Beauty Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) IRON wanted a longer war, juddging on their screaming that they didn't want reps. Alonger war means IRON would have lost, as EQ alliances were slowly having less to throw at our side. Some alliances were considering bowing out. IRON wanted to implode its own coalition, as if the fallout AI had wasn't enough. Please give me an example of who was begging to get out of the EQ coalition? From what it appeared at the end of the war, DH/C&G were entering Peace Mode/Guerillas with heavy haste and not really effecting many alliance. I would love to hear what alliances were bowing down to get out. If that were the case, DH/C&G would of stayed at war simply to win. Edited May 28, 2013 by Rotavele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 not as a gole in itseff but as it wold have hapened if we got what we wanted on the Umb/MK frunt. So your allies in INT were acceptable collateral damage to keep hitting MK/Umb.... at least unlike anyone else in IRON, i can respect you for your honesty. More of your alliance should be that forthright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 They want to push their own personal agenda instead of being told what to do by others. They wanted no reps during the Grudge War, and despite the fact that they did the majority of fighting against Polar, TOP told them to keep going while they negotiated reps. They wanted to fight a full and actual war here, but were told along with everybody else by the self appointed leaders (NPO) they they were to tiptoe around CnG and NG. Then came a hard push for peace from NPO, followed by a treaty with ODN. It was clear that NPO was using it's leadership during the war to limit the damage given to CnG as a whole. Is this good strategy on NPO's part? Absolutely, but they paid the price here and lost a good ally when they prioritized CnG over IRON. The best explanation besides the OP Ive seen. :smug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Can I just get a listing of the terms IRON wanted? That will make all future OWF Posting and MK/IRON relations much easier. I'm not government but I wanted something like the NPO preempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) So your allies in INT were acceptable collateral damage to keep hitting MK/Umb.... at least unlike anyone else in IRON, i can respect you for your honesty. More of your alliance should be that forthright. Even if that was the case, which is coming from a member not government. You would have no room to talk when pressuring INT to abandon its ally in a previous war as acceptable collateral damage. But loving the faux outrage at the impression of you being considered collateral damage in the recent war. swings and roundabouts my old friend. Edited May 28, 2013 by the rebel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 I'm not government but I wanted something like the NPO preempt. You mean you wanted reps to the amount GOONS received? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Even if that was the case, which is coming from a member not government. You would have no room to talk when pressuring INT to abandon its ally in a previous war as acceptable collateral damage. But loving the faux outrage at the impression of you being considered collateral damage in the recent war. Actually, CnG pressured Int because they didn't like the way LSF conducted itself, not for any reason you could come up with in that fantasy factory of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Actually, CnG pressured Int because they didn't like the way LSF conducted itself, not for any reason you could come up with in that fantasy factory of yours. "You" was CnG in general. But I'm sure Rush Sykes doesn't need a cave dwelling cheerleader like you to talk for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 It's easy when its 20+ on 5 isn't it? We fought our way and it worked exceedingly well. Your frustration of not finding people to pile on and our top tier outnumbered those we fought combined. Also, we didn;t knock them down we pretty much destroyed them. None of this is either here or there. I'm still interested in why IRON thought CnG had to die..... I mean we knew that was their plan after reading AI trying to calm the fears of some of the smaller alliances whose top tiers were being decimated... He said getting CnG out was a priority. The thought was as laughable then as it is now. If CnG wold surender without DH, it wold have been unnery, but you woldent (to your credit) so it was a mwans to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 "You" was CnG in general. But I'm sure Rush Sykes doesn't need a cave dwelling cheerleader like you to talk for him. And I have provided you with the stance CnG took on the issue. Keep the insults to a minimum until you can fucking read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 I wasn't aware it took 22 wingmen to get that cockbloc out of the way, but whatever works I suppose. All we can say is that we are sorry for our friends in IRON in having to take this juncture (and hope it works out for them), and wish the best for our friends' friends in NPO. Anything else beyond that is speculation and a bunch of people giving their free opinions. Thanks I hope it works out for you as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Even if that was the case, which is coming from a member not government. You would have no room to talk when pressuring INT to abandon its ally in a previous war as acceptable collateral damage. But loving the faux outrage at the impression of you being considered collateral damage in the recent war. swings and roundabouts my old friend. Lets clarify two things 1st. Nobody was pressuring INT to abandon an ally. We were pressuring INT to not suicide all of their allies for one idiotic ally. There is absolutely 0 way that this applies in this case. Secondly, this was not in any way , shape, or form, about supporting or not supporting any allies. Edited May 28, 2013 by Rush Sykes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 I understand that point...but IRON themselves has direct ties to CnG.....so what is the point of calling CnG conflicting in the case of NPO? It seems IRON is in the same boat as NPO as far as CnG is concerned. You would think IRON and NPO would have a common interest as far as CnG goes. I wonder why they don't. To me Int/GATO are one thing and ODN (being DH in all but name) are another by ODAP with MK and Umb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage. And so we were willing to nock you out for that rason, but dont WANT to hert you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Again, I can simultaneously hold no ill will to NPO or IRON but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing me in. Can IRON hold no ill will to C&G but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing them in? By them being guarding a target; since you wouldn't get out of the way (to your credit) we had to go threw you: unforchenetly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 And I have provided you with the stance CnG took on the issue. Keep the insults to a minimum until you can fucking read. You have been never anything but a grunt, so I will take your words with a pinch of salt like everyone else on this forum does. Insults to a minimum? Grow thicker skin if you can't take what you give. Lets clarify two things 1st. Nobody was pressuring INT to abandon an ally. We were pressuring INT to not suicide all of their allies for one idiotic ally. There is absolutely 0 way that this applies in this case. Secondly, this was not in any way , shape, or form, about supporting or not supporting any allies. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 You have been never anything but a grunt, so I will take your words with a pinch of salt like everyone else on this forum does. Insults to a minimum? Grow thicker skin if you can't take what you give. Fair enough. I give what I give to people who don't have a point, you're just some tryhard looking to score cheap points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 So your allies in INT were acceptable collateral damage to keep hitting MK/Umb.... at least unlike anyone else in IRON, i can respect you for your honesty. More of your alliance should be that forthright. Id have loved to find a way around it but were the rubber met the road it seemed nesery at the time. Gavin the outcome, I'm less confidant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 I give what I give to people who don't have a point, you're just some tryhard looking to score cheap points. Cheap points? No I come here to do what you do friend, minus the cheerleading and brown nosing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntyCrist Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 You mean you wanted reps to the amount GOONS received? no the 30 day clause for NPO to stay in the war with minimal PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Cheap points? No I come here to do what you do friend, minus the cheerleading and brown nosing. Funny that you're always up someone's ass then. I'm not even cheerleading or brown nosing, I'm in this topic defending an alliance that I had no kind words for in the last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 no the 30 day clause for NPO to stay in the war with minimal PM. Ah, thanks for clarifying. That was one term that was discussed heavily, I've been told, but ultimately dropped because it was contended quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Funny that you're always up someone's ass then. I'm not even cheerleading or brown nosing, I'm in this topic defending an alliance that I had no kind words for in the last forever. Awww that's cute the little girl is telling porkies again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Keep the insults to a minimum until you can fucking read. Well this is surprising, you're indeed a very ignorant person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Actually, CnG pressured Int because they didn't like the way LSF conducted itself, not for any reason you could come up with in that fantasy factory of yours. So LSF acts stupidly and they get abandoned, Umbrella acts stupidly and everyone burns for them? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts