Crymson
-
Posts
2,745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Crymson
-
-
Nope. "The message" came from the lips of several alliances in the Gang of Eight in the Optional Aggression Coalition.
You really do try far too hard. It's a wasted effort.
-
Yeah, it doesn’t take much thinking about my alliance. The message for weeks has been that NPO is prolonging the war by not allowing itself to be isolated. The word was terms were coming, but the TOP side couldn’t decide/agree what to ask for. Y’all came up with the current “unofficial” terms, which are kind of cute/novel in the way they’re topical to the circumstances, but are completely incidental to the already existing intention to demand terms on NPO. And now the message seems to be that Polar has met its goals, but needs to keep the war going to respect the objectives of its coalition mates, and can’t dictate to its coalition when it’s time to call it quits.
All I’m saying is that this all seems more pertinent to the status of peace talks than the purpose of banks.
I can only assume that "the message" came from the lips of Farrin. While I cannot fault you for assuming that your government would not lie to you, the fervor with which you regurgitate his word is somewhat sad. However, given the nature of your community---one of which I was a part, long ago---it is not surprising.
-
I was looking at the time and quite a lot of nations on page 1 were not out.
If they seriously had a problem with NPO then you think they would have took the nations out of PM and caused issues.
You were looking at the time. What fine evidence, especially from such an enormously impartial individual such as yourself.
In case anyone was wondering: yes, the above is covered in sarcasm.
You do realize that the page nations are on in the alliance display isn't really a viable metric for whether they're upper tier or not? Or that they change positions in relation to one another as they get beat down or other nations delete? Or that nations in the upper tier on that side were particular hard to keep staggered during Equilibrium at times and some were able to rotate in and out of peace mode? Or that what was left of NPO's upper tier(banks, whatever) was hippied down long term in Equilibrium by the time NPO declared on TOP?
Commander Shepard is known on the TOP boards as by far the biggest fool IRON has to offer. You're wasting your time on him.
See, this is what I'm getting at. Whether and why NPO needs to have terms extracted on us is the real question. TOP always intended to demand terms on NPO, and diminishing NPO's ability to challenge TOP has become the only continuing purpose of the war. If the OWF wants to debate something, that's a more interesting topic than whether banks are obsolete.
If you actually believe that, then I'd say you're thinking a bit much of your alliance. Believe it or not, our foreign policy does not revolve around NPO. Nor does it center on maintaining whatever malevolent dominance you think we wish to hold; democracies don't exactly work this way. Indeed, that sort of methodology centers far more on dictatorships; for example, your alliance, the single one best-known in this community for its singular focus on maintaining unchallenged ascendancy. Perhaps you're simply unaware of history.
Whatever the case, I can tell you unreservedly that your assertion is incorrect.
-
Those nations pretty much exist for no other reason than to send out aid to the lower tier. They are not "fighting" upper tier as in many alliances.
I question why you bother making this claim when the data necessary to incontrovertibly disprove it is easily accessible to everyone.
-
Once again, periphery vs central. We could destroy TLR down to 0NS and still not reach the top of damage statistics. As someone above said, stop cherry picking.
Who's cherry-picking what? Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Give it up.
Because TOP wasn't involved in the selection of the negotiator, and have no influence at all in negotiations. Given the coalition has a central negotiator the absence of TOP specifically in the talks asking anything doesn't mean you guys are completely out of the loop and innocent. But nice attempt at spinning your way out of implication.
Oh, so now you've amended your story to read that TOP is just one of the alliances that is in on deciding the supposed surrender terms in question, rather than the alliance demanding those terms. Sadly for you, this very fundamental change to your tune is visible to everyone else who has been reading this thread.
If your side would actually deign to, y'know, offer terms, we might be able to counter offer. That's generally how these things work. It's hard to counter something that hasn't been first offered.
Shockingly, after all of the implications by NPO allies and IRON members that harsh terms are being pressed, we find that NPO apparently hasn't actually been offered terms at all. Next up on Farrin TV: it's all TOP's fault. Because that's the tripe you've been spreading around lately, isn't it?
# of nations in PM * amount of aid not able to be sent = around 20 billion. It gets even worse when you figure in the lost income of those nations.
Ah, so it comes to light that $20b isn't being demanded at all---thus making several people in this thread look rather foolish---but rather that NPO stands to lose $20b as the result of these terms, in the main because it still uses a years-outdated system of banking. Okie dokie.
-
Well I suppose an entire fifty percent of TOP is out of peace mode in the closing stages of a war they are on the winning side of so they are really throwing their weight in for once.
IRON is a peripheral alliance in this war, whilst TOP is at the centre. Comparing to IRON is not valid.
We've inflicted almost twice as much damage as you despite starting with significantly less NS, and we've declared almost as many wars as you despite having less than one third your number of nations. We're #2 in our coalition in damage dealt, whereas you're #9 despite having begun the war with the heaviest stats of anyone. Keep reaching.
However despite demanding terms with the basis of "overuse" of PM, TOP has 50% vs 20% in PM. (when compared to NPO)
Please do find me the logs of TOP demanding any terms at all. You won't, of course, because you haven't any. And for you to accuse TOP of foul play at all is the very height of hypocrisy.
Yeah - a coalition of equals in which you actually believe this !@#$ and TOP has half its alliance in PM while others of you are more desperate for peace than those of us who are supposed to be losing.
