Master Holton Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1339690671' post='2983518'] Actually, this is about the point we get pre-empted for taking a side. [/quote] TOP's got you covered. On the 5th day, look to the East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1339687400' post='2983421'] This comment at NPO: If you planned on honoring your treaty then you publicly should have kept your mouth shut about your grievance with the cb, how is bashing your allies cb while trying to take a hypocritical high road actually supporting your ally? All you have done with this thread screw over MK's pr. [/quote] Sounds like, for NPO, this thread was a definite success, then. [quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1339685131' post='2983374'] The fact is that time has tamed you. Like a broken-in horse or house-trained dog, you learned from abuse that to follow your masters leads to not being hit again, so you obediently follow whatever orders you are given, regardless what you think of them. I fought against you on the Vox side, but I never disrespected your tendency to be leaders. Your leadership traits are what caused CN to follow you for years, but now you have lost all you once were. This did not necessarily happen during your short reign so far, Brehon, but you continue to follow, and until you exhibit some leadership, you'll continue to be insignificant in this world. The strength of your weakness is infuriating to me. Your community is strong and deep, yet you honestly believe in your inferiority to the people who ousted you. If you're thinking of combating this point by listing all that you've been through, I invite you to look at FAN. You kept them in war [i]perpetually[/i] for two years, yet each and every time you asked them to quit they spit in your face with a smile and a "$%&@ you." The fact that you quit so easily makes me lose every ounce of the respect I had for you when you were my enemy. [/quote] It is folly to believe that Pacifica have truly become followers. At its core, Pacifica's identity has never changed, and believing that it has is not a mistake that you want to make. Edited June 14, 2012 by Mergerberger II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balkan Banania Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I don’t get why all this fuss. We are an alliance consisting mostly of people that were at the receiving end of aggressive wars with vague CBs the last years (people not part of our dominance era). These people are uneasy with conflicts starting without any “moral” justification (keep in mind that I belong to the previous generation ); especially from the same people that kept us in the corner for some time (in fact most of the time for the majority of our Body Republic). This is the stance of our BR and the emperor expresses it. At the same time we value our pacts and allies (as everybody should), since we learnt how it is to be abandoned by allies and how important is to have brothers standing beside you to the end. This is also the will of the BR and was expressed by the Emperor in the OP. From a political point of view, this statement is easily explained. To the other side: If you are planning to escalate this, when you are going to calculate your odds keep in mind that Pacifica will ride with her allies. To our side: We made our intention to support you in public, so if by any chance you have doubts for our stance, don’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted June 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I appreciate once again all the reading between the lines instead of taking face value. Do I support a war against SF... sure, in fact I support war in CN across the board. I even had some fun on the radio and talked about it. When did I say I did not? Have I not been clear that I feel both poles of power have failed? Do you need it crayon with stupid images so it actually reaches into your brain? Let me know I will be happy to point you in the right direction. When I knew of the confirmation of this going on I spent hours, hear me now, HOURS talking to Rush. Not because I mind the war, but that CB is the biggest load of bs we have seen in some time. This is the lolzy crap I talk about when I talk about the powers that be squandering their power. I talked very directly, openly and candidly with my allies about the NPO not wanting to be a part of this. HOWEVER TLR is my ally and I am backing my ally's play if they are drawn in, period nothing more to understand. Almost every one of my allies will fall on the same side of this conflict so the decision in the end was a personal one which let me say yet again was discussed at length with Rush and Mandallev. Hell don't even listen to me ask around to people that talked to me and not the assumptions you pull from your fourth point of contact. This is not a war we want is an issue of how we as a collective world do war. Everyone has forgotten to have some real reason or just be up front and say "we don't like you". Don't get it twisted. Why have allies if you aren't going to back their play? Isn't that and wasn't that the huge Umbrella concern when the NPO talked about allying with GOONS? You know the one where you guys freaked out (Umbrella and VE) and blocked. The Umbrella double talk from you and a few other of your compatriots is amazing. Keep screaming about me and what I say in the attempts to cover your own inadequacies I doubt I will grow tired of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1339698245' post='2983751'] Why have allies if you aren't going to back their play? Isn't that and wasn't that the huge Umbrella concern when the NPO talked about allying with GOONS? You know the one where you guys freaked out (Umbrella and VE) and blocked. The Umbrella double talk from you and a few other of your compatriots is amazing. Keep screaming about me and what I say in the attempts to cover your own inadequacies I doubt I will grow tired of them. [/quote] If the last war didn't demonstrate why Umbrella doesn't get your OP, hopefully the comments here will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Some people in this thread are clearly seeing Double Vision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1339698245' post='2983751'] Why have allies if you aren't going to back their play? [/quote] I think we've got things summed up right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commanderragnar Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 o/ NPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1339698245' post='2983751'] Why have allies if you aren't going to back their play? [/quote] Fairly apt way of summing up the thread. Do what you gotta do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) The issue is, people should be more careful of who they're going to end up backing by proxy when they sign treaties. I mean, this wasn't an unpredictable scenario in the least. If you're not going to bother using non-chaining when you don't agree with the war, then it has to go back to when you sign the treaty to begin with. Edited June 14, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339702029' post='2983826'] The issue is, people should be more careful of who they're going to end up backing by proxy when they sign treaties. I mean, this wasn't an unpredictable scenario in the least. [/quote] Nobody likes to hear 'I told you so', though. And I've seen this enough times to know that it makes no damn difference anyway. So I bask in it from afar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1339690207' post='2983501'] You're essentially badmouthing your allies who will support MK by your posturing. [/quote] TBH, as one of the 2 allies in question, i dont feel bad mouthed. Everyone was well aware how everyone felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote]Roquentin The issue is, people should be more careful of who they're going to end up backing by proxy when they sign treaties. I mean, this wasn't an unpredictable scenario in the least.[/quote] Roq i think we know whom is chained were in our treaties .. but then i guess this is the start of something you will lay claim to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Although the fancy words and morality are good to see, in the end the question is whether you're going to support MK and by doing so their CB. The 'we don't really believe in what they're doing but we'll go in anyway' is what allows abusive hegemonic structures to form; as the driving force in one of those in the past, I'd have thought NPO would recognise it and not want to be one of the enabling alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='brucemania' timestamp='1339702510' post='2983836'] Roq i think we know whom is chained were in our treaties .. but then i guess this is the start of something you will lay claim to ? [/quote] I'm not sure what this means. Be clearer next time. The thing I'm pointing out , it doesn't work to act surprised and condemn actions when you agreeing to them implicitly by signing a mutual defense level treaty with a close ally of the Mushroom Kingdom. You are aware of how the alliance operates. If I'm fervently anti-raiding for instance, then I'm not going to ally a close ally of GOONS. edit: [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702783' post='2983839'] Although the fancy words and morality are good to see, in the end the question is whether you're going to support MK and by doing so their CB. The 'we don't really believe in what they're doing but we'll go in anyway' is what allows abusive hegemonic structures to form; as the driving force in one of those in the past, I'd have thought NPO would recognise it and not want to be one of the enabling alliances. [/quote] Here we go. A treaty with TLR, ODN, whoever, when you're going to chain in regardless of the cause or the alliance that starts it is a promissory note signed in advance saying "we back MK," and no amount of words will change that. Edited June 14, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702783' post='2983839'] Although the fancy words and morality are good to see, in the end the question is whether you're going to support MK and by doing so their CB. The 'we don't really believe in what they're doing but we'll go in anyway' is what allows abusive hegemonic structures to form; as the driving force in one of those in the past, I'd have thought NPO would recognise it and not want to be one of the enabling alliances. [/quote] You speak from a standpoint that aggression is bad. Not many in this game find aggression bad, and I think NPO counts among those who are ok with aggression. Their issue is the CB, I think, which in their view, is a disingenuous window dressing for something that would be best handled straight forward. I could be wrong, wont be the 1st time, wont be the last. But, I believe waiting for your enemy to strike at you is a pretty stupid stance. Edited June 14, 2012 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote]You speak from a standpoint that aggression is bad.[/quote] Well, no, I don't, actually. I come from the position that [i]unjustified[/i] aggression is bad. CSN's aggression against Dave, for example, is fully justified from the evidence out there in the public. And (although I don't want to open discussion on that in another thread) the CB here is clearly nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702783' post='2983839'] Although the fancy words and morality are good to see, in the end the question is whether you're going to support MK and by doing so their CB. The 'we don't really believe in what they're doing but we'll go in anyway' is what allows abusive hegemonic structures to form; as the driving force in one of those in the past, I'd have thought NPO would recognise it and not want to be one of the enabling alliances. [/quote] Who is to say that NPO did not recognize it? And why wouldn't they want to be an enabling alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1339703094' post='2983845'] You speak from a standpoint that aggression is bad. Not many in this game find aggression bad, and I think NPO counts among those who are ok with aggression. Their issue is the CB, I think, which in their view, is a disingenuous window dressing for something that would be best handled straight forward. I could be wrong, wont be the 1st time, wont be the last. But, I believe waiting for your enemy to strike at you is a pretty stupid stance. [/quote] Prey waits. [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111229222804/elderscrolls/ru/images/4/41/Irileth.png[/img] Edited June 14, 2012 by Tiber Septim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339703239' post='2983848'] Well, no, I don't, actually. I come from the position that [i]unjustified[/i] aggression is bad. CSN's aggression against Dave, for example, is fully justified from the evidence out there in the public. And (although I don't want to open discussion on that in another thread) the CB here is clearly nonsense. [/quote] So, in your estimation, if we KNOW certain alliances are planning our destruction, and we have the evidence of it (which we have all seen)... is aggression to take them out, before they strike at us, justified? Justification ALWAYS exist in a 1 man majority in each situation. You simply cannot label all things "justified" and "unjustified" based on your own opinion. Thats why they are opinions. Edited June 14, 2012 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) The issue is, it's in response to you wanting them dead in the first place. If having designs on some alliance one day or another is a cause for an alliance to be attacked, you'd have a lot more real problems on your plate since it would mean any political rivalry could be acted on immediately. LSF is doing just that and you condemn it. Edited June 14, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote]So, in your estimation, if we KNOW certain alliances are planning our destruction, and we have the evidence of it (which we have all seen)... is aggression to take them out, before they strike at us, justified?[/quote] That can be a good CB, depending on what level those plans are at. But that isn't the CB which has been used here, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted June 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) If the NPO or any alliance waited for the stars and planets to align before making moves, NOTHING would happen. I told people early on we would take the good and the bad as we looked beyond to the long game of things. Everything has its steps, this is no different. Many are comfortable in living in the now, gratify me now, satisfy me now, love me now, hate me now. I do not. Pacifica plays the long game folks. clarity: War is good. CB is horrid. Think beyond today. Edited June 14, 2012 by Brehon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 I would be lieing if I said I was happy about this announcement NPO, but as somebody who respects you and likes you, I will commend your loyalty to your allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702783' post='2983839'] Although the fancy words and morality are good to see, in the end the question is whether you're going to support MK and by doing so their CB. The 'we don't really believe in what they're doing but we'll go in anyway' is what allows abusive hegemonic structures to form; as the driving force in one of those in the past, I'd have thought NPO would recognise it and not want to be one of the enabling alliances. [/quote] I'm looking forward to how Grämlins goes about this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.