rsoxbronco1 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That's why you don't sign treaties with everyone, keep a straight FA policy and you wont need to worry about your allies in the other side of war because all your allies will be fighting side by side with you. Now if you want to sign treaties with everyone, don't push and/or plan for a war that you know will harm your allies, but if you really want the war, then doesn't complain about others attacking your allies in the other side of a war that you started, because big boys don't complain about their own mistakes, they just take the responsibility for their actions. "Why isn't the world a simple place?" -4 simpl3 mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That's why you don't sign treaties with everyone, keep a straight FA policy and you wont need to worry about your allies in the other side of war because all your allies will be fighting side by side with you. Now if you want to sign treaties with everyone, don't push and/or plan for a war that you know will harm your allies, but if you really want the war, then doesn't complain about others attacking your allies in the other side of a war that you started, because big boys don't complain about their own mistakes, they just take the responsibility for their actions. I don't see where Brehon was bitching about CnG or NG getting hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) That is because I haven't. In fact when the NG position was unrecoverable yes, when I was asked how about them getting hit my response was "have at it".Don't worry that will be spun too. Particularly when I would not agree to more war on CnG.. you know the group that was not a target of the war. Edited May 23, 2013 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That is because I haven't. In fact when the NG position was unrecoverable yes, when I was asked how about them getting hit my response was "have at it". Don't worry that will be spun too. Particularly when I would not agree to more war on CnG.. you know the group that was not a target of the war. The thing is, despite leading a coalition, there comes a point where you would have been completely fucking over CnG. People apparently think you should have hit them yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That is because I haven't. In fact when the NG position was unrecoverable yes, when I was asked how about them getting hit my response was "have at it". Don't worry that will be spun too. Particularly when I would not agree to more war on CnG.. you know the group that was not a target of the war. Old friend, logic has no place here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That is because I haven't. In fact when the NG position was unrecoverable yes, when I was asked how about them getting hit my response was "have at it". Don't worry that will be spun too. Particularly when I would not agree to more war on CnG.. you know the group that was not a target of the war. You didn't complained? Are you going to tell that you didn't had an anger attack when Polaris defended Sparta? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Irony is fun. IRON is literally mad at NPO for doing to EQ.... exactly what IRON did to our coalition in the last war. And... they do not even see it. It was IRON who pushed, damn near demanded for that war to end. Now they stand before us... crying that NPO demanded this war to end, despite the fact that others in the coalition had not yet fulfilled their goals. Yep, it makes tons of sense. I don't think they're crying... They just cancelled the treaty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Actually, IRON dropped NPO for putting the protection of CnG over the needs and wants of the overall eQ coalition in which they were a part of, nothing to do with support. Did you even bother to read the OP? If NPO had put the protection of C&G over the needs and wants of the eQ coalition, they would never have joined eQ in the first place and helped organize the war, and would have jumped in on C&G's side if others had started it anyway. Or they would have made the war last a lot less 2 months and 10 days that is lasted. Also some in IRON has claimed in this thread that their actions in the war just illustrate the point that their goals aren't the same, and those actions themselves aren't the actual reason for it. Basically your beef seems to be that NPO pushed for the war to last the 2 months that it did, rather than 3 or 4 or more. And that meant that they put C&G over their allies in eQ, in spite of all they did for eQ. That's pretty flimsy logic, and a flimsy beef to have with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I don't think they're crying... They just cancelled the treaty... This is the second time IRON has cancelled a treaty without properly airing out grievances post-war. Also, there are two new governments in place at both alliances, so it's possible that NPO has different priorities and Mia is just following the standard of being an awful leader for an awful alliance. IRON just doesn't like making sensible decisions, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You didn't complained? Are you going to tell that you didn't had an anger attack when Polaris defended Sparta? Really?lol. Yes I had an anger attack. I wasn't happy they hit TLR (and because they coordinated this with the TOP front folks vs the main command folks) but I was angry they triggered NG. Get your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I don't think they're crying... They just cancelled the treaty... They cried to NPO. All emo style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 They cried to NPO. All emo style. It looked more to me like they tried to assert their political agenda, failed, so decided to move in a different direction and cancel the treaty. It actually appears the people taking the biggest exception to this is NPO's allies (admittedly, NSO included) and Rey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 NPO looking out for itself? You don't say. I'm sure they would probably admit it, too. Not that there's anything wrong with that, though. Gotta look out for yourself sometimes. I applaud IRON for sticking up for themselves though. A good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The rush to finish the war, that is to secure limited objectives through a premature settlement, while the best and greatest resolution for NPO itself, merely confirms to us that NPO’s projects are not necessarily those of IRON. God I love good word play. Excellently written; best of luck to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 lol. Yes I had an anger attack. I wasn't happy they hit TLR (and because they coordinated this with the TOP front folks vs the main command folks) but I was angry they triggered NG. Get your facts straight. This is entirely inaccurate. Everyone on the TOP front was as surprised and as angry as Brehon was, and if you look at your logs I think you will find this to be the case. Sorry, just not an accurate scapegoat here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 lol. Yes I had an anger attack. I wasn't happy they hit TLR (and because they coordinated this with the TOP front folks vs the main command folks) but I was angry they triggered NG. Get your facts straight. The attack on TLR and the fact that NG treaty was activated aren't mutually exclusive, in fact the later is consequence of the first. So after all you did wanted that TLR was left untouched and when things didn't went like you expected you freaked out. You should have thought about this before going after Umbrella, as I said in my next to last post. So, don't come with this excuse of you said "have at it" when clearly based in your reaction, you didn't really meant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) The attack on TLR and the fact that NG treaty was activated aren't mutually exclusive, in fact the later is consequence of the first. So after all you did wanted that TLR was left untouched and when things didn't went like you expected you freaked out. You should have thought about this before going after Umbrella, as I said in my next to last post. So, don't come with this excuse of you said "have at it" when clearly based in your reaction, you didn't really meant it. He wanted one less ally on the other side. When they made their decisions, it was understood he wouldn't be there to hold their hands; and they all accepeted that, being developed and capable alliances. Try not to be an idiot about this. Edited May 23, 2013 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The attack on TLR and the fact that NG treaty was activated aren't mutually exclusive, in fact the later is consequence of the first. So after all you did wanted that TLR was left untouched and when things didn't went like you expected you freaked out. You should have thought about this before going after Umbrella, as I said in my next to last post. So, don't come with this excuse of you said "have at it" when clearly based in your reaction, you didn't really meant it. Everyone freaked out. It was a strategic blunder, and one that shouldn't have been made, certainly not without informing the coalition. Now why is the TOP front getting blamed by Brehon? I would love to hear the reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 This is entirely inaccurate. Everyone on the TOP front was as surprised and as angry as Brehon was, and if you look at your logs I think you will find this to be the case. Sorry, just not an accurate scapegoat here.The only one that screwed up there was Polaris. What I was referring to was they stated they were in that channel and that is where they said the go ahead came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Everyone freaked out. It was a strategic blunder, and one that shouldn't have been made, certainly not without informing the coalition. Now why is the TOP front getting blamed by Brehon? I would love to hear the reason... Man you are sensitive. He wasnt blaming the TOP front, he was saying that Polar made their decision and coordinated it in the TOP front channel, and not in the main coalition head channel, which is why everyone was completely stunned when it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The only one that screwed up there was Polaris. What I was referring to was they stated they were in that channel and that is where they said the go ahead came from. They weren't in the TOP front channel, not once all war, and no one from the TOP front gave any permission or was asked about it at all. They said they were in 'this channel' in the general coalition channel that LM aptly described as like the Mall foodcourt, and supposedly asked you if you were defending TLR (which somehow I guess got garbled into a go for it) Man you are sensitive. He wasnt blaming the TOP front, he was saying that Polar made their decision and coordinated it in the TOP front channel, and not in the main coalition head channel, which is why everyone was completely stunned when it happened. If this is what was meant, it was an insane assertion that didn't match reality and Brehon should have known that. So, I'm very curious why he would jump to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You should have thought about this before going after Umbrella, as I said in my next to last post.You're a fucking genius! Yeah, Brehon why didn't you think that? Why didn't you imagine Polar/co would fuck it up?! Even D34th could have seen that one coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The attack on TLR and the fact that NG treaty was activated aren't mutually exclusive, in fact the later is consequence of the first. So after all you did wanted that TLR was left untouched and when things didn't went like you expected you freaked out. You should have thought about this before going after Umbrella, as I said in my next to last post. So, don't come with this excuse of you said "have at it" when clearly based in your reaction, you didn't really meant it.You are intentionally acting moronic. TLR (in fact CnG as a whole) was always going to take damage, this was an accepted known by ALL parties. There was no deal for reduced damage on them (funny how you quickly danced right over the deal struck to reduce damage on MK and GOONS which IRON and NPO were a part of in a deal with NG). We did that to keep NG either out of the war or with us. This yet again was a known BEFORE the war even started (I stated that earlier). The fact that Polaris came in and screwed that up by not getting proper coalition authority is why there was a fit of anger from me. The fact they weren't in the right channel to get proper authority is a Polaris mistake.Happy about damage to any ally? Of course not. Pissed because my ally was attacked? Inaccurate. Pissed because it triggered another alliance against us that didn't need to happen? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Good lord Heart. Let me simplify it. Polar was in the wrong channel. If I misquoted the channel and that offended you, my apologies.Let me go read my log and see what channel he said. Edited May 23, 2013 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You're a fucking genius! Yeah, Brehon why didn't you think that? Why didn't you imagine Polar/co would fuck it up?! Even D34th could have seen that one coming! To be fair, if he didn't expect over 75% of those alliances to fuck up, he had the wrong list of alliances and leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts