mhawk

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300337152' post='2667042'] You are incorrect on every count. A month of war is a month of war. When NPO emerges and doubtless takes the offensive, one month will be added to the date column and Pacifica granted opportunity to simple surrender from that point forward. We could offer NPO a specific date to emerge, but it would be foolish for them to accept such, as we would then know precisely when we get to lambast them. Pacifica is free to have any concerns it may have about the peace at the end of the month prior to any emergence and have already had some of their concerns addressed. Your argument that things are "completely open" has about as much merit as HeroofTime's rants in the Polar peace thread. [/quote] Ok first off, what does "a simple peace" mean? 0 reps or terms? Second you state a majority of nations, does that mean 51%? does it mean 90%? Third. You even state "give or take a few days". Here is the thing. You are essentially saying you're willing to conduct an endless war that you aggressively started if NPO and probably Legion don't meet your terms, terms you didn't outline in any quantitative way. <VektorZero> How about our allies. Can we expect the same terms for them? <Ardus[MK]> Legion at the very least. <Ardus[MK]> Peace term wise Then you add in your cute little thing about anyone who speaks badly of these terms, more punishment will be given?

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300337122' post='2667040'] It's quite clearly stated in the statement that what was stated is that they will be given peace after the stated period of one (1) month. Do you understand what was stated in the statement or did you miss that bit of statement? I don't mean to state the obvious, but just sayin. [/quote] I'm going directly off the logs from the talks between DH and NPO.

The reason this is unacceptable is that you want the majority of upper nations to come out, then a month of war (no specific date set) THEN you'll start talks on peace. Your war was started out of pure aggression and you have the audacity to claim moral superiority, even better demand reparations from "the cowards". You put in writing a start and end date, you'd probably get a deal. The fact you leave it completely open and state there will be no negotiations on this term makes it absurd. Umbrella, MK, GOONS will be remembered for their criminal aggression.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299991491' post='2662396'] And therein lies the problem, they should have done it [I]after[/I] the war. Anyone can apologize with a gun at their head. [/quote] As you drag your mindless war of aggression out longer, we shall see if it holds true for you in the long run.

I don't believe avalon declared on Goons specifically. You'd have to check their dow.

4) Protected nations agree to commit the majority of their slots (3 slots for nations with 5 slots, 4 for nations with 6 slots) to the protecting alliances. They may use the remaining slots at their own discretion. Tech zombie alliance?

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1299260399' post='2652549'] We probably all should be hovering around ZI in theory, considering the mass of NS you arranged against us. The NS damage you have done to our alliance, while it [i]seems[/i] massive on paper, is simply repeated instances of 20-35k NS nations getting knocked down into the 10k ranges due to nuclear warfare, which is typical. And that is the sort of damage that can be repaired extremely quickly with a good post-war rebuilding plan. [/quote] You guys seem to be getting a billion or so every 10 days. I'd say it would take a damn near perfect hit to keep you guys at around ZI considering CnG is also hitting us from the side.

[quote name='Udelar Johnson' timestamp='1299259373' post='2652539'] And when the dust settles, we're going to take a long, hard look at everyone who participated in the most ineffectual attempted dogpile in CN history. [/quote] If this is one of the most ineffectual hits in cn history, I'd really get a kick out of seeing what an average hit would look like on you guys. Maybe your entire alliance would be zt/zl/zi?

Understandable, but unfortunate move NoR. Not a fan of what else was brought into this dow though.

[quote name='Feldheim C' timestamp='1299140076' post='2650977'] First off, Olympus has given me two of the only three combatants that have fought well so far this war (the third coming from those cool guys in the NSO) and it will be a shame to watch them go. Secondly, I highly doubt it considering how poorly TPF has stacked up so far. Things will be easier for us now that an actual fighting force is out of the conflict. Now remind me how you have an effective winning strategy while we steamroll your nations into dust. There is no good guy, bad guy dynamic here. Just winners and losers and those who were smart to get out early while the rest fall to the dogs of war. P.S. I can't wait to see the screencaps of the one victory you guys were able to get on an inactive nation. [/quote] I can't wait to see performance reviews of entire alliances based on hitting a 20 day old 2k ns nation. I hope you see the irony to your statement. Thanks for the help Oly, good luck with peace.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1298925272' post='2646987'] mhawk: Your belief that anyone actually still believes anything you say is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has ever dealt with you at the government level. [/quote] I know such controversial statements as "lintwad isn't in TPF" must be barely intelligible to a superlative intellect. My apologies for insulting trickery.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1298910611' post='2646872'] Information that has been rumored for quite a while, and really doesn't matter at this point, but sorta interesting nonetheless. That "protecting NPO" talk flies directly in the face of a lot of the posturing both of the Orders have made. [/quote] You'll notice the individuals quoted are not from either Order. If we quoted roquentin stating Goons must be saved at all costs, does that mean it is policy for goons to behave in such a manner? Of course not, try finding quotes from individuals in the alliances. The same way you can't quote lintwad speaking for TPF that we were going to enter.

For reference the TCK quote is after I saw the MK "everything must die" thread and told him we need to get ready. Further the stuff about STA going in was in the first day after NpO was hit, obviously weeks later we were not in the war and you see the quote from TCK that now is the time to get ready - this would indicate we were not getting ready before the mk thread. Probably a more accurate way to figure out what TPF was going to do would be to spy on us instead. We have much more complete logs on the matter to be spied than tidbits of "NPO must be savedddd!" followed up by a quote 3 weeks later with scattered references to hours before polar was hit.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297920857' post='2636398'] False assumption, Nuclear wars are fairly evenly destructive no matter how many pile where. NS is NS and nukes is nukes. Dog piles don't really favor the larger party until after their targets run out of nukes. [/quote] Dogpiles deplete your nuke count rapidly with multiple sdi opponents.

Horrible memories are coming about tonight....

Does this count as round 4 rsox?

[quote name='Goose' timestamp='1297662239' post='2632466'] I for one am glad to see this. A very sincere thank you to my friends at RIA. [/quote] It's been a long time nW, what happened to the videos in the period?

Kind of ambiguous announcement.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1297656834' post='2632237'] I don't get it. [/quote] We seem to agree on too much these days.

We're lucky to have you guys with us. Also mia is still on my pzi list for many atrocities

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1297560972' post='2630766'] Uh, ZI-listing someone for posting the wrong thing on these boards is really not good. I hope there is more to that story than it currently appears. Regarding the 'stalemate' talk: no, it is not a stalemate, because your upper-mid and upper tiers will stagnate in long term peace mode whereas ours will continue to grow, import tech and send aid. Sure, some of that aid finds its way over in lost GAs, but some of your money finds its way to our side in the same manner. Once nations on both sides are close to bill lock, well managed aid won't leak out, because it will be being accepted and spent before GAs are made. If it gets to that point, with your top tier stagnating in peace mode and your lower-mid tier bill locked with no incoming aid, your final defeat will be complete. There is an illusion of stalemate in the short term because you don't yet see the medium term implications of the peace mode penalties. [/quote] I think a profound change to the world came when suddenly it wasn't about fighting wars, it became about how to long term utterly destroy your opponent. Will they win if they push this war into a very long 6 month campaign, well NS wise they will. The question is why does every fight have to evolve into some sort of death match "we can kill them if we hold them at war for 8 months and they all get bill locked!" type scenario? Especially for a war started for no credible reason.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297555816' post='2630698'] Not really, lots of people took advantage of the power structure to pursue goals they wouldn't have been able to contemplate, that's why any power structure forms in the first place. So lay the blame for any individuals actions solely at their feet when they couldn't do such without the backing of others is over simplification at best. [/quote] To completely disregard the individuals and alliances that did such crimes and blame/punish those that merely existed and in some way formed a "power structure" is completely incorrect. You don't get to white wash every action on account of a large alliances and their desire to preserve power. To do so would mean equal attention on other large alliances that formed the security net, such as Sparta, TOP, MHA, FOK... alliances that seem to garner none of the same arguments I see here. That said do I feel those guys should catch heat now? Probably not, because the indirect nature of the treaty web makes it hard to control how others will abuse the system. But blaming something Xiphosis did on NPO is ridiculous. The problem with your assertion that a power structure allows such crimes to occur is you must also hold all the other parties that connected to it partially to blame as well. Have you seen what that actually would look like? [img]http://images.wikia.com/cybernations/images/0/0d/Continuumdraft18.jpg[/img] Start there now add all the MDP's MADP MDoAP's of all the members. If someone takes your argument about the powerstructure being to blame, but then pins nearly all the related actions on NPO's shoulder how does that make sense?

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1297522819' post='2630319'] The Global Order of Darkness forced 200 nations from the game during the LoFN conflict in a war supported by the NPO, who would have also assisted except they were busy installing a viceroy over GATO. So yeah I'm not seeing how either side is any better. [/quote] You're grasping at straws here. Wouldn't it be a bit more logical to place the blame for that directly on GOD and Xiphosis, rather than qualifying the remark with "NPO supported".

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297465418' post='2629725'] Yes, it was a concession. [/quote] Who exactly made you the right hand of vengence? Mind if we see your resume and credentials. What power appointed you judge and executioner? One day you just decided you'd come in and try to exploit others troubles or grudges to satiate your alliance's boredom?

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1297405468' post='2629040'] FEAR and ODN TOOL and Sparta [/quote] I just want to throw out how can anyone hold a grudge on TOOL?