Imperial Decree

[Branimir]

Agenda of Chaos, shall not be tolerated by agents of Order.

I am a goddamn poet xD
If you dont get it, think about it looking at the picture and you should eventually get there.
Until then, keep on chewing on that.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357827820' post='3073860']
Treaty or no treaty NEW acted on a bond that extends far beyond our world, instead of acting on that and doing the "right thing" and going after the party responsible, you called them out by attacking K? [b]What does that prove, that you can kick a man while he is down?[/b] Why wait, why the line in the sand, why the public spectacle, who are you trying to protect and why?
[/quote]

From this DoW, the aid NSO got before this all happened, and the peanut gallery (namely NPO and NSO) members trying as hard as they can to do clean up in this thread using personal slights and from overall stats. It seems like Kaskus is not the man down, NEW just gave Kaskus what NSO was getting to keep it on fair terms. This is a horrible attempt at covering up jumping in to defend NSO, I accept helping your ally because there really isn't any set rule by which Bob works. All the power to NSO for helping their ally, but it is sad when they hide behind crap like this to attack Kaskus. Be a man and admit what is going on, don't blame this on NEW. If you wanted to hit over aid you would hit NEW.

[Oranges]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357827820' post='3073860']
Treaty or no treaty NEW acted on a bond that extends far beyond our world, instead of acting on that and doing the "right thing" and going after the party responsible, you called them out by attacking K? What does that prove, that you can kick a man while he is down? Why wait, why the line in the sand, why the public spectacle, who are you trying to protect and why?
[/quote]

One cannot transfer money if the recieving party does not accept it. Each is as culpuble as the other; one for sending illegitimate aid, the other for accepting it. Who is responsible? They both are. Going after one party would let them achieve their stated goal of chaos. Going the other, drawing a line in the sand, contains the conflict and warns off others who would think to act in a similar manner.

Kaskus is a legitimate target, Pacifica's [i]casus belli[/i] is legitimate. You cannot fault in the manner in which we have acted.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357828284' post='3073864']
If you wanted to hit over aid you would hit NEW.
[/quote]

[b]If NEW aid bombs Kaskus again NPO will. Simple as that.[/b]

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357828301' post='3073865']
One cannot transfer money if the recieving party does not accept it. [b]Each is as culpuble as the other[/b]; one for sending illegitimate aid, the other for accepting it. [b]Who is responsible? They both are[/b]. [s]Going after one party would let them achieve their stated goal of chaos[/s].(going after NEW would mean taking serious damage), drawing a line in the sand, contains the conflict and warns off others who would think to act in a similar manner.

Kaskus is a legitimate target, Pacifica's [i]casus belli[/i] is legitimate. You cannot fault in the manner in which we have acted.
[/quote]

Fixed for you.

[Oranges]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357827820' post='3073860']
What does that prove, that you can kick a man while he is down?
[/quote]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357828284' post='3073864']
It seems like Kaskus is not the man down, NEW just gave Kaskus what NSO was getting to keep it on fair terms.
[/quote]

You guys really need to get together and have a talk to decide on whether or not Kaskus is a man down. One or the other, folks, you can't have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it.

Not that it's really relevant to Pacifica's [i]casus belli[/i] anyway. It just saddens me to see our naysayers so confused and disorganised. I'd prefer to refute a coherent argument, not this headless chicken stuff.

[Joseph Black]

For one to draw us into the same argument is stupid, im in this for my own interest, whether K is down or not doesnt really matter to me. Acting like your the champion of justice because you can kick K around doesn't address the real issue or my question

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1357828572' post='3073866']
[b]If NEW aid bombs Kaskus again NPO will. Simple as that.[/b]
[/quote]

Why does it take a second time, if you were giving chances why did you hit Kaskus rather than just saying "do it again and we fight"? Because its bull !@#$ and you know it. Just admit it, this was not about aid, this was about helping NSO out that is an irrefutable fact anyone that is not a member of the clean up squad can see that just by reading this post. Basically "We declare war on this alliance for accepting aid...oh the alliance that actually sent the aid? Oh we are gonna be nice and give them a second chance." NPO stop hiding just admit the fact. I am disappointed more in you for letting this escalate like this because at least in the last year you seemed to have attempted to improve from the early days.

In response to Oranges well Mudd said it pretty well on his own so:

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357829161' post='3073873']
For one to draw us into the same argument is stupid, im in this for my own interest, whether K is down or not doesnt really matter to me. Acting like your the champion of justice because you can kick K around doesn't address the real issue or my question
[/quote]

Edited January 10, 2013 by Isaac MatthewII

[BrJLa]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357827820' post='3073860']
Treaty or no treaty NEW acted on a bond that extends far beyond our world, instead of acting on that and doing the "right thing" and going after the party responsible, you called them out by attacking K? What does that prove, that you can kick a man while he is down? Why wait, why the line in the sand, why the public spectacle, who are you trying to protect and why?
[/quote]

From my perspective, as an NPO member, it looks like NEW is inviting an attack. And they're doing so in a way that allows them to claim to be the victim of aggression, so that their allies could join them on a side opposite NSO.

So to answer your questions in reverse, we are protecting NEW so that they cannot claim to be the victims of aggression. And what it proves is that NPO will control its own future.

With or without a treaty, NEW is welcome to assist Kaskus if their friendship runs that deep. But if that's what they choose to do, let them be plain in their aggression against NSO and its allies.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Master Hakai' timestamp='1357809295' post='3073768']
Good post overall, but, in this illustration, are you fighting the guy until he runs out of money? and if that's the case, wouldn't it cause problems that someone is giving him more money?
[/quote]

yup. Kaskans and IndoNEWers must be delusional if they think we'd let aid bombs to an alliance we're trying to drain of money go without any kind of response.

a dose of rationality is really needed among some people

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1357829447' post='3073876']
From my perspective, as an NPO member, it looks like NEW is inviting an attack. And they're doing so in a way that allows them to claim to be the victim of aggression, so that their allies could join them on a side opposite NSO. So to answer your questions in reverse, we are protecting NEW so that they cannot claim to be the victims of aggression. And what it proves is that NPO will control its own future.
[/quote]

If NEW invited the attack why did you hit Kaskus? If you wanted to say "we control our own future" why did you hit Kaskus as a response. The two are contradictory. NPO is the aggressor because NSO attacked Kaskus in the first place and NPO attacked Kaskus way after the fact.

[quote]With or without a treaty, NEW is welcome to assist Kaskus if their friendship runs that deep. But if that's what they choose to do, let them be plain in their aggression against NSO and its allies.[/quote]
It is plain aggression to send aid to Kaskus, they have already been plain in their aggression hell the only thing more plain is attacking NSO. Why don't you on the reverse be plain in your aggression on Kaskus to cover for NSO?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Isaac MatthewII

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1357829447' post='3073876']


From my perspective, as an NPO member, it looks like NEW is inviting an attack. And they're doing so in a way that allows them to claim to be the victim of aggression, so that their allies could join them on a side opposite NSO.

So to answer your questions in reverse, we are protecting NEW so that they cannot claim to be the victims of aggression. And what it proves is that NPO will control its own future.

With or without a treaty, NEW is welcome to assist Kaskus if their friendship runs that deep. But if that's what they choose to do, let them be plain in their aggression against NSO and its allies.
[/quote]

Didn't the aid already prove they were the aggressor, I don't understand the wait for one, but not the other, I'd wager NEW's allies are there for them just as you were for NSO, why not just light the match for the fire? And thank you

[Oranges]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1357829161' post='3073873']
For one to draw us into the same argument is stupid, im in this for my own interest, whether K is down or not doesnt really matter to me. Acting like your the champion of justice because you can kick K around doesn't address the real issue or my question
[/quote]

The questions you're asking aren't even the right questions. I can keep telling you the truth but you'll keep asking those same questions until you hear what you want to hear.

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357829189' post='3073875']
Why does it take a second time, if you were giving chances why did you hit Kaskus rather than just saying "do it again and we fight"? Because its bull !@#$ and you know it. Just admit it, this was not about aid, this was about helping NSO out that is an irrefutable fact anyone that is not a member of the clean up squad can see that just by reading this post. Basically "We declare war on this alliance for accepting aid...oh the alliance that actually sent the aid? Oh we are gonna be nice and give them a second chance." NPO stop hiding just admit the fact. I am disappointed more in you for letting this escalate like this because at least in the last year you seemed to have attempted to improve from the early days.
[/quote]

It seems the concept of a "line in the sand" is alien to you. Look it up.

NEW wants this to escalate. Their intention, in commiting this breach of protocol, was to see everyone go to war, starting with the NPO declaring on them. But we are masters of our own fate. We will not do as the forces of chaos wish, and see this world descend into anarchy. [b]In declaring war on Kaskus, as I have repeatedly stated over and over, we contain this conflict and limit it's spread, warning off others who would wish to do as NEW did.[/b] It is as simple as that. So please, stop asking why we declared on Kaskus. This is about the third time I've had to write the exact same sentence.

[Commander shepard]

While you can look at it an say naive things about NSO and NPO, strategy is more important.
It will be interesting to see what happens if NEW does the same thing again instead of attacking someone to defend their ally that they love so much as to send aid while at war with a superior force.

[Oranges]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357829757' post='3073878']
[b]If NEW invited the attack[/b] why did you hit Kaskus? [b]If you wanted to say "we control our own future" why did you hit Kaskus as a response[/b]. [b]The two are contradictory.[/b] NPO is the aggressor because NSO attacked Kaskus in the first place and NPO attacked Kaskus way after the fact.
[/quote]

Yes, because attacking NEW after they invited the attack would be the perfect way to show that we control our own future. Do you even understand what contradictory means?

[Joseph Black]

And all of this started over a smurf, and before valentines day. I hope somebody lights the fire before affairs of state drag me away again.

[cinduamato]

This is just pathetic

120's NSO nations needs the 330's NPO nations to hit 30's kaskus ...?
thank you NPO for showing how incompetent NSO in battlefield and how fragile their war chest are...

both of you will gain a hollow victory over kaskus, but not glory.
saving NSO face over kaskus will not save them from the fact that they do needs other muscle to deal with much smaller AA

[Daimos]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1357829189' post='3073875']
this was about helping NSO out that is an irrefutable fact anyone that is not a member of the clean up squad can see that just by reading this post. .
[/quote]

Yes, this is about NPO helping an ally. Not going to argue that with you

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1357830494' post='3073888']
Yes, this is about NPO helping an ally. Not going to argue that with you
[/quote]

So what you're saying is that NSO couldn't manage us on their own? Despite claims they could at the beginning?

[Burnsey]

[quote name='cinduamato' timestamp='1357830406' post='3073887']
thank you NPO for showing how incompetent NSO in battlefield and how fragile their war chest are...
[/quote]
Considering you had to aid Kaskus to keep them fighting because they were running out of cash, you just sound pretty dumb right about now.

[Oranges]

[quote name='cinduamato' timestamp='1357830406' post='3073887']
This is just pathetic

120's NSO nations needs the 330's NPO nations to hit 30's kaskus ...?
thank you NPO for showing how incompetent NSO in battlefield and how fragile their war chest are...

both of you will gain a hollow victory over kaskus, but not glory.
saving NSO face over kaskus will not save them from the fact that they do needs other muscle to deal with much smaller AA
[/quote]

You need to first thank yourself for aiding Kaskus and precipitating the NPO's involvement in this conflict.

If NSO were so incompetent, why would the NPO wait until you gave us a legitimate and valid [i]casus belli[/i]? If it were simply about money, why would we opt for a declaration of war instead a retaliatory aid drop?

Anyway, please read the previous posts before posting. We've already covered all this.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1357830584' post='3073889']
So what you're saying is that NSO couldn't manage us on their own? Despite claims they could at the beginning?
[/quote]

Big talk for a guy who didn't move into the Kaskus AA until after NSO had declared war on them, and who only took offensive wars after NPO's declaration of war.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357830122' post='3073884']
Yes, because attacking NEW after they invited the attack would be the perfect way to show that we control our own future. Do you even understand what contradictory means?
[/quote]

You contradict yourself when you say "We control our fate" and then you say "Because these people did this we hit these people" no matter who you hit it is because of NEW. The one and only reason you did not hit NEW is because you are worried about their allies. A bully is always big until the little guy has a chance of fighting back.


[quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357829952' post='3073882']
The questions you're asking aren't even the right questions. I can keep telling you the truth but you'll keep asking those same questions until you hear what you want to hear.



It seems the concept of a "line in the sand" is alien to you. Look it up.
[/quote]

If you are drawing a line with other people to stop Kaskus getting aid why are you hitting Kaskus? To prove that you are willing to fight over it? If that is the case then you should prove it by hitting the person that sent the aid. Hitting the person that got the aid when they are already outnumbered just makes you look sad and the DoW look pathetic.

[quote]NEW wants this to escalate. Their intention, in commiting this breach of protocol, was to see everyone go to war, starting with the NPO declaring on them. But we are masters of our own fate.[/quote]

NEWs intention as stated by many of them was to help Kaskus, anybody that knows a thing about Kaskus knows NEW is nowhere far behind them. That is just how it works, they come from the same ideals and a lot of them the same country. They are not sparking a war, they are helping a buddy. You are doing the same but you are hiding behind this weak CB to do it and that is what makes you worse.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Oranges' timestamp='1357830780' post='3073891']
You need to first thank yourself for aiding Kaskus and precipitating the NPO's involvement in this conflict.

If NSO were so incompetent, why would the NPO wait until you gave us a legitimate and valid [i]casus belli[/i]? If it were simply about money, why would we opt for a declaration of war instead a retaliatory aid drop?

Anyway, please read the previous posts before posting. We've already covered all this.



Big talk for a guy who didn't move into the Kaskus AA until after NSO had declared war on them, and who only took offensive wars after NPO's declaration of war.
[/quote]

Are you mad? I only took offensive wars after NPO's declaration? You may want to check that fact out with NSO, I have declared on 6 nations and defended from 4 NSO before your alliance DoW. Sigh. You should check stuff out before stating stupid !@#$.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Hiro Nakara

[death from above 82]

[quote name='coekrix' timestamp='1357822304' post='3073814']
but why statistics said that NSO loosing 2 times NS bigger than Kaskus do?
[/quote]

actually this was up to 2.38x- 7 day alliance losses- nso losses to kaskus losses is 2.38 times greater ( -389,641 Strength Change - New Sith Order/ -163,483 Strength Change - Kaskus) and this was 2 days ago. Yesterday it was even greater closer to 2.5. I dont have numbers to show you, because Kaskus is/was no longer on the list of smallest alliance gains

This has nothing to do with NEW. This has everything to do with little brother couldnt back up what they were saying. We had more nukes than NSOs bottom 90. We have almost 75% of our nation with SDI's- NSO bottom 90 about 15% with SDI- we would of had 16 to 0 WRC. we had more NS than the bottom 90 and last we have more money- we have muliple nation with bil dollar war chest still and NSO has multiple nation bill locked.

With all that said I know Kaskus would have lossed (just by the fact they out numbered us 2.5 to 1), but the damage we would have caused would have been lasting.

I welcome my NPO brothers/sisters to the fight- happy hunting.

sorry all, for my horrible writing.

edit- i said NSO bottom 90- nation in range to fight kaskus

Edited January 10, 2013 by death from above 82

[cinduamato]

[quote name='Anger' timestamp='1357830612' post='3073890']
Considering you had to aid Kaskus to keep them fighting because they were running out of cash, you just sound pretty dumb right about now.
[/quote]

hope you are not being so naive