allies and chaining more alliances into the war" which was true enough at the time. Keep up the good work — I enjoy your creative take on things. [quote name='alyster' timestamp='1341328197' post='3002540'] No it was SF's idea to use Valhalla to attack INT the moment INT defended LSF. This is the reason your miserable side still clings onto the petty LSF war. [/quote] Yes, it would have been in SF/XX's best interests for a war to erupt between C&G/DR... but we spent the week before the NoR/LSF conflict came to the OWF (while it was still simmering) guaranteeing NATO/INT that we would fulfill all obligations to them, so you're stretching a bit far. R&R didn't have any desire to fight DR and Trot's right when he says XX/SF prefer to fight a war against the people who're constantly working to undermine us, but it didn't look likely to work out that way. It'd be more accurate to say that people cling to the LSF conflict because DH/C&G were forced into a (real or exaggerated) act of desperation and they can smell blood — a mess of your own making... though I guess it ties in with the "we'll orchestrate our own downfall" rhetoric.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1340693126' post='2996977'] Expected. NPO has issues with GOD, GOD declares on someone who has a treaty with NPO. NPO declares. The shock is interesting. I hope people can move on after this since it'll be a bit much to shape politics around a small alliance, whatever size GOD is after this. [/quote] [quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1340693338' post='2996980'] Exactly. It's interesting that people on both sides still feign ignorance about these things, as if this was an unexpected result. Yes, we were aware you would counter if we hit NG. You were aware that we were aware of this. We defended our ally and now you're defending yours. I've lost track now of how many times we've fought one of the Orders. [/quote] Indeed. In contrast to the overall announcement, some of the surprised individual responses are... well, surprising. Here's to a good fight. [quote name='dejarue' timestamp='1340697173' post='2997025'] I assume that if anyone hits NATO, there will be no backing from NPO. [/quote] NATO shouldn't be brought into this argument; they put themselves out there to support R&R and deserve more respect for that. That they haven't been countered is likely testament to the fact that NPO would have, in fact, had their back.

Starting to get sidetracked, but... [quote name='Captain Spock' timestamp='1340662130' post='2996222'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97513"]I'm not sure CSN declaring war over fake logs on GATO's blocmate helped.[/url] [/quote] I think it might be more accurate just to say there's [i]still[/i] bad blood following the GATO/CSN split and it's popular to hate GOD at this point in time; the worst I've heard from GATO about GOD is that they were a bad influence on CSN. I'd be surprised if it was more than just holding a grudge because it's convenient. Honestly, when other alliances who could claim some genuine grievances (Echelon? RoK/MA keeping them at war for ~3 months just... because they could?) aren't obsessive and abusive, a lot of the complaints that get pushed around by other parties look extremely petty — they're politically motivated, but people pretend it's personal... for credibility?

[quote name='Silent Spectre' timestamp='1340593906' post='2994981'] Thats a shame... a complete government overhaul is exactly what Sparta needs to return to former glory. [/quote] That's ironic.

Too many people are angsty - don't forget to have fun. [quote name='hobbies0310' timestamp='1340508591' post='2994045'] rofl sparta sucks lost first because these forums suck [/quote] The amusing thing is that you've given the very worst of Sparta (in Silent Spectre) a home in ODN. Let us all know how that works out, please.

[quote name='Garion' timestamp='1340445940' post='2993468'] Is this the LEO Resistance? O_o [/quote] In name, yes... but it's really more like some aged pensioner dressing up as Batman and going out to fight crime.