Why have Mushquaeda attacked the Christian Coalition of Countries?

[enderland]

If your alliance disbands, it clearly failed.

 

.... failed what?

 

If your simple standard for success in CN is "having nations on an AA" then, well.

[Neo Uruk]

It's clear that Everfree Union is far more successful, politically and militarily, than the following alliances combined: NAAC (first), VE (first), LUE, and Ragnarok. You can tell because EvU hasn't disbanded.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Mr Vicarious]

.... failed what?

 

If your simple standard for success in CN is "having nations on an AA" then, well.

 

Failed to exist. The absolute minimum that an alliance has to do is exist. I'm making no claims about the current quality of those alliances. I'm saying that the fact that they exist makes them currently better than MK. Because MK doesn't exist.

 

It's clear that Everfree Union is far more successful, politically and militarily, than the following alliances combined: NAAC (first), VE (first), LUE, and Ragnarok. You can tell because EvU hasn't disbanded.

 

EvU has more political and military power right now than any of those alliances do. Because none of those alliances have any political or military power. They don't exist.

 

There are some alliances in existence who are nothing but a shell of their former selves and should disband. They cling to the past instead of embracing the future and therefore do nothing. LUE disbanded not out of boredom but out of knowledge it would have been kept at war for as long as their enemies so pleased. MK now disbands out of boredom and apathy. I will always argue that some alliances disband because there is nothing left for them to exist for. Some alliances exist despite being shitstains on CN. The simple act of existing does not make you a quality alliance. The simple act of lasting years does not make an alliance great. Many of the alliances that fought against MK/Umb make up the shitstains of this world.

 

So, you acknowledge that few alliances actually hit MK and thus, only a handful of alliances had anything to do with MK's subsequent surrender. Now, out of those handful, how many fought more than a couple of wars?

 

The simple act of existing makes you an alliance, and says nothing about your quality. If you don't exist, you have no military or political power. The absolute minimum that you have to do to be an alliance here in CN is to exist. LUE also claimed to be disbanding out of boredom, history has decided otherwise. In a few months or a couple years, we will have a better idea of what the reasoning and consequences are of MK's disbandment.

 

MK chose to surrender to all of those alliances. They decided, by ending the war with that surrender document, to acknowledge the contribution of all of those alliances in their surrender. Just as they chose to cease to exist.

[Saladjoe]

The whole "X alliance exists, therefore it's better than any disbanded alliance" is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. Completely disregarding historical context for the sake of the now is to completely disregard the essence of an alliance that's been as historically relevant and impactful as MK.

[Dochartaigh]

Failed to exist. The absolute minimum that an alliance has to do is exist. I'm making no claims about the current quality of those alliances. I'm saying that the fact that they exist makes them currently better than MK. Because MK doesn't exist.

 

 

EvU has more political and military power right now than any of those alliances do. Because none of those alliances have any political or military power. They don't exist.

 

 

The simple act of existing makes you an alliance, and says nothing about your quality. If you don't exist, you have no military or political power. The absolute minimum that you have to do to be an alliance here in CN is to exist. LUE also claimed to be disbanding out of boredom, history has decided otherwise. In a few months or a couple years, we will have a better idea of what the reasoning and consequences are of MK's disbandment.

 

MK chose to surrender to all of those alliances. They decided, by ending the war with that surrender document, to acknowledge the contribution of all of those alliances in their surrender. Just as they chose to cease to exist.

 

Yes, the simple act of existing does indeed make it an alliance and you are right, that says nothing of their quality. Thus,your argument pertaining to all alliances that still exist are better than MK is null and void by your own statement here. Thanks for finally seeing the light and agreeing with me. As for MK surrendering, they surrendered to the alliances who actually fought them, not all those alliances that signed the document. Coalition warfare is coalition warfare. Signing a document that is full of several defeated alliances and several victorious alliances does not mean they all get credit. 

 

As a member of TIO, an alliance who fought MK and Umb, I damn sure ain't giving credit to some shithole alliances who did not fight MK or Umb at all, or maybe sent a couple of wars their way. Nor would I even attempt to make the claim that TIO was victorious over CnG or NG or TOP since TIO did not fight any of those alliances. 

