Icewolf

People I like winning elections in an alliance I like. Like+like = doublepluslike. o/

I think we look for different things out of FPS. I prefer more technical combat. I disliked the HALO series because it was very much "BLAM BLAM BLAM" and not enough use of cover, use of teamwork etc etc. That and the tech you got to use was actually less than Battlefield 2, let alone Battlefield 2142. The original Rainbow Six was also quite good for that, the later one I played (can't remember which) less so but still good. I can't remember the quote, but in HALO a thousand crystal shards can pierce your body and you can still right an autobiography. In Rainbow six someone showing your friend a picture of a gun lands you in intensive care. Exaggerated, but in the original Rainbow Six it was absolutely one shot kill. Prolonged firefights meant you lost people.

No FPS is realistic. In World War I 70% of casualties were caused by artillery. That statistic has only changed with the serious addition of air power. I played with the battlefield 2 mod that was supposed to be realism, but not enough to get a feel for it. One thing I can say is that most gamers would hate a game were rifles are so inaccurate and tanks are so powerful. That said, there are some ways that modern warfare could be converted into something interesting to play. I kind of like the idea of playing a FPS through a level that contained the following classes of enemies; -Civilians (not to be shot at) -Rioters armed with molotovs and rocks -Insurgents armed with rifles and rocket launchers. Basically play the role of a soldier in such a city, having to decide what each person was and how to engage them. You could be part of a platoon sized unit equiped with rifles, grenades, riot shields and batons. That could make an interesting and challenging game.

My mother and brother once boxed me in during a race...love you say?

Flaming in 3...2...1...

We apparently live in an age where treaties cannot be cancelled because alliances are moving in different directions and one party comes to the conclusion that it cannot work out. There has to be a misconduct by one side, according to the logic here. So when IRON cancels a treaty for a reason that happens to involved a reference to another block, it can only be because we regard NPO as having acted in a very evil way by considering that block. Which means we must hate that block. Doesn't follow. I know some of you have agenda's to push. Magicninja and Rush Sykes (given neither of you are FA officials I will not tie your opinions to your alliances) are now broadcasting that they already knew IRON to be a bad sort and have a desire no doubt to justify that by assuming that IRON hates NPO and CnG and all their works because it then makes them the aggrieved party. Others just want to make a split between NPO and IRON because they are two of the most powerful players around, and not seeing any obvious wrongdoing from IRON towards NPO or NPO towards IRON they want to scream at NPO "SEE!! SEE!! THEY WANT TO BURN YOUR ALLIES." Which given we are still allied to their allies doesn't really make sense. But whoever lets sordid things like facts get in the way of good propoganda eh? The truth is IRON didn't, does not, and will not want to watch CnG get pounded. We didn't like it during the last war, and if it happens again (which I doubt will be in the near future) we are not looking forward to it. Clearly some in their number have a mild dislike towards us so we are unlikely to trade Christmas cards with those individuals, but we are still allied to and friends with The International so screwing over CnG means screwing over our allies. Given that isn't what IRON does I can only assume that others are projecting their standards onto us....make of that what you will. The truth of this matter is that we do not see a good future with NPO. Our paths are divergent and not likely to immediately realign. They accept that. We accept that. The examples in the OP are of us not working well together, not of us having a bitter dispute or completely misaligned goals or some great wrong that we are punishing with cancellation. It was just a sign that we do not work well together at this present time. We went down the road before of keeping a treaty that could not work well until a major wrong was committed. Seeing as so many have brought it up people should be aware of what that was. Was that a good idea? Did it end well for either side? Is it a practice to be encouraged? No. Should IRON tred the same path? No. That is all this is. We didn't work well together. Not "your goals are abhorrent to us." Not "you have betrayed us." Not "you are a great evil." Simply, "we don't work well together." I know that is a rare thing in this world, hence everyone assuming that we believe CnG must be destroyed at all cost because they are used to the idea that something must have been done wrong for a split. But that is not the case. To those on both sides trolling the other, you are like the "bros" that call the ex a hoe after an amicable break up...you are not helping and a great many of you I think are doing it not because you feel bad about the break up but because you disliked the ex. When quite frankly, I still expect to see NPO down at the bar on Friday night and hope to see them around plenty. Peace.

Your current mess is primarily the result of only 1 year in every 4 being a time when the US congress cares about governing, with the rest being spent caring about elections. The other fixes are basically minor compared to that.

The situations are not comparable. TOP was cancelled on because of serious grievances (which I do not want to rehash here-the past in the past), NPO has been cancelled because we do not see the relationship as having a good future, not because it has had a particularly bad past. Seriously, half an hour in this place and I feel like a deserve a degree in comparative citrus and pomaceous fruit.

