Sparta signs NpO

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1348946639' post='3035710']
"Neither side had a moral high ground"

"WHAT?? You think MK had moral high ground?????"

reading can be tough though, keep trying
[/quote]

You're attempting to say there's a tough decision somewhere in whether to defend your allies or go along with someone elses self-serving plan to destroy them.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348964109' post='3035768']
You're attempting to say there's a tough decision somewhere in whether to defend your allies or go along with someone elses self-serving plan to destroy them.
[/quote]

Explain to me who was destroyed again? Were they beaten in a war? Sure. Destroyed? Holy inappropriate word. C&G constituent alliances were "destroyed" repeatedly, it made us stronger. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348980966' post='3035841']
Explain to me who was destroyed again? Were they beaten in a war? Sure. Destroyed? Holy inappropriate word. C&G constituent alliances were "destroyed" repeatedly, it made us stronger. There is a lesson in there somewhere.
[/quote]



Who exactly are you trying to fool here?

I actually think you believe some of your own spin.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348985803' post='3035857']
Who exactly are you trying to fool here?

I actually think you believe some of your own spin.
[/quote]

Im asking a question... Who was destroyed. You either answer it, since you suggested destruction was planned, or evade it, as you have chosen to do.

[DeathAdder]

I just love how the treaty topic is derailed by idiocy.

[Ardus]

[quote name='DeathAdder' timestamp='1349029943' post='3036017']
I just love how the treaty topic is derailed by idiocy.
[/quote]
Somebody signed a treaty?

[Eregor]

[quote name='Thalayk' timestamp='1348934059' post='3035646']
The OWF seems to be the powder keg of CN at the moment. Everything is used as fodder for verbal onslaught. Just waiting for that spark.
[/quote]
..."at the moment," you say?! Surely it's happened before.


[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349030033' post='3036019']
Somebody signed a treaty?
[/quote]
Yes, Polaris and Sparta have discovered an unexpected depth of friendship and signed a treaty together.[sup]1[/sup] In light of that news, let me simply say congratulations to both alliances.



[sup]1 - I know you actually knew that already, but it made for a good segue.[/sup]

[Emmanuel Kelly]

Couldn't find anyone else who'd take you, Polar?

[Azaghul]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1348964109' post='3035768']
You're attempting to say there's a tough decision somewhere in whether to defend your allies or go along with someone elses self-serving plan to destroy them.
[/quote]
As Rush pointed out, no one wanted to "destroy" them.

The issue was never Sparta. The issue was the alliances Sparta made the [i]choice[/i] to support. Sure you had legitimate reasons to support them, just as Umbrella did to support the other side.

There's a whole lot of hypocrisy from Sparta (and Myth) whining about what Umbrella did. That Umbrella should have followed Sparta instead of the majority of its treaties, but not the other way around. That Umbrella was wrong to follow the majority of its treaties, but Sparta wasn't. It's also funny that Sparta acts surprised about where Umbrella stood when Umbrella had made that pretty clear months earlier.

[Jgoods45]

Nice Grouping~

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1349053774' post='3036105']
As Rush pointed out, no one wanted to "destroy" them.

The issue was never Sparta. The issue was the alliances Sparta made the [i]choice[/i] to support. Sure you had legitimate reasons to support them, just as Umbrella did to support the other side.

There's a whole lot of hypocrisy from Sparta (and Myth) whining about what Umbrella did. That Umbrella should have followed Sparta instead of the majority of its treaties, but not the other way around. That Umbrella was wrong to follow the majority of its treaties, but Sparta wasn't. It's also funny that Sparta acts surprised about where Umbrella stood when Umbrella had made that pretty clear months earlier.
[/quote]

You're joking right? [i]Choice? [/i]That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hypocrisy? You have some nerve. Sparta didn't have a choice.[i] Umbrella did.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
And ha! No one wanted to destroy them, just start two global wars with their defeat at overwhelming odds the goal. You can't fake this stuff folks, these are the spin masters whom have been allowed to dominate for the past few months.


