Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1339904778' post='2986224'] Did you just use the past tense? I think you did. [/quote] It's still close to 50, obviously FARK lost a few already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny Side King Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1339904778' post='2986224'] Did you just use the past tense? I think you did. [/quote] You can use the past tense because you can't attack the people in peacemode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1339901978' post='2986192'] Might has never made right, Roquentin. [/quote] And the complacency of the masses will not make things right either. Your alliance does not stand threatened today, but will you fight for your ideals in this war and join with those who are being wronged at this very moment? I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block for alliances in their stride toward a balance of power is not the current hegemony, but complacent alliances, who are more devoted to "order" or a "staus quo" or "it's not our fight" than to justice; alliances that prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; alliances that constantly say: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree to fight at your side"; alliances that paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for a balancing of power; alliances that live by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advise to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute oppression from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Sunny Side King' timestamp='1339904911' post='2986227'] You can use the past tense because you can't attack the people in peacemode. [/quote] Good planning and a ballsy TOPian style pre-empt would have solved that. As it is this is just a feast on NG's leftovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Empire of Halin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Yep guys, war lessons given from TPF itt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1339903406' post='2986206'] We believe we're justified in waging war against FARK. You may disagree but that holds no weight near us. You may also deny that opportunity and personal dislikes play relevant roles in wars, but that much is a problem of yours. Is that supposed to be an argument against allies helping allies who are in need? [/quote] How can you really believe you are justified? It's just blowing my mind. You literally admitted you have no CB, and therefore inherently cannot be justified. I really don't think that is a problem of mine, either. Does MK really need help, or just doesn't want to lose precious pixels? They have a massive advantage as is. [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1339905190' post='2986229'] And the complacency of the masses will not make things right either. Your alliance does not stand threatened today, but will you fight for your ideals in this war and join with those who are being wronged at this very moment? I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block for alliances in their stride toward a balance of power is not the current hegemony, but complacent alliances, who are more devoted to "order" or a "staus quo" or "it's not our fight" than to justice; alliances that prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; alliances that constantly say: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree to fight at your side"; alliances that paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for a balancing of power; alliances that live by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advise to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute oppression from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. [/quote] Considering CSN almost declared war on us a couple weeks ago, and we still have numerous qualms with you guys, you shouldn't expect us to help. I don't mind Fark, but they still fall within the side with which we have multiple grievances. Also, that's the worst thing to accuse me of. Standing by...never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Holy Empire of Halin' timestamp='1339905792' post='2986237'] Yep guys, war lessons given from TPF itt [/quote] Anything I said there untrue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Empire of Halin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 yes, there was [quote]Good planning and a ballsy TOPian style pre-empt would have solved that. As it is this is just a feast on NG's leftovers. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Holy Empire of Halin' timestamp='1339906220' post='2986242'] yes, there was [/quote] What was untrue about it? FARK was slaughtered by NG, thus the lack of targets. A TOP style bloc level pre-empt that came at the same time MK hit CSN would have caught Sparta out of PM. That would have meant 50+ nations to war vs the 10 or whatever you have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1339905849' post='2986238'] How can you really believe you are justified? It's just blowing my mind. You literally admitted you have no CB, and therefore inherently cannot be justified. I really don't think that is a problem of mine, either. Does MK really need help, or just doesn't want to lose precious pixels? They have a massive advantage as is. [/quote] Standard textbook CB implies that one's sovereignty has been infringed and standard compensation has not been awarded. The truth is that opportunity and personal feelings are equally or more important to create a war and we have them both as justification. There's nothing more to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1339906922' post='2986252'] Standard textbook CB implies that one's sovereignty has been infringed and standard compensation has not been awarded. The truth is that opportunity and personal feelings are equally or more important to create a war and we have them both as justification. There's nothing more to it. [/quote] The opportunity was there well before MK kicked off the fireworks, why did you wait? Did they hurt your feelings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1339901978' post='2986192'] So, you admit that the MK CB on CSN was fabricated to start a global war? [/quote] yawn. of course it was a constructed cb. as was the one we used in the last war against mha et al, and the one where we attacked the npo and ve attacked polaris. the one athens used on tpf, the one top used on c&g. as was the one we all used in karma, and the one used against hyperion in 'nocb.' and i can't evenn really remember the cbs used in the global wars before that but i imagine they were just as !@#$. ooc: it's a game and mk and pretty much everyone in power no longer feel constrained by the rules the npo and friends made in 2006-2007 regarding how the game works. the question is 'who has more power' and right now, we do. if we limited ourselves to so-called 'just' wars with legitimate cbs then no large wars would have happened since, what, gw1? e: tbh i don't know why i bothered replying as everyone here knows what i've just said. it's just you're just circle jerking to some faux-moral !@#$%^&* and clinging on to some sort of outdated rule set which died a long time ago, and we're just laughing at you all. Edited June 17, 2012 by Banksy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1339905190' post='2986229'] And the complacency of the masses will not make things right either. Your alliance does not stand threatened today, but will you fight for your ideals in this war and join with those who are being wronged at this very moment? I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block for alliances in their stride toward a balance of power is not the current hegemony, but complacent alliances, who are more devoted to "order" or a "staus quo" or "it's not our fight" than to justice; alliances that prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; alliances that constantly say: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree to fight at your side"; alliances that paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for a balancing of power; alliances that live by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advise to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute oppression from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. [/quote] The primary stumbling block is that potentially interested parties do not like you any more than they like us and are not willing to gamble for those they neither care for nor trust. In the past, the defeated broke up, scattered, or disappeared altogether, forcing reigning powers to turn on more sympathetic groups or one another. You and yours have instead chosen to stick together while hiding in peace mode, ensuring that there is [i]just[/i] enough distrusted power out there for us to wail on. You can try to reconcile and dig up new allies, but the efforts are transparent attempts to coalition build and those you'd cater know that your loyalty to them would, in the aftermath, play second-fiddle to your blocmates. That's actually one of the wonderful advantages of being on top. Everybody recognizes we don't really need more allies or people willing to fight alongside us than we presently have available, so when I stroll into an alliance of lukewarm or even hostile relations and express patience and kindness, they can take me at face value. It's easy because they know that I'm not going to leverage my casual manner into a demand that they march in front of a damn freight train. I can keep embassies active "by any means necessary" because I legitimately enjoy doing so; you don't get that luxury. And to reach a different point, I'm glad to see you abandoning the false confidence of your allies in favor of stage 2 on the road to defeat: blaming the uninvolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339900670' post='2986169'] I mean given TOP's enthusiasm for this war, why didn't you do it before they got to PM? DOUBLE VISION failed to roll out fast enough. [/quote] There are some alliances we'd like to see pounded in this war, we have been vocal about that. Still, I see no reason to prematurely attack anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1339908286' post='2986265'] It's easy because they know that I'm not going to leverage my casual manner into a demand that they march in front of a damn freight train. [/quote] *cough* MJ, FOK, VE *cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1339910575' post='2986310'] *cough* MJ, FOK, VE *cough* [/quote] I also frequent each of the Orders and show up elsewhere when I feel like it. As for the three mentioned, Mjolnir already wanted a fight and needed no charming, FOK was already an ally, and I try to treat VE the same an ally. My point was with regard to past and present adversaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1339911488' post='2986321'] My point was with regard to past and present adversaries. [/quote] Ah, I see ... it's only allies that you screw. Edited June 17, 2012 by Krack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1339911935' post='2986323'] Ah, I see ... it's only allies that you screw. [/quote] People like you make diplomacy for people like me very, very easy. Just a parting thought. Goodnight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1339912049' post='2986325'] People like you make diplomacy for people like me very, very easy. Just a parting thought. Goodnight! [/quote] All I do is hold up a mirror. I can't be responsible for the vast majority of Planet Bob (including the vast majority of OWF posters) being incredibly naive (at best) or monumentally stupid (at worst). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339900670' post='2986169'] I mean given TOP's enthusiasm for this war, why didn't you do it before they got to PM? DOUBLE VISION failed to roll out fast enough.[/quote] Double Vision is a chimaera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1339913991' post='2986341'] Double Vision is a chimaera. [/quote] yeah, that was a joke. It's just TOP seems so interested in a grouping that has barely any nations for it to fight. Path of least resistance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339914911' post='2986345'] yeah, that was a joke. It's just TOP seems so interested in a grouping that has barely any nations for it to fight. Path of least resistance? [/quote] We're interested in two alliances that have a lot of nations for us to fight. It's just that they prefer other venues. As for who we group with: we're not picking allies based on their strenght but on their will to act. At least, of recent memory. Edited June 17, 2012 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1339908056' post='2986263'] yawn. of course it was a constructed cb. as was the one we used in the last war against mha et al, and the one where we attacked the npo and ve attacked polaris. the one athens used on tpf, the one top used on c&g. as was the one we all used in karma, and the one used against hyperion in 'nocb.' and i can't evenn really remember the cbs used in the global wars before that but i imagine they were just as !@#$. ooc: it's a game and mk and pretty much everyone in power no longer feel constrained by the rules the npo and friends made in 2006-2007 regarding how the game works. the question is 'who has more power' and right now, we do. if we limited ourselves to so-called 'just' wars with legitimate cbs then no large wars would have happened since, what, gw1? e: tbh i don't know why i bothered replying as everyone here knows what i've just said. it's just you're just circle jerking to some faux-moral !@#$%^&* and clinging on to some sort of outdated rule set which died a long time ago, and we're just laughing at you all. [/quote] There we have it guys. This is who is in power now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1339908286' post='2986265'] The primary stumbling block is that potentially interested parties do not like you any more than they like us and are not willing to gamble for those they neither care for nor trust. In the past, the defeated broke up, scattered, or disappeared altogether, forcing reigning powers to turn on more sympathetic groups or one another. You and yours have instead chosen to stick together while hiding in peace mode, ensuring that there is [i]just[/i] enough distrusted power out there for us to wail on. You can try to reconcile and dig up new allies, but the efforts are transparent attempts to coalition build and those you'd cater know that your loyalty to them would, in the aftermath, play second-fiddle to your blocmates. That's actually one of the wonderful advantages of being on top. Everybody recognizes we don't really need more allies or people willing to fight alongside us than we presently have available, so when I stroll into an alliance of lukewarm or even hostile relations and express patience and kindness, they can take me at face value. It's easy because they know that I'm not going to leverage my casual manner into a demand that they march in front of a damn freight train. I can keep embassies active "by any means necessary" because I legitimately enjoy doing so; you don't get that luxury. And to reach a different point, I'm glad to see you abandoning the false confidence of your allies in favor of stage 2 on the road to defeat: blaming the uninvolved. [/quote] Except it isn't going to work out there will be just enough to wail on. It'll be a very small number of nations after this war and at this point you've exhausted any status below you they may have had amongst people who aren't direct MK followers. At some point you will have to turn on someone more sympathetic and given your success has entirely been determined by them being less popular than you, rather than you being well-liked, it won't be very easy. Not really, people taking you at face-value at this point is self-destructive and I'd assume more people have learned that by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1339906444' post='2986244'] What was untrue about it? FARK was slaughtered by NG, thus the lack of targets. A TOP style bloc level pre-empt that came at the same time MK hit CSN would have caught Sparta out of PM. That would have meant 50+ nations to war vs the 10 or whatever you have now. [/quote] That would not be a smart idea since it would activate RnR-Int treaty and while Int can ignore one treaty, two would be too embarrassing and DH want an easy and safe war free of any risks, we all know how addicted in power they are to risk something and lose it.. 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.