The US is so undemocratic at the moment you could actually achieve both. I would suggest the following; 1) Make the presidential election a direct vote. No more electoral college 2) Make one chamber a Proportional representation election, and the other elected the manner of the current House of Representatives, with the districts redrawn by an independent panel to undo jerrymandering. 3) Move all elections to once every 4 years, on the same date. That would still lead to the US being more democractic than currently.

Stop describing GOONS-this thread is about IRON and VE.

The idealised peace had everyone but Umbrella withdrawing-so it wouldn't have wiped out CnG. This reperations fantasy is just that, a fantasy. It isn't even a good fantasy. If you are going to make stuff up it should at least include dragons.

For someone who is so expert on the past that their knowledge overrides what the rest of us puny mortals perceive as facts, I am amazed that you even have to ask questions of what happened in private conversations. What happened back then is really irrelevant. Things were said, some of it no doubt in anger or frustration that amounted to that. However it was a good long time ago and there really is no mileage in going over that again. Especially as someone as radiant and intelligent and knowing as yourself surely knows exactly what happened, and the CN wiki and the rest of us are merely imagining things and only your mighty intelligence can fathom the truth.

We don't run begging for help when micro's and sole independent nations get out of hand. We also don't need aid within the first week of war. Also we come out of wars in good enough shape with enough un-irradiated brain cells to have the good sense to check the wiki before making stupid claims about past wars. Whereas you seem to get knocked so hard that you forget the entire war.

GOONS is an alliance known for being a joke as fighters. Loud mouth jokes. They do a lot of it, but that is like saying Kirsten Stewart is a good actor because she has been in several films. It doesn't follow. But please, don't let anything as sordid and foul as facts get in the way of the Lord of Knowledge and Wisdom and his brilliant beacon of awesome,.

We hammered the alliaces we fought against. Not that a GOON would know much about warfare...how long before you run off to your bigger friends to rescue from your terrible propoganda effort?

Not sure what you are going for but I have it down as simply being wrong. Equilibrium, Dave, Grudge....we saw action in all of those. So thats 3/3 making your 2 of last 4 impossible.

Hail to thee of such bright vision. This is even brighter than your past statements. Even the light of the all the brightest stars in the great realm of reality is nothing to your glorious brilliance in piercing the murky greedy and guilt ridden heart of IRON.

No. Because that didn't happen. So because you think at some point in the future we could change our policy we definitely changed it during the last war and tried to make people fight for our reps? Yes....that IS the most logical way of looking at things. Clearly. So clear, that it makes the clarity of the air seem like an opaque block. You've shone a light so bright into our dark deeds that the sun is but the faintest star in the sky by comparison. Hail to thee that has such clear and bright vision.

1) IRON had the 2nd highest aggressive slot usesage. Only the Grand Lodge of Freemasons beat us. Your implication that IRON did not fight hard is laughable. (not saying others did not also fight hard, merely that any accusation of IRON fighting a lacluster war is a joke) 2) IRON has stated many times in public that we do not take reparations. We never asked for nor received them. There were enough proposed terms leaking around the world before peace and none of them made any mention of IRON reps. Your propoganda is really quite terrible.

I am saddened to see this day

It won't because the US political system punishes that. (As does the UK system, but in a different way). You have at most 1 year in 4 when you can do that and not face being shredded in a re-election campaign.

Compensating for our lack of Rush Sykes approval.

I raise my glass to VE for a new formalisation of good relations.

The US government suffers from the fact that the Balance of Powers requires compromise. This creates a problem that the definition of a compromise is that it is about right when everybody is equally unhappy. Coupled with elections every two years and ridiculously long campaigns for them, you have an ungovernable country. Seriously. The US presidential election cycle lasts about 18 months. Mid term elections about six months. That means of a 4 year term, 2 years are spent on the election cycle. You get 18 months grace after a presidential election, then six months campaign, then six months off, then 18 months presidential campaigning. It engineers the type of political stagnation that happens in proportional representation countries with multiple collapsing coalitions and elections whilst only having two parties. How can you make a compromise that will anger the people voting for you in primaries when you are going to be facing them in a few months time? I would say that given the length of time when campaigning takes place, and the time before that when representatives look over their shoulder at approaching elections, less than a third of a 4 year period is spent on governance rather than electioneering. Compare that to the UK with national elections that last 5 years, less issue over divide between lower and upper houses and see how more effective the government is at getting things done, and also the fact that parties are more willing to compromise on issues. Why? Because a decision 2 or 3 years into a parliament is unlikely to still be hurting them when the election campaigning starts at 4 1/2 years. As for political parties, they exist for the same reasons that companies exist. 10 people working together can do more than 10 people working as individuals. A candidate with a party behind them has funds to research policy options, create campaign strategies etc etc. A MP from the Labour party can use their parties think tanks to draw policy on every conceivable issue without having to research every issue on their own-an impossible task.