You've already tried and failed to push this vacuous line. I don't know why you're bothering to attempt it again.
People keep telling me how smart TOP is but you actually just posted this.
You're evidently lacking an important, very well-known piece of information.
-
Even if you consider the terms official, they that amount to over $20 BILLION in reps for an alliance just honoring a treaty? I guess the Hegemony wasn't so bad.
Where was $20b demanded?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Levistus the "brilliant" tactician who made the call not to go weapons free on Pacifica this war? You're seriously going places Failhalla.
So it's said; but I presume that it was a call that they both agreed with, at least until the fallout from that decision became apparent.
-
Interesting, I guess.
-
QFT. They are good at what they do, no doubt about that.
Really? Go ahead and list some examples, then.
-
The reason we compare it to what you(TOP) did 5 years ago is because that's what everyone else compares it to.
No, that's what you compare it to, in an attempt to make yourselves look a bit less low. It's truly amusing that it is your defense of choice.
Are we talking about the same plans were you(TOP) were slotted 90 nations on the NPO front? Then you PM half of those assigned.
Exactly where did this happen? In somebody's drug-induced hallucination? That isn't even remotely accurate.
Feanor, the two wars we were apart of, which ones did we actually fight you? If we weren't fighting each other directly I could give two sh*ts of your policies.
Valhalla fought in a coalition alongside TOP in those two wars, and both abided by the same nuclear policies.
-
More obtuse than acute, but definitely not right.
Is it this?
-
I'm not aware that NpO actually asked for our help, TOP surely did not (no treaty). There were also very serious concerns that we would be countered at some point. It would be interesting after the war to find out why a counter never materialized against either Valhalla or GOONS on the NPO front.
MI6 asked for your help. You refused. There was also the point early on in the war when chefjoe disrupted the battle plan by putting Valhalla's top tier into peace mode on the emptiest of pretexts and then refusing to bring them out against NPO; mind you, this was neither the first nor the last time he refused to abide by the plan. And while many other alliances in the coalition have declared war on numerous organizations from the opposition, up to and including wars entered via ghost DoWs, Valhalla has limited itself to that days-late strike against NPO.
You needn't bother with these rebuttals. People know more.
-
You and more so, your alliance, set the bar in those categories for many years, I guess you would know eh? I mean hell we had to go nuclear 30hrs after a lame mistake was made....TOP made it thru an entire war doing the same. Were far worse at such things then you. *tips hat at your achievement*
The fact that you bring up events from nearly five years ago (and use a twisted account of them, no less) in an attempt to make your alliance look less bad by comparison is very much evidence of its poor position and reputation.
-
TIO also has 0 wars with TOP even though they recognized hostilities, we all have our hands full at the moment if you haven't noticed (which you probably haven't since most of TOP that could actually continue to fight are in PM)
TIO's 117 nations currently total 32 wars (side note: this is a sum lesser than TOP's in both absolute number and in number of wars per nation, but nice try!), and NATO has the somewhat more significant but still by no means applicable tally of 144/83 (for reference, RnR's tally is 233/174). I would say that you need to tell me how that constitutes having one's hands full, but all are already aware that your 'an attack on one constitutes an attack on all' policy only applies where politically convenient for you.
Frankly, I'm only going to this effort because I enjoy disparaging your thoroughly inept bloc. It's not like there's anything to be gained from pushing a point that is already commonly known to be true.
52% of TOP doesn't have wars with anybody.
In addition to the other, various ways in which your statement is vacuous, let's point out that your allies at TIO have .35 wars per nation while your alliance burns. Do you really want to go down this route?
-
You guys are special so we felt the need to announce it :|
I imagine it's not necessary for me to point out that TIO and NATO have a combined zero wars against UPN/HB. Of course, it's in the first place unnecessary because you didn't have any credibility to begin with.
-
It's only an attack on all when convenient.
Undoubtedly so. I don't see any US e-lawyers rushing in to argue this one.
-
Isn't an attack on one US signatory an attack on all? I'm not seeing any wars upon UPN or HB by TIO or NATO.
-
ITT RnR and NATO complain about RnR being attacked. Wait, isn't an attack on one an attack on all? Why isn't TIO complaining also?
Whatever the case, you all need to suck it up. This is a military conflict; declarations of war occur during such events as this, and try as you might, you can't whine those out of existence.
It's almost as if they're trying to win this war by decisively beating the other side.
What a truly preposterous concept ;)
-
For clarification purposes, when you say "Let me be your viceroy", we are speaking about Mogar, right?
I think we can all get behind that.
In agreement.
-
This is dumb, who let voodoo back into government.
Where's the !@#$ing protein, mom??? I told you to get me some !@#$ing protein!!!
-
Why is this being played up as some epic grudge match?
Good question. I can't recall R&R ever having been relevant to us.
-
You can't have the cake and eat it.
I don't think that berbers is intelligent enough to appreciate concepts of that sort.
-
Well, here's the rub, they didn't just start a war based on a realistic change of winning, they started one where everyone but them takes a !@#$-ton of damage :P
Funny, as Polar would tell you that it was they who started the war.
The only true question for me right now is why I'm bothering to respond to you. Probably it's because I feel sorry for you (and not in a good way).
i would like to offer peace talks for woto
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Oh, so now NPO's party line has rotated away from the delay being entirely TOP's fault.