I know it suits your agenda to assume reality doesn't actually exist but I guess delusion would do you all better than owning your past as of late. I can't speak for Sparta but I know we certainly never asked Umbrella to defend us so much as not actively assist in attacking our allies or enabling their allies to attack us directly. Please explain to me how it's hypocrisy? Umbrella told us they would be supporting their "other," allies and "not us." They ended up directly attacking their direct allies and pretended it was a favor for not hitting whom was at the time assumed to be the biggest challenge (Fark,) or not hitting their allies directly. How is it hypocrisy? You're not aware of the long talks we held with Umbrella and the myriad options we offered which were all rejected -- each and everyone were thrown aside. None of which had Umbrella actually having to put its pixels on the line for its allies.

Here you are having the gall to say that Sparta had a [i]choice[/i] in you demanding they drop all of their allies in exchange for thirty pieces of silver -- immediately after telling you to get lost you turned on them and started spitting the same crap you did before you needed them. What's hilarious is that this same mentality applies when you've wanted something from Umbrella.

Repeatedly you and your allies rely on Umbrella & in some sort of inferiority complex the [i]"most strongest alliance in the game," [/i]bend at the will to enable your actions. You attempt to shame them claiming they didn't pull their weight in Doomhouse V. NPO, you slandered Roquentin in hopes of currying favor with the alliance therein, you and your allies incessantly made requests -- and at times outright requests to cancel on their direct allies -- so incredulous that over time you backed them into a corner so that Umbrella would feel bad if it didn't join you in one of your self serving quests.

The people who gave Umbrella the most !@#$ -- Non Grata and MK -- one is no longer allied and had a particularly large public tiff not too long ago, and MK is marginalized after overspending its political capital using Umbrella and its allies for little gain.

The only hypocrisy is how much !@#$ Umbrella gave (and was still giving ITT,) Sparta or anyone for that matter for asking Umbrella to act like an ally while it willingly obliged everyone else's request to use them as anything but.

Congrats again to Polaris and Sparta.

[DeathAdder]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1349053774' post='3036105']
That Umbrella was wrong to follow the majority of its treaties, but Sparta wasn't. It's also funny that Sparta acts surprised about where Umbrella stood when Umbrella had made that pretty clear months earlier.
[/quote]

That's the opinion of one member, not the majority of Sparta. Quite frankly, the majority of Sparta were [u]glad[/u] about the cancellation(myself included, being a big pusher to drop Umb), and had already brought up downgrading it long before they cancelled us.

Why Luka even wasted his time to go over there was beyond me. By the time the request was made for them to lend assistance, it was fairly clear to everyone in Spartan Govt that the Debt Umb owed to us would never be paid off.

We were tired of just being meatshields for them, and if they hadn't dropped us, I would've dropped them.

Edited October 1, 2012 by DeathAdder

[Azaghul]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349055596' post='3036113']
You're joking right? [i]Choice? [/i]That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hypocrisy? You have some nerve. Sparta didn't have a choice.[i] Umbrella did.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
And ha! No one wanted to destroy them, just start two global wars with their defeat at overwhelming odds the goal. You can't fake this stuff folks, these are the spin masters whom have been allowed to dominate for the past few months.


I know it suits your agenda to assume reality doesn't actually exist but I guess delusion would do you all better than owning your past as of late. I can't speak for Sparta but I know we certainly never asked Umbrella to defend us so much as not actively assist in attacking our allies or enabling their allies to attack us directly. Please explain to me how it's hypocrisy? Umbrella told us they would be supporting their "other," allies and "not us." They ended up directly attacking their direct allies and pretended it was a favor for not hitting whom was at the time assumed to be the biggest challenge (Fark,) or not hitting their allies directly. How is it hypocrisy? You're not aware of the long talks we held with Umbrella and the myriad options we offered which were all rejected -- each and everyone were thrown aside. None of which had Umbrella actually having to put its pixels on the line for its allies.

Here you are having the gall to say that Sparta had a [i]choice[/i] in you demanding they drop all of their allies in exchange for thirty pieces of silver -- immediately after telling you to get lost you turned on them and started spitting the same crap you did before you needed them. What's hilarious is that this same mentality applies when you've wanted something from Umbrella.

Repeatedly you and your allies rely on Umbrella & in some sort of inferiority complex the [i]"most strongest alliance in the game," [/i]bend at the will to enable your actions. You attempt to shame them claiming they didn't pull their weight in Doomhouse V. NPO, you slandered Roquentin in hopes of currying favor with the alliance therein, you and your allies incessantly made requests -- and at times outright requests to cancel on their direct allies -- so incredulous that over time you backed them into a corner so that Umbrella would feel bad if it didn't join you in one of your self serving quests.

