alyster Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 I just did. NPO only gets peace terms if everyone else peaces out first, alliances not directly tied to NPO have to peace out before directly tied alliances can, and perhaps they make NPO's "banks" stay in peacemode for another year or something..... You really need to cancel your subscription on what ever source you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 In other words you're saying the other side wants to beat up on NPO when they said NSO was their only target and concern. Pretty much the same thing I said though you seem to want to spin NPO as the bad guy for some reason. Whether NPO wants to let them do that is of course up to them. For me, I wouldn't give the !@#$%^&* the satisfaction. Good thing I'm not in a position to make those decisions for anyone I guess. This again? If you say something 6 million times, it doesn't make it true. You are horribly off-topic. If you want to discuss Polar's war goals, make it's own thread instead of talking about it in every single thread for the past two months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Heinrich Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 Welcome to the fray CCC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On3H34rT Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Sure, and I believe that was in the context of the DoW. But nobody is talking about terms for NG because they have more or less been reduced sufficiently. Between TLR, NSO, NG and NPO (and NoR for that matter), Pacifica is the least reduced. Bro, no disrespect intended, but I'm not sure how anyone, even people in your coalition, could believe the endless propaganda you spew out. Here are the facts: NPO only entered this conflict to defend its ally. Nowhere have you stated that NPO was a target in this war - you only loosely mentioned NG and NSO. But now, you state that NPO is the only alliance that hasn't been damaged sufficiently? Are you kidding me? The last time I checked, we are at 50%ish of our beginning NS. No, instead, your coalition wants to force peace terms on Pacifica that will cripple it for years, after seeing a reduction in 50% of its NS. And this is for an alliance that allegedly wasn't a target in this war. And although I have respect for our allies, I fail to see how it makes any logical sense to place terms on Pacifica, but then acknowledge NG and NSO are free to go when it is they who you allege did the wrongdoing. Honestly bro, it's laughable. I honestly fail to see how the rest of the alliances in your coalition can sit by and watch this madness. Here's the deal. Pacifica has an awesome rebuilding/banking system. You know this. You don't like it. So you want to cripple our banks, because your alliance does not like us and wants to "win" the game. Your alliance does not give two ****s about the rest of the alliances in your coalition. All the while the alliances in your coalition, including Polar mind you, are taking the blunt of the damage. You get to sit by and watch, for the most part. Honestly, I don't see how they put up with you. This war was entirely a pretext, and the rest of your coalition should be infuriated. I just wish you would stop with the crap and tell it like it is. At least then, I'd respect you. I have a feeling most of the alliances in your coalition would be a little more reasonable given the opportunity. Honestly, this is exactly why White Peace is in order. Edited January 12, 2014 by On3H34rT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 Can we just for once go a single thread without discussing why you guys believe NPO is the real target? Its as tedious as hearing about stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On3H34rT Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Until you stop couching it as what "we believe" and just admit to everyone what is obvious, I imagine it'll keep being discussed. Plus, it's not as tedious as reading Tywin's posts. You have to at least admit that much as a reasonable person. Edited January 12, 2014 by On3H34rT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candle Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Good luck CCC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keysariyt Hanssen Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 I, for one, quite enjoy reading the latest on the whole "NPO main target" subject. Plus, it's not as tedious as reading Tywin's posts. You have to at least admit that much as a reasonable person. This, on so many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 My favorite part of this thread is starting at the end and reading backwards, trying to find any context which would indicate what side of the war CCC is on or who they declared on, considering page 6 had nothing and I was intrigued. But nope. All pages of discussing meta propaganda about the larger war until the top of page 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I'm enjoying the discussion. Please carry on with the nonsense and propaganda. I wont be able to discuss much myself, I'll be busy writing declarationz of war on Umbrella, TOP, and VE. Edited January 13, 2014 by wes the wise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Welcome, CCC! Give them hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Until you stop couching it as what "we believe" and just admit to everyone what is obvious, I imagine it'll keep being discussed. Plus, it's not as tedious as reading Tywin's posts. You have to at least admit that much as a reasonable person. It doesn't make a difference in anything. If you even were remotely familiar with the Polar-NSO situation, you would know war has been overdue for years. Contrary to popular belief, the world does not revolve around Pacifica. I do agree, that Tywinn is tedious. It is just as bad as reading 30 people all sitting around and hypothesizing on why NPO is the real target in every thread since the war kicked off. Now, just imagine if Tywinn was on your side. Him and magic could have some fun. I, for one, quite enjoy reading the latest on the whole "NPO main target" subject. Fool. Nordreich is clearly the real target of the war. The entire thing was orchestrated by Int to tie up your entire sphere, so they could finally go toe to toe with you. Obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Can we just for once go a single thread without discussing why you guys believe NPO is the real target? Its as tedious as hearing about stats. Because NPO seems to be the only alliance not being offered white peace in the NSO coalition. From what I understand from the threads I have read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Because NPO seems to be the only alliance not being offered white peace in the NSO coalition. From what I understand from the threads I have read. So you're saying in order to not discriminate you we should offer grey peace to your allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Because NPO seems to be the only alliance not being offered white peace in the NSO coalition. From what I understand from the threads I have read. True, but from what I understand, that is a result of repeated war-time actions and not a premeditated plan. If someone can provide me evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I would change my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 True, but from what I understand, that is a result of repeated war-time actions and not a premeditated plan. If someone can provide me evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I would change my mind. Not sure what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On3H34rT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) True, but from what I understand, that is a result of repeated war-time actions and not a premeditated plan. If someone can provide me evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I would change my mind. What war-time actions? This war has nothing to do with previous actions. You can say that war was inevitable - if that's the case, your coalition should have grew a pair and just declared on NPO for these past transgressions. That's not what happened. If your declarations of war and associated reasons are meaningless, then why have them? Because, so far in this war, the only action Pacifica has taken is defend its ally, an action hardly deserving of such harsh reparations. If you'd like, I could go throughout history and find every wrong Polar conducted, etc, and use it to support harsh treatment. What would be REALLY entertaining is if TOP used that philosophy on Polar. Hell, on that note, we should all just stay in a state of perpetual war since at any given time, we'll just fight over the past transgressions. Right, Starfox? I mean, what incentive does Pacifica or anyone else for that matter to surrender and/or accept peace on those terms? <3 Starfox Edited January 14, 2014 by On3H34rT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bro, no disrespect intended, but I'm not sure how anyone, even people in your coalition, could believe the endless propaganda you spew out. Here are the facts: NPO only entered this conflict to defend its ally. Nowhere have you stated that NPO was a target in this war - you only loosely mentioned NG and NSO. But now, you state that NPO is the only alliance that hasn't been damaged sufficiently? Are you kidding me? The last time I checked, we are at 50%ish of our beginning NS. No, instead, your coalition wants to force peace terms on Pacifica that will cripple it for years, after seeing a reduction in 50% of its NS. And this is for an alliance that allegedly wasn't a target in this war. And although I have respect for our allies, I fail to see how it makes any logical sense to place terms on Pacifica, but then acknowledge NG and NSO are free to go when it is they who you allege did the wrongdoing. Honestly bro, it's laughable. I honestly fail to see how the rest of the alliances in your coalition can sit by and watch this madness. Here's the deal. Pacifica has an awesome rebuilding/banking system. You know this. You don't like it. So you want to cripple our banks, because your alliance does not like us and wants to "win" the game. Your alliance does not give two ****s about the rest of the alliances in your coalition. All the while the alliances in your coalition, including Polar mind you, are taking the blunt of the damage. You get to sit by and watch, for the most part. Honestly, I don't see how they put up with you. This war was entirely a pretext, and the rest of your coalition should be infuriated. I just wish you would stop with the crap and tell it like it is. At least then, I'd respect you. I have a feeling most of the alliances in your coalition would be a little more reasonable given the opportunity. Honestly, this is exactly why White Peace is in order. No. You lost a war, and if you want to get out of the war you need to agree to peace terms. You don't get to dictate terms. Either you accept the very lenient terms given to you or the terms will come into affect by your very refusal to take them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 True, but from what I understand, that is a result of repeated war-time actions and not a premeditated plan. If someone can provide me evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I would change my mind. Such a laughable notion that defies all belief. If this is really the best you can do to try to deflect the obvious........Man up and just say it. Keep some pride and respect for yourselves. This is just sad Starfox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On3H34rT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) No. You lost a war, and if you want to get out of the war you need to agree to peace terms. You don't get to dictate terms. Either you accept the very lenient terms given to you or the terms will come into affect by your very refusal to take them. I believe we have very different definitions of lenient. Your so called "lenient" terms will cost Pacifica billions upon billions in revenue and cost months and maybe years to fully recover. They are pretty much more harsh than any reparations in the history of CN. This is ironic considering the reason Pacifica is in this war in the first place. I will give your coalition credit on the propaganda, though. You couch these terms as a mandatory "peace mode" to avoid the word "reparations." Of course, this only works if people don't do the actual math of your so called "lenient" peace terms. And why don't you ask the rest of your coalition, i.e., the alliances that are taking the most damage, how they feel about an extended war? It's surely not in their best interest to continue having their lower tier blasted with nukes indefinitely. This is where the problem lies. I sincerely hope that your allies will actually read these next statements, though I'm sure their voices are not well-received. It's easy for TOP and Umbrella to put their foot down and demand such harsh reparations. I don't think anyone denies that you two are largely untouchable, nor does anyone deny your alliances' strength. But extended warfare, regardless of the effect on Pacifica and its allies, will bring your allies down with them. The chest bumping is fine, but I believe the rest of your coalition is somewhat unaware of the effect an extended war will have on them. In my opinion, Umbrella and TOP aren't good representatives for that reason. Again, let's be reasonable. I don't believe we are trying to dictate terms. But as much as you think we have no basis to negotiate, you are sorely mistaken. The rest of your coalition isn't as untouchable as you or TOP. Edited January 14, 2014 by On3H34rT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Boy, you clearly have a different definition of harsh reps. I've seen the era of billions in cash and hundreds of thousands of tech as reps. Have you? The terms in this war are downright lenient by anyones standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Heh, if this were harsh terms NPO's senior leadership would all be EZI'd and their alliance forcibly disbanded. And their allies would have viceroys and reps. In 2008 NPO didnt mind dealing IAA the harshest terms even though GATO was officially the target. I have no pity for NPO today. Edited January 14, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Boy, you clearly have a different definition of harsh reps. I've seen the era of billions in cash and hundreds of thousands of tech as reps. Have you? The terms in this war are downright lenient by anyones standards.This term, while not reps, is literally tens of billions in value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 This term, while not reps, is literally tens of billions in value. So we can just take the dollar amount of war by the amount of foreign aid slots that haven't been used to send aid during the war? This war has cost everyone billions then, what are you whining about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 So we can just take the dollar amount of war by the amount of foreign aid slots that haven't been used to send aid during the war? This war has cost everyone billions then, what are you whining about? Then why do you feel the need to inflict billions more in damages on NPO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.