Charles Stuart Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340723164' post='2997271'] Sorry, my loyalty is to STA. [/quote] And there lies the problem. Talk is cheap. Edited June 26, 2012 by Charles Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340723164' post='2997271'] Sorry, my loyalty is to STA. [/quote] Whose current only ally is TPF who didn't defend them in the curbstomp by AZTEC/WAPA because they wanted to help NPO with their war later on Should be a fun backdoor convo going on right bout now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340723164' post='2997271'] Sorry, my loyalty is to STA. [/quote] if your alliance gets involved the chains suggest you could be on the side of NPO. how does this make you feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1340723253' post='2997273'] And there lies the problem. Talk is cheap. [/quote] [OOC]So by your logic I can't be against war on Afghanistan if I don't join taliban? Or I can't be against Japan hunting whales if I don't join greenpeace. [/OOC] [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1340723585' post='2997277'] if your alliance gets involved the chains suggest you could be on the side of NPO. how does this make you feel? [/quote] If I could plant money and make grow up a money tree I'd be rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340724864' post='2997291'] [OOC]So by your logic I can't be against war on Afghanistan if I don't join taliban? Or I can't be against Japan hunting whales if I don't join greenpeace. [/OOC] If I could plant money and make grow up a money tree I'd be rich. [/quote] The straw man is going up in flames! Edited June 26, 2012 by Charles Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The only thing that has been better than hearing we were going to roll GOD is the reactions in this thread. For me personally regardless of our political reasons, and we do owe NG, I am very happy to see GOD burn. o/ NPO o/ NG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340720420' post='2997226'] Like you or not this are the facts, your efforts will help MK to achieve their goals and in the end of the day all that matters is the results of your actions. [/quote] Maybe our goals are very similar despite taking very different means to get here! Makes you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340707676' post='2997089'] Or maybe they just don't want to oA in on NATO's oA entry to end up on the opposite side of the war to most of their allies. [/quote] I just wanna go back to this. Did you think I meant for NPO to act in aggression to MK? Someone said this... [quote]I assume that if anyone hits NATO, there will be no backing from NPO.[/quote] Then a Nato guy said this [quote]NPO is currently engaged in a war and everyone knows you don't split off from one front to aid another.[/quote] Then I said this [quote]That's a terrible excuse especially when the front is so small, the risk of a VE counter should be the only thing stopping them from helping you. [/quote] Then you said quoted that with this [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340707676' post='2997089'] Or maybe they just don't want to oA in on NATO's oA entry to end up on the opposite side of the war to most of their allies. [/quote] If not by your logic NPO just oA'd on a preempt supporting a attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1340722974' post='2997265'] i guess NG must really be struggling with GOD hehehehehe [/quote] Johnny, you more than anyone must understand the ranges issue, especially as umbrella call in GOONS or one of a dozen other allies to cover mid and lower tier ranges. Does that mean you couldn't handle Fark as you had to call in Deinos and TLR? Hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340723408' post='2997275'] Whose current only ally is TPF who didn't defend them in the curbstomp by AZTEC/WAPA because they wanted to help NPO with their war later on Should be a fun backdoor convo going on right bout now lol [/quote] It's non-chaining. they were very helpful in the rebuild. Plus we could barely get enough WAPA slots as it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1340726893' post='2997307'] Johnny, you more than anyone must understand the ranges issue, especially as umbrella call in GOONS or one of a dozen other allies to cover mid and lower tier ranges. Does that mean you couldn't handle Fark as you had to call in Deinos and TLR? Hmm? [/quote] I was taking the piss mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1340727474' post='2997312'] I was taking the piss mate [/quote] i [s]think[/s] hope he was too lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340724864' post='2997291'] If I could plant money and make grow up a money tree I'd be rich. [/quote] thank you for answering my question in the most direct manner possible. [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340727514' post='2997313'] i [s]think[/s] hope he was too lol [/quote] i thought the hehehehehe in my post made it obvious Edited June 26, 2012 by Johnny Apocalypse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1340726359' post='2997302'] I just wanna go back to this. Did you think I meant for NPO to act in aggression to MK? Someone said this... Then a Nato guy said this Then I said this Then you said quoted that with this If not by your logic NPO just oA'd on a preempt supporting a attack. [/quote] what. why do you want to go back to this. !