[wes the wise]

Whatcha talkin bout? :)

[Azaghul]

If your alliance disbands, it clearly failed. I don't think anyone is disputing MK's various past contributions to CN, both positive and negative. The fact of the matter is that they've now disbanded. All of those other alliance that haven't disbanded figured out a way to keep it together. You are arguing that not existing is better than existing for those alliances. I think that's a ridiculous statement. Very few alliances did anything against MK because NPO decreed that no one was allowed to hit MK. That has nothing to do with alliance quality. LUE disbanded after a losing war while claiming it was out of boredom as well. We'll see if these nations hang around as a group, or if they just fade away.

 

As for the idiocy of forcing your allies to surrender to your coalition and putting your name on that document, you'll have to talk to NPO about that. I think the surrender document is pretty clear.

Your suggesting that staying together instead of disbanding is a mark of success.  That's not how it works.  There are many alliances that should disband but don't, or do it long past the point that they should.

 

We disbanded for several reasons, but not having the ability to keep it together is not among them.

[Megamind]

Whatcha talkin bout? :)

Stupid pointless stuff, nothing but stupid pointless stuff...

[wes the wise]

Stupid pointless stuff, nothing but stupid pointless stuff...

I thought that might be the case.

[rapmanej]

If your alliance disbands, it clearly failed. I don't think anyone is disputing MK's various past contributions to CN, both positive and negative. The fact of the matter is that they've now disbanded. All of those other alliance that haven't disbanded figured out a way to keep it together. You are arguing that not existing is better than existing for those alliances. I think that's a ridiculous statement. Very few alliances did anything against MK because NPO decreed that no one was allowed to hit MK. That has nothing to do with alliance quality. LUE disbanded after a losing war while claiming it was out of boredom as well. We'll see if these nations hang around as a group, or if they just fade away.

 

As for the idiocy of forcing your allies to surrender to your coalition and putting your name on that document, you'll have to talk to NPO about that. I think the surrender document is pretty clear.

 

Utter stupidity.  This argument that all alliances that simply exist are better than all those who have existed in the past is simplistic and ridiculous.  Like enderland has already said, just having nations on an AA says nothing about the quality of an alliance or proves that it is better than alliances that have existed in the past.  

 

Let's push this absurdity, you would argue that Zulu alliance is better than Vox populi, or that the North American Confederacy is a better alliance than RoK.  Nothing more needs to be said.  

 

You are arguing that not existing is better than existing for those alliances. I think that's a ridiculous statement

 

absolutely.  

 

Here's two examples, one that did it right, another that did it wrong.  

 

Vox populi did it right, they disbanded after their main mission (taking NPO out of power) was completed.  

 

Doin it rong:  GGA trying to keep the ship afloat for way too long, making themselves the butt of an even bigger joke.  

[tayloj7]

DBDC isn't on the list.

 

Shhhhh Auctor, nobody was supposed to notice that!

Edited October 3, 2013 by tayloj7

[Ubuntu the Great]

Hilow my friends and admirers! It is I Ubuntu the Great of the mighty Zulu alliance. Yes although we certainly are better than the aforementioned alliances and as we were the victors in the Equilibrium wars I do not like to boast of it and make the beaten enemy saddened. I in my magnificent magnanimous gesture of being generous to our past foes have long since forgiven them of their sins. As I believe the Zulu have most assuredly teached them a lesson they shall not soon forget just as we are not giving this less ion to the Mush people. Please you must all open your kind hearts as I Ubuntu the Great does.

[The Zigur]

Hilow my friends and admirers! It is I Ubuntu the Great of the mighty Zulu alliance. Yes although we certainly are better than the aforementioned alliances and as we were the victors in the Equilibrium wars I do not like to boast of it and make the beaten enemy saddened. I in my magnificent magnanimous gesture of being generous to our past foes have long since forgiven them of their sins. As I believe the Zulu have most assuredly teached them a lesson they shall not soon forget just as we are not giving this less ion to the Mush people. Please you must all open your kind hearts as I Ubuntu the Great does.

 

Justice is being delivered, My Chief