The people who gave Umbrella the most !@#$ -- Non Grata and MK -- one is no longer allied and had a particularly large public tiff not too long ago, and MK is marginalized after overspending its political capital using Umbrella and its allies for little gain.

The only hypocrisy is how much !@#$ Umbrella gave (and was still giving ITT,) Sparta or anyone for that matter for asking Umbrella to act like an ally while it willingly obliged everyone else's request to use them as anything but.

Congrats again to Polaris and Sparta.
[/quote]
Explain to me how Umbrella had a choice and Sparta didn't?

I can't speak for other alliances, but I know for MK's part we respected Sparta's decision to stay with XX (something I would have done in their shoes) and didn't have any direct antipathy for them at all going into that war. That only came afterwards with their horrible performance during that war, both politically and militarily, and their support of Roquentin's garbage.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Umbrella "hitting allies" but they refused to hit any XX alliance for Sparta's benefit and to many other's annoyance. Obviously their actions favored our side but that's where the majority of their allies were. Just as Sparta's actions favored the majority of their allies.

As far as I can tell the only thing that would have made you and Sparta happy is for Umbrella to either stay neutral or go in on your side, ignoring all their treaties and ties on the other side.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1349075469' post='3036205']
Explain to me how Umbrella had a choice and Sparta didn't?

I can't speak for other alliances, but I know for MK's part we respected Sparta's decision to stay with XX (something I would have done in their shoes) and didn't have any direct antipathy for them at all going into that war. That only came afterwards with their horrible performance during that war, both politically and militarily, and their support of Roquentin's garbage.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Umbrella "hitting allies" but they refused to hit any XX alliance for Sparta's benefit and to many other's annoyance. Obviously their actions favored our side but that's where the majority of their allies were. Just as Sparta's actions favored the majority of their allies.

As far as I can tell the only thing that would have made you and Sparta happy is for Umbrella to either stay neutral or go in on your side, ignoring all their treaties and ties on the other side.
[/quote]

Right.

If MK actually respected Sparta they wouldn't have asked them to drop all of their treaties in order to turn on its recently formed blocmates. The moment they told you to take it somewhere else you openly and privately ridiculed them for having the audacity to defend their allies from an attack YOU were planning. The forums were littered with anti-Sparta sentiment from multiple MK members long before the war.

As for Umbrella not hitting XX alliances, I don't see how that benefit anyone but themselves.

They openly were incessantly campaigned to attack Fark, whom your coalition perceived at the time to be the most vaunted military assignment of your entire scheme and I have a hard time seeing you deny being the primary holdup in moving forward with the endeavor. That not hitting someone Ardus himself proclaimed PF+Iron wanted no part of taking on by themselves was a great favor to Sparta any more than themselves is lost on me. It's not as if Umbrella didn't attack anyone. Umbrella freed up the bulk of the coalition to hit XX, their allies. Some favor it would be to have some self-respect and simply say "no," to something so ludicrous and damaging long-term.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with suggesting Umbrella telling people openly plotting to attack its allies "Hey you know what would be a great idea, you !@#$@#$ off," or even "Um, yeah you're all plotting to attack our allies. That's fine but we'll be sitting out," would have been acceptable. Especially considering how long it was taking to put together the coalition the attack wouldn't have likely happened without them.

I really don't. Yes. By god! Umbrella should've stayed neutral instead of continuing to plot with others whom basically wanted a piece of XX, not just because of the feigned rally of cry of "Fark," but because they didn't like the significant weight the bloc carried and its potential to be used against you.

Then again you do live on some fantasy planet where you have the gall to give !@#$ to an alliance that enabled you to act like idiots on the world stage so it's entirely possible you actually believe what you're saying makes sense and isn't just revisionist spin.

Edited October 1, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Max Power]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349055596' post='3036113']
Here you are having the gall to say that Sparta had a [i]choice[/i] in you demanding they drop all of their allies in exchange for thirty pieces of silver -- immediately after telling you to get lost you turned on them and started spitting the same crap you did before you needed them. What's hilarious is that this same mentality applies when you've wanted something from Umbrella.
[/quote]

The Unholy Alliance and the formation of PF tied Umbrella pretty deeply into TOP no matter how those two were getting along at the time. XX's only direct tie to Polar was the FARK PIAT, which although far stronger than a typical PIAT wasn't a guarantee of anything. Sure, SF became involved due to Polar/RIA, etc. but Sparta wasn't directly tied to Polar, GOD or CSN then (the three alliances that were arguably the most targeted) unless I'm mistaken. The point here is that Sparta was pulled in Polar/GOD's direction no more than Umbrella was pulled in TOP's direction, and when it became a general PF direction almost instantly, Umbrella became inextricably tied into it.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349124655' post='3036265']
That not hitting someone Ardus himself proclaimed PF+Iron wanted no part of taking on by themselves was a great favor to Sparta any more than themselves is lost on me.
[/quote]
Great to hear Ardus speaks for us. Besides, the PF/IRON lack of desire to hit FARK wasn't based on some kind of fear, it was based on wanting to be deployed on Polar and GOD without fighting half a billion alliances at once. I also don't recall any of us ever having a problem with FARK specifically.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1349127361' post='3036318']
The Unholy Alliance and the formation of PF tied Umbrella pretty deeply into TOP no matter how those two were getting along at the time. XX's only direct tie to Polar was the FARK PIAT, which although far stronger than a typical PIAT wasn't a guarantee of anything. Sure, SF became involved due to Polar/RIA, etc. but Sparta wasn't directly tied to Polar, GOD or CSN then (the three alliances that were arguably the most targeted) unless I'm mistaken. The point here is that Sparta was pulled in Polar/GOD's direction no more than Umbrella was pulled in TOP's direction, and when it became a general PF direction almost instantly, Umbrella became inextricably tied into it. [/quote]

Max, you're forgetting that during the planning and up until a small amount of time before the war broke out Umbrella was directly allied to MHA and Sparta at an MDoAP level. [i]Umbrella was not and still is not allied to TOP. [/i](Unless someone wants to contest a NAP > MDoAP)
Your rationale is an inappropriate comparison-- a similar example would be NPO plotting to and eventually attacking MK with TOP knowing it and the unholy alliance would suddenly being void because of IRON's treaty with NPO.

The easy and poor "a-ha! but!!," rebuttal is "non-chaining," but in essence your original post here confirms that there was much more going on and as such Umbrella's loyalties should not have strayed so far from their direct allies.



[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1349127361' post='3036318']
Great to hear Ardus speaks for us. Besides, the PF/IRON lack of desire to hit FARK wasn't based on some kind of fear, it was based on wanting to be deployed on Polar and GOD without fighting half a billion alliances at once. I also don't recall any of us ever having a problem with FARK specifically.
[/quote]

Ardus, Feanor. Probably Azaghul here. A whole lot of people sure spoke/attempted to speak for TOP/IRON/PF at one point another then but that's not either here nor there. The point being made was not that anyone was necessarily afraid but that Fark was perceived to be a more resource consuming target. The assignment of which took a good majority of the planning time / convincing of others in order to go along with the endeavor. I personally and even Umbrella's allies view/ed it as not willing (for the conservation of pixels,) to do the hard part of the dirty deed/ work as opposed to some kind of favor. I just find it sad that Umbrella receives so much crap to this day from its allies for not twisting the knife in the backs of its allies hard enough.

Edited October 1, 2012 by IYIyTh

[WarGod0001]

No better place to ski then in hell!!!!!

o/Sparta
o/NpO

[Max Power]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349128134' post='3036333']
Max, you're forgetting that during the planning and up until a small amount of time before the war broke out Umbrella was directly allied to MHA and Sparta at an MDoAP level. [i]Umbrella was not and still is not allied to TOP. [/i](Unless someone wants to contest a NAP > MDoAP)
Your rationale is an inappropriate comparison-- a similar example would be NPO plotting to and eventually attacking MK with TOP knowing it and the unholy alliance would suddenly being void because of IRON's treaty with NPO.

The easy and poor "a-ha! but!!," rebuttal is "non-chaining," but in essence your original post here confirms that there was much more going on and as such Umbrella's loyalties should not have strayed so far from their direct allies.[/quote]
I've always been a fan of the calling it as you see it at the start of war thing. So the Grudge War was based on TOP/IRON vs. Polar. Or if you want to expand it to the first couple counters, given that those were planned well in advance, PF/DR vs. Polar/SF. Umbrella clearly wanted to side with one of those groups and Sparta wanted to side with the other. They could have posted a joint DoN, I suppose, but for whatever reason they didn't. There may be a good argument for that in retrospect, I have no idea. We in BN try to avoid all this happening to us and we've been both good and fortunate about it thus far.

I wouldn't call that example very similar. Sparta simply did not have a direct link to any of those three alliances I mentioned. The chain there goes PF* -> Umbrella -> Sparta -> FARK -> Polar, as opposed to a NPO -> IRON -> TOP -> MK chain. There would have to be a mystery alliance between TOP and MK for that example to be an equivalent. Even if you want to make the Grudge War chain TOP -> BN/Argent -> Umbrella -> Sparta -> FARK -> Polar, making Umbrella less obligated to back TOP/IRON, it still doesn't make Sparta any [i]more[/i] obligated to defend Polar/GOD/CSN.

I'm not trying to lay blame here. I'm simply saying Umbrella backed PF/DR, Sparta backed Polar/SF, they obviously didn't have a cohesive plan as allies given the results of the war, and the treaty was unsurprisingly cancelled thereafter. I'm personally happy Umbrella backed PF/DR because it put all my alliance's allies on the same side of the war, which is something I see as a worthy goal all the time. While Umbrella and Sparta clearly mutually failed in acting as a cohesive grouping, I haven't seen evidence of Umbrella actively seeking to get Sparta rolled until after the treaty had already undergone a stormy cancellation. Umbrella and Sparta each made their choices as sovereign alliances, as they have the right to do.

I'm not sure non-chaining is a defence any more than chaining treaties are simply a way of being allied to all your allies' allies too. If all our treaties were chaining, we'd be indirectly allied to some pretty far-flung people (NPO and VE, anyone?), and I'm sure there are many alliances whose FA stances would look way more confusing than ours would in that case.

*You may recall BN and Argent, both MDP allies of Umbrella, were involved in an almost instantaneous DoS of TOP's initial strike.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349128134' post='3036333']
Ardus, Feanor. Probably Azaghul here. A whole lot of people sure spoke/attempted to speak for TOP/IRON/PF at one point another then but that's not either here nor there. The point being made was not that anyone was necessarily afraid but that Fark was perceived to be a more resource consuming target. The assignment of which took a good majority of the planning time / convincing of others in order to go along with the endeavor. I personally and even Umbrella's allies view/ed it as not willing (for the conservation of pixels,) to do the hard part of the dirty deed/ work as opposed to some kind of favor. I just find it sad that Umbrella receives so much crap to this day from its allies for not twisting the knife in the backs of its allies hard enough.
[/quote]
So you would rather Umbrella have shown a less pixel-conserving attitude, and to have accomplished this by staying out of the war entirely? Or what else could they have done other than support the Polar/SF side, which they weren't going to do? Stopping the war altogether wouldn't have been an option given the way TOP/DR viewed Polar at the time. I'm not sure Umbrella hitting Fark would have been very good for you...

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1349136739' post='3036405']
I've always been a fan of the calling it as you see it at the start of war thing. So the Grudge War was based on TOP/IRON vs. Polar.[/quote]

I'm just going to snip this here. That war wasn't [i]just[/i] about TOP/Polar, there were many interests and anyone who had access to any amount of intelligence knows that MK , Non Grata and eventually Mjolinor alliances campaigned for the war just as much if not more than TOP. None of these alliances cared at all for Polaris. You have multiple MK leadership members on record saying the aim of the war was not Polar but to cripple/weaken XX. As you might have gathered, given that the only way that war was going to unfold was if Umbrella participated and took the burden off others there were serious delays because Umb wouldn't take Fark. There is a lot left to be desired of your analysis and it leaves out much of the argument that this originated from -- Umbrella getting !@#$ from CnG and MK for not doing enough to cripple its direct allies in a fight it wanted nothing to do with.. Additionally, you have multiple Umb allies (and at least once, a non ally,) who had asked for Umbrella to outright cancel its treaties with MHA and Sparta or do another alliances bidding, a pretty blatant violation of their sovereignty at worst and a serious lack of respect.


Additionally, you have the manner in which Johnny handled the whole affair -- which he all but admits he handled extremely !@#$tily.

As much, there were plenty of situations that could've worked for both sides that made much more sense for Umbrella (and much better than predicted as history has vindicated,) that were outright thrown back into our faces as Umb's other allies actively plotted for ways to goad XX into the affair. That the whole Dave War occurred because several CnG members +MK n Co stated they didn't feel XX/SF took enough damage in the "Grudge war," is indicative of this.

At any rate -- MHA and Sparta weren't going around begging Umb to attack their direct allies every other week, and were certainly not aggressors in either conflict. Certainly they should not have had to put up with Umbrella eventually directly attacking their treaty partners (KoFN, et al.) At the base you are saying most treaties should mean absolutely nothing if someone other than your direct ally starts a war, and I find that ridiculous -- especially when logs of MK's multiple botched attempts to garner support for the war (jesus christ how long did it take?) against some of Umb's direct allies were publicly revealed and Umbrella had little to say for it.

In my opinion you are too quick to vindicate Umbrella for having too many commitments to uphold when there were better solutions, but that's a different argument.


[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1349136739' post='3036405']
So you would rather Umbrella have shown a less pixel-conserving attitude, and to have accomplished this by staying out of the war entirely? Or what else could they have done other than support the Polar/SF side, which they weren't going to do? Stopping the war altogether wouldn't have been an option given the way TOP/DR viewed Polar at the time. I'm not sure Umbrella hitting Fark would have been very good for you...
[/quote]

I would have had them stay out. They had no obligation to TOP. They had no obligation to IRON that superceded their treaties to MHA/Sparta. They owe nothing to TOP and have no relation to the conflict at all. No one ever asked them to support Polar, but in retrospect I'm guessing there's a few that wish they would have (including inside the alliance and their allies so that they might actually be relevant for the next war.) We certainly never expected them and didn't plan for it in the slightest. As for TOP/DR, the war may have very well contnued -- but without the large backing/force that Umbrella provided and enabled its allies who had wanted to attack MHA to do so and pile on. As for Fark, as this previous war showed -- I'm not sure it would've mattered. Umbrella entering on behalf of the otherside was just as well as attacking Sparta/MHA itself and was a choice Umbrella made, and no one else.

Edited October 2, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Max Power]

I'm not saying treaties don't mean anything when it's not your direct ally attacking/defending at all. I'm talking about how you decide where to line up in a war. We were part of that coalition from the start and Umbrella backed us. Or should NPO and TPF have declared neutrality out of the blocks instead of NPO's DoS because of the potential chain from Polar through STA?

Umbrella had a relation to us and Argent. I've heard so much mud slung over this goading XX thing and my alliance had no involvement in it so I can't really comment on that. Obviously alliances like NG weren't exactly XX supporters, to say the least, but Umbrella's lack of all-out action was a reminder that the PF/DR/NPO side was already at a critical mass. Look at BAPS, Argent, GRE and OMFG on Sparta's top tier, for example.

In terms of war campaigning, some of the losing alliances in that war were among the least popular alliances in CN history. There were plenty of alliances that didn't like them.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349124655' post='3036265']
Right.

If MK actually respected Sparta they wouldn't have asked them to drop all of their treaties in order to turn on its recently formed blocmates. The moment they told you to take it somewhere else you openly and privately ridiculed them for having the audacity to defend their allies from an attack YOU were planning. The forums were littered with anti-Sparta sentiment from multiple MK members long before the war.[/quote]
This is blatantly false and I challenge you to find any evidence of MK gov ridiculing Sparta for sticking with XX.

Certainly [i]some[/i] MK members never had a high opinion of Sparta but our gov at the time liked Sparta and thought you would do well. It turns out the detractors in membership were right but they did not hold sway pre-war.

[quote]As for Umbrella not hitting XX alliances, I don't see how that benefit anyone but themselves.

They openly were incessantly campaigned to attack Fark, whom your coalition perceived at the time to be the most vaunted military assignment of your entire scheme and I have a hard time seeing you deny being the primary holdup in moving forward with the endeavor. That not hitting someone Ardus himself proclaimed PF+Iron wanted no part of taking on by themselves was a great favor to Sparta any more than themselves is lost on me. It's not as if Umbrella didn't attack anyone. Umbrella freed up the bulk of the coalition to hit XX, their allies. Some favor it would be to have some self-respect and simply say "no," to something so ludicrous and damaging long-term.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with suggesting Umbrella telling people openly plotting to attack its allies "Hey you know what would be a great idea, you !@#$@#$ off," or even "Um, yeah you're all plotting to attack our allies. That's fine but we'll be sitting out," would have been acceptable. Especially considering how long it was taking to put together the coalition the attack wouldn't have likely happened without them.

I really don't. Yes. By god! Umbrella should've stayed neutral instead of continuing to plot with others whom basically wanted a piece of XX, not just because of the feigned rally of cry of "Fark," but because they didn't like the significant weight the bloc carried and its potential to be used against you.

Then again you do live on some fantasy planet where you have the gall to give !@#$ to an alliance that enabled you to act like idiots on the world stage so it's entirely possible you actually believe what you're saying makes sense and isn't just revisionist spin.
[/quote]
What you're missing in this is outside of FARK, XX was only seen as potentially dangerous because of it's connection to SF. Only one alliance on our side that I know of, NPO, had a serious desire to get a piece of Sparta, and NPO was not a central part of it until FARK preempted them.

You can pretend that there was major plotting to target Umbrella's allies but that was not the case. Polar, Fark and SF always loomed many times larger. Sparta and MHA made the choice to support those allies, which is fine. But it's very disingenuous of you to suggest the war was about Sparta and MHA and not those other alliance.

[magicninja]

Yeah nobody really cared about MHA or Sparta. We all assumed Sparta would jump to peace mode anyway and MHA was just someone who was in the way of the main dish. To think that any of that war was actually geared towards XX is ridiculous, as I have said many times before....too many times it seems. Anyway, you wanted to roll with SF and Polar and pals....fine but the war was never about you in any way shape or form. Goddamn Myth.....c'mon man.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1349158110' post='3036550']
This is blatantly false and I challenge you to find any evidence of MK gov ridiculing Sparta for sticking with XX. [/quote]

The entire forums here were covered with slanderous crap immediately after it became official that Sparta told you to go $%&@ yourselves for suggesting they defend their allies instead of cancelling all of their treaties for you. Feigning ignorance over the fact doesn't buy you any cool points. Would you also like the piece of evidence where a government member of your alliance states he wishes for MHA to disband? Or does that not exist either? Perhaps maybe all of that evidence against your alliance being manipulate scum is just a dream conjured up by Xiphosis or something right?

.[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1349158110' post='3036550']
You can pretend that there was major plotting to target Umbrella's allies but that was not the case. Polar, Fark and SF always loomed many times larger. Sparta and MHA made the choice to support those allies, which is fine. But it's very disingenuous of you to suggest the war was about Sparta and MHA and not those other alliance.
[/quote]

If that was the case why did you and several other of Umbrella's allies openly campaign for Umbrella to drop their treaties with Sparta and MHA outright? That speaks of something that is not very "fine," as you put it and is very disingenous to you to suggest you never took part in such rubbish. Umbrella had multiple options open and chose the winning side, and still get !@#$ from its allies for not directly attacking its allies or doing more to harm them than they already did.

There are posts littered in this very thread with CnG members and their allies confirming this. Saying that XX was just colatteral damage sounds nice and all but Umb's actions during and following were not that of allies. They had been manipulated into believing your spin that if you start a war in any given theatre they should just forget about any relationships/allies they have because their other allies wanted a war elsewhere. If we had asked for Umbrella to support a war against MK I'm pretty sure the answer wouldn't have been "Well okay, but we'll only hit CnG and not MK." Hah! The fact is Umbrella played favorites and got burned / still get burned by the people they let use them.

I know some of you have to pretend to not be massive #%&$@ and attempt to revise history or have to be good soldiers while still allied, but save the "Poor Umbrella," talk for someone who doesn't know any better.

Edited October 2, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Johnny Apocalypse]

this thread took off pretty well imo

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1349182155' post='3036582']
this thread took off pretty well imo
[/quote]

I liked it better when you were defending your actions by claiming you were/are incompetent .

What's with the AA change?