@#$@#$ think about what youre saying. GOD hit NG. NPO is defending them. though through an ODAP, which I thought was an MDP. my point is that they chose to defend an ally rather than join a different ally in attacking someone, ultimately in support of CSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cao Pai Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) While I dislike NG extremely, I wish you luck as an ally, NPO. Edited June 26, 2012 by Cao Pai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340727623' post='2997315'] what. why do you want to go back to this. !@#$@#$ think about what youre saying. GOD hit NG. NPO is defending them. though through an ODAP, which I thought was an MDP. my point is that they chose to defend an ally rather than join a different ally in attacking someone, ultimately in support of CSN. [/quote] The point the others guys were discussing was, would NPO come to defend NATO if NATO got attacked. I said they should. NPO would therefore be defending NATO through a MDoAP. Non Grata preempted someone(RIA or something) GOD attacked Non Grata because Non grata attacked their ally. NPO is now defending Non Grata through an ...ODP I guess it is down to NPO. Ultimately in support of MK or Warn/defend off attackers from a close ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Commander Shephard, you're like a d34th lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340722372' post='2997251'] Tell me, who was benefited when you chose to not defend LSF? And Who was benefited when NPO chose to defend NG? Yes MK in both cases... Now go figure because both alliances are MK cronies. Also I love this new agenda thing. [/quote] Exactly. You don't have any sort of moral objection to an alliance "defending" an ally or not. You just don't want to see anyone make any sort of decision that benefits MK in the slightest. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be honest and stop cloaking your agenda in faux moralism. Edited June 26, 2012 by Ayatollah Bromeini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1340728702' post='2997328'] The point the others guys were discussing was, would NPO come to defend NATO if NATO got attacked. I said they should. NPO would therefore be defending NATO through a MDoAP. Non Grata preempted someone(RIA or something) GOD attacked Non Grata because Non grata attacked their ally. NPO is now defending Non Grata through an ...ODP I guess it is down to NPO. Ultimately in support of MK or Warn/defend off attackers from a close ally. [/quote] For god's sake. NATO optionally joined R&R in attacking us. NATO has not been countered. Therefore NPO joining NATO's front would be through the optional aggression portion of their treaty. NPO decided not to enact that option because they don't support NATO's agenda, they have no obligation to support NATO in that move. As I remember, they said they would support any ally that was hit. Therefore, when NG got countered, NPO decided to enact the optional defense part of their treaty to defend NG. NG was attacked. NATO was not. GOD forced NPO's hand. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. I'm also not sure why you're so down on NPO for this, your alliance is in on the same wider side. Also $%&@ you for drawing me into your e-laywering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cao Pai Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340729821' post='2997342'] For god's sake. NATO optionally joined R&R in attacking us. NATO has not been countered. Therefore NPO joining NATO's front would be through the optional aggression portion of their treaty. NPO decided not to enact that option because they don't support NATO's agenda, they have no obligation to support NATO in that move. As I remember, they said they would support any ally that was hit. Therefore, when NG got countered, NPO decided to enact the optional defense part of their treaty to defend NG. NG was attacked. NATO was not. GOD forced NPO's hand. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. I'm also not sure why you're so down on NPO for this, your alliance is in on the same wider side. Also $%&@ you for drawing me into your e-laywering. [/quote] Fairly certain he said *if* NATO was attacked, no longer making it optional aggression, but defending NATO from a counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340729821' post='2997342'] For god's sake. NATO optionally joined R&R in attacking us. NATO has not been countered. Therefore NPO joining NATO's front would be through the optional aggression portion of their treaty.[/quote] They were talking about would NATO be defended by NPO if she got attacked. I said NPO should defend them if they did, I think you didn't understand what I was talking about in my initial post and thought I said NPO should attack MK with an oA. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1340729821' post='2997342'] For god's sake. [/quote] Honestly, give up, some people are incapable of even the most basic reading comprehension and thought processes. The NPO announcement, and then this declaration, is one of the most simple and open narratives to follow of this war, and people are still messing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1340730106' post='2997350'] Honestly, give up, some people are incapable of even the most basic reading comprehension and thought processes. [/quote] That's so ironic I won't comment any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanChristopher Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Just heard the link audio. Well said but I prefer to hear it in rant mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts