alyster Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Only because we are out of the fight. I have no doubt the majority in peace mode in our side would rather fight than stay in peace mode. You can’t say the same thing in your side. Oh really? There's 30+ large nations with nice WCs, capable of rebuilding that never fought on your side. In fact they're the main reason for this 17 page long topic. While on our side... Quite frankly many in TOP are out of targets. Go ahead, demonstrate the will to fight. Be the man that you and "Your Emperor" say you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geerland Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Marx, you know as well as I that those terms did not originate from Pacifica, they were merely presented through Pacifica. You may look to some of your current coalition for where they originated from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Oh really? There's 30+ large nations with nice WCs, capable of rebuilding that never fought on your side. In fact they're the main reason for this 17 page long topic. While on our side... Quite frankly many in TOP are out of targets. Go ahead, demonstrate the will to fight. Be the man that you and "Your Emperor" say you are. They were ordered to stay in peace mode too. Believe me those banks wants to come out and fight. But NPO is not about satisfying our own desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 While its always funny to see alliances with 1/3 of their membership base in perma peace mode on the winning side (currently 55/99 nations overall) calling out alliances of 300 members for their 35 nations in the same predicament but on the losing side, lets get the absurdity of this thread down a notch despite the hilarity of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 While its always funny to see alliances with 1/3 of their membership base in perma peace mode on the winning side (currently 55/99 nations overall) calling out alliances of 300 members for their 35 nations in the same predicament but on the losing side, lets get the absurdity of this thread down a notch despite the hilarity of it. Even if that was true the fact is that NPO has lost the war and this is about comparable reduction and threat neutralization. Considering the recent allegations of NPO itself seeking harsh terms in the last war means it is in the interests of the global community to prevent the despotism of Moo's reign from ever happening again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Marx, you know as well as I that those terms did not originate from Pacifica, they were merely presented through Pacifica. You may look to some of your current coalition for where they originated from. He knows well. They all do. But its not conducive to their current political agenda of pushing terms on us, so they will make up things. Edited January 27, 2014 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Marx, you know as well as I that those terms did not originate from Pacifica, they were merely presented through Pacifica. You may look to some of your current coalition for where they originated from. I'm trying to understand what this means and how this shifts responsibility from NPO. Just because someone else might have thought it up, does not mean that NPO didn't endorse or support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I'm trying to understand what this means and how this shifts responsibility from NPO. Just because someone else might have thought it up, does not mean that NPO didn't endorse or support it. You're not seeing the big picture here. After this war is over, NPO has accepted the terms and keeps whining about them, we can simply say "We didn't come up with the terms, it was CIN* or someone" and walk away with our hands clean from the matter. Just like NPO is doing it. *CIN - no offense, you were just the smallest alliance I saw on wiki to DoW on NPO. Edited January 27, 2014 by alyster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 We have made it clear to all our allies that we consider all obligations and bonds of friendship between us to be satisfied with the current level of fighting and suffering they have gone through. While I cannot speak for my leaders I can express my hopes and desires as a member of the Last Remnants, I sincerely hope and desire that we will remain at your side Pacifica to the last man if needed, I would rather we burned for longer than to leave our Comrades alone on the battlefield! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 While on our side... Quite frankly many in TOP are out of targets. That's because they've been in PM since the war started and all the targets they could have come down went down without them. I'm trying to understand what this means and how this shifts responsibility from NPO. Just because someone else might have thought it up, does not mean that NPO didn't endorse or support it. The whole extended PM deal, as one example, was Dajobo's idea - but Yeru is the one who's presenting/speaking everything for that coalition to Farrin. Should Yeru bear the brunt of everything that happens next war due to his speaking position? This isn't Sparta, the messenger isn't solely responsible for their words - the source is just as responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I hope he told them to $%&@ off too. The fact that there is a counter offer in the table is more than you deserve. Those are legitimately strange words for a guy whose side has already lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Our Emperor is fully aware this is not just about the NPO. He already came down from white peace to some kind of NPO reparation but there is so much bitter pill we can take to satisfy some alliance in the NpO coalition. The Emperor is in no pressure to give in. Not from it’s allies and certainly not from it’s Body Republic. Keep pushing. I don't care to push anything, rather: "This war is a cakewalk compare to Karma or even the DH/NPO war." Is your words, and I'm simply saying, if you think its been a cakewalk, its because you haven't cared to look at how your allies are doing. I'd venture to say this is far and away the hardest losses some of them have ever been inflicted. Edited January 27, 2014 by Goldie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 You have no idea how it hurts me being in peace mode right now. A bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minion Rouse Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The whole extended PM deal, as one example, was Dajobo's idea - but Yeru is the one who's presenting/speaking everything for that coalition to Farrin. I would just like to clarify, Dajobo had no intention of asking for reps until other members of the coalition asked for them. That hardly makes it his idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3mon Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I don't care to push anything, rather: "This war is a cakewalk compare to Karma or even the DH/NPO war." Is your words, and I'm simply saying, if you think its been a cakewalk, its because you haven't cared to look at how your allies are doing. I'd venture to say this is far and away the hardest losses some of them have ever been inflicted. Why do you think that it has in anyway broken their resolve? Taking damage is part of the war and fortunately it seems that our coalition is a lot more united than TOP/NpO. Edited January 27, 2014 by d3mon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The whole extended PM deal, as one example, was Dajobo's idea - but Yeru is the one who's presenting/speaking everything for that coalition to Farrin. Should Yeru bear the brunt of everything that happens next war due to his speaking position? This isn't Sparta, the messenger isn't solely responsible for their words - the source is just as responsible. That's part of taking a leadership position. Brehon wanted to lead Equilibrium so bad, and Brehon embodied the will of the Body Republic. Thus, regardless of who's idea it was originally, by Brehon presenting it he put his stamp of approval. If he really didn't like the terms, he should have let someone else present them. This is where the term "the buck stops here" comes from. Also, "personal responsibility." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 That's part of taking a leadership position. Brehon wanted to lead Equilibrium so bad, and Brehon embodied the will of the Body Republic. Thus, regardless of who's idea it was originally, by Brehon presenting it he put his stamp of approval. If he really didn't like the terms, he should have let someone else present them. This is where the term "the buck stops here" comes from. Also, "personal responsibility." The Body Republic =/= Equilibrium CoalitionAnd again, does this mean that Yeru shall be held solely responsible in the coming months for any fallout from this war that may befall any alliance on their side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The Body Republic =/= Equilibrium Coalition And again, does this mean that Yeru shall be held solely responsible in the coming months for any fallout from this war that may befall any alliance on their side? I think the issue here is the hypocrisy of NPO whining about peace mode terms when they presented worse terms themselves in the recent past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The Body Republic =/= Equilibrium Coalition Well, you're not incorrect, but let's not forget that NPO actively entered into fronts it was not engaged in (the TOP/AZTEC front comes to mind) in order to take a greater role in peace negotiations that it felt were not proceeding in its own interests. So the circumstances here are quite a bit different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Honestly had forgotten TPF was part of that. I had just joined Umbrella at about the time the agreement was reached and only saw NPO targets. You guys certainly never back down from war or try to avoid it. I think you're mistaken. Umbrella isn't even a part of the current peace talks. I've only elaborated on the comparison because others brought it up, and at this point there's nothing more to say on that unrelated and out-of-topic thread of conversation. The PM term, now aid restriction, for thirty three nations that have been in PM the entirety of this war was a clever idea by one of the combatants facing Pacifica that in order to discourage future use of PM (which unnecessarily lengthens wars such as these), only nations utilizing PM would be punished, and they would be punished not with war or reparations, but instead with a taste of their own medicine. It was a clever, light, but frustrating idea for peace terms, and as much as Pacifica cries about how terrible it is, all the shouting in the world isn't going to convince our coalition that it's anything more than it is. I've already shown the math, and you can argue all you want that it's over-the-top harsh to deny "banks" the opportunity to import tech, but they still come out far ahead of any nation that has actually participated in this war. If NPO wants to argue more that these high tech nations have no military purpose, then I'm sure they could counter offer no outgoing aid restriction and in good faith promise zero tech importation, and I would be surprised if our coalition wouldn't accept that. Oh you'll be happy to know then that we've offered to accept terms that don't allow those nations to receive any aid, only send it. That was rejected by your coalition. Edited January 27, 2014 by Jesse End Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Oh you'll be happy to know then that we've offered to accept terms that don't allow those nations to receive any aid, only send it. That was rejected by your coalition. Everyone is rejecting offers....looks like everyone still wants to fight, so what is this grandstanding needed for? Sympathy :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Why do you think that it has in anyway broken their resolve? Taking damage is part of the war and fortunately it seems that our coalition is a lot more united than TOP/NpO. I haven't commented on anyone's resolve. Can't measure that. What you can measure, is damage taken, and his statement that this war has been a cakewalk certainly does not apply to NPO's allies, regardless of their "resolve". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Show your work. Not a single person has even addressed the post where I laid out the numbers to illustrate that even two nations of the 35 PM-brigaders being in war would have taken damages matching the total figures that Farrin is espousing if they were lightly engaged, and probably far exceeding the damages Farrin has described if they were normally engaged. The analogy is that if this were an extended limited war, our terms would be the same as asking two NPO nations to fight one opponent each for thirty-five days whilst everyone else could sign peace and be done. This puts the NPO FAR ahead compared to actually fighting the war with those 35 nations. Instead of hundreds of billions in damages, they lose out on sending $10B in aid (if one were to take NPO's word that these high tech nations would be sending aid and not receiving tech, heh). This was my response from earlier http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/120332-a-message-from-the-emperor-of-the-new-pacific-order/page-3#entry3220995 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Everyone is rejecting offers....looks like everyone still wants to fight, so what is this grandstanding needed for? Sympathy :rolleyes:the rebel yet again dropping gems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Gotta say, it seems to me that it is easily verified that fighting would actually be worse monetary costs, at least for those nations that would actually fight. It looks like 4 Valhalla nations might have lost close to 10b in infra this week for instance. But, if one side sees warring with the nations as a lighter sentence and thus better, and the other side sees it as a heavier sentence and thus better then currently on the table, maybe there is a path to a peace deal here. Granted, I'm not Mister Black, nor have I played him on TV. I would have to agree. But I'm also not Mister Black. 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.