hartfw

Auctor summarized it more succinctly than I will, but thats not at all what happened. Claims have been made about Sengoku/Aztec skipping wars and leaving allies to burn. All those have been refuted based upon the actual facts. I thought I was pretty blunt that that war CB could be picked on if one wanted to, but that applying that should be done equally as you also say. (For the record, I left my own personal opinion of it out of here, so assuming I disagreed or agreed is just an assumption). As for "who once again has to call their allies in; even to defend themselves in a minor OWF skirmish" I'm not sure what this means. I'm unaware of any request to any ally regarding the owf. If you have substance, it would be nice to hear it.

I'm never in a skype channel, as if I was, I might have to talk to the people that are. (I'm also not dumb, and know how chains work.) If someone wants to say all of that coalition was bad for following DS's war start,they should. It is a totally legitimate argument, and I'm not going to say they shouldn't feel that way if they do. To isolate Aztec and say that Aztec alone is, is a person trying to fit reality to their facts.

Maybe not, but Sons of Anarchy was a pretty solid grouping for a (protectorate) bloc, and thats why Sengoku got involved. And since Sengoku is in Aztec now, and was in that bloc with Ai, its not really a stretch by OWF standards to say AI and Aztec were in a bloc together.

I think there is some fundamental confusion with reality here. For the last war Aztec entering for outside bloc partners with 0 allies on the opposing side. For the war before that, Sengoku entered for an outside bloc partner, despite not being involved with any war or coalition planning one of those wars, with 0 allies on the opposite side for any aztec alliance For the war before that, Aztec entered for an outside ally with zero allies on the opposite side. DT entered for a MD ally that was the first alliance connected to them hit. Your rhetoric doesn't match reality.

Ah, so not just was it not yet in Aztec, it was a MD treaty. Well, this storyline about Aztec is unravelling quickly when facts are involved.

3 wars ago Dt wasn't in Aztec, but was joining the bloc and fought with the entire bloc on one of the hardest fronts possible. I have a hard time taking that as the example that Aztec leaves allies on the other side. Again, not a single one has been last 2 wars and Glof and AB didn't to the best of my knowledge in eq either making 3 wars. I think you would be hard pressed to find that record for any other bloc/grouping in that time. (before that Sengoku didn't exist, so I'm not prepared to comment on it)

Well, I won't defend DS's original declare, but there really is no reason to lump that on Aztec and not the rest of the over half of CN involved unless its just a case of premeditated bias. Not sure if you missed it, but I added an edit asking about your claim that: Repeating it here, but: As is, I'm unaware of any time an Aztec ally was attacked that Aztec didn't engage. Sengoku ended up joining late to a coalition that (half of) was actively planning their next war against Aztec because our ally DoD was hit in the war before that, while no other Aztec allies were attacked that war (and technically we weren't Aztec at the time). Could you cite an example? Because so far in our history, we haven't sat out a war or had a single ally on the opposite side of us so it definitely doesn't apply to us.

Aztec didn't attack Polaris without a CB. We chained in off allies who were at war with Polar. Those allies were engaged off Polar attacking NG and DS. Unless you claim every alliance engaged that war was without a CB, I'm unsure what the argument here is. Edit: As is, I'm unaware of any time an Aztec ally was attacked that Aztec didn't engage. Sengoku ended up joining late to a coalition that (half of) was actively planning their next war against Aztec because our ally DoD was hit in the war before that, while no other Aztec allies were attacked that war (and technically we weren't Aztec at the time). Could you cite an example? Because so far in our history, we haven't sat out a war or had a single ally on the opposite side of us.

So, to review, in this thread you made a false claim about us (feel free to apologize for that error). And then appeared to imply a threat to a protectorate. But we are the ones pushing our position? You are the laughingstock of here, and no one takes you serious.

Okay, let me correct the comment then: So, to review, "You did not immediately drop a protectorate based solely on your word about something they did before they were a protectorate by non leading gov that suggested that Nordreich was raiding SNX when Nordreich was raiding SNX" is equal to making the patently false claim that we said faking PM's is acceptable. It has nothing to do with Oculus or not. The reason you aren't taken serious is because you aren't serious. What a fall for a man who once was the 6th member of NSO. That look better?

So, to review, "You did not immediately drop a protectorate based solely on your word about something they did before they were a protectorate by non leading gov that suggested that Nordreich would join NG and the others raiding SNX when Nordreich then didn't and just the others did" is equal to making the patently false claim that we said faking PM's is acceptable. It has nothing to do with Oculus or not. The reason you aren't taken serious is because you aren't serious. What a fall for a man who once was the 6th member of NSO.

Oh Tywin, useless lost soul. No one ever said that to you.

I know other people have more pressing issues to debate, but I would love some clarity on this. (9/25/2015 7:55:39 AM) Chimaera approved Caligula in their request to join the alliance MI6.

Nice try.

So, wait, mi6 is the one with no honor? These topics turn fast. And while, that matches interactions with their old government, I had high hopes for this one after our great discussion last night.

Shame mi6 leadership is not communicating with their members. We had this issue early this year also.

I'm unaware of any request for reps, and have discussed the issue with mi6. Might I suggest instead of speaking uninformed, you go and canvass votes for Grub for Senate?

Wouldn't be the first time, but that was an old gov and I choose to believe these guys.

I'm unaware of any unaddressed concerns mi6 has, so wouldn't agree with that categorization.

I like you.

I wouldn't trust the topic of anyone that doesn't have the brains or the balls to vote for Grub.

II think the only think Tywin producerism's is bullshit. Fun fact, we did fight Polar. Oops Go back to being the laughingstock of CN and bringing shame upon your protectors.

This reminds me about the joke about the guy who simply #$%^ed a goat one time, and everyone held that against them as if that was the only thing they ever did.

Comparison page deserves a prize in its own right.

I had assumed this thread was celebrating the 9/3 return of http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=576333 Granted, both deserved threads.