Dochartaigh Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 correct .. there was a thing on the wording between FAN and Us but no terms no reps .. and to add NPO and FAN becoame close due to great diplo Wait, did you seriously say no terms when NPO hit FAN? hahahahahahahaha is that what NPO is teaching these days? There was a reason for the vietFAN II mate. Cuz FAN "broke" the terms levied on them by NPO. And broke is a rather loose term. NPO just wanted to hit them again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Also, I'll take that as a compliment. Perhaps staying in one place so long has fried your ability to see that at this point it's impossible for you to spin Pacifica's prolonging of the war. Meanwhile, five days later -- your emperor floats garbage offers to offer to pay a coalition who has never asked for reps, reps. Clearly done with the intent of trying so hard to find a way to make the actual terms fit the narrative. With the emperor storming out of negotiations effectively extending the war over an 8 day difference while negotiating was ongoing -- and suffering in billions of damage to Pacifica -- and those allies who think they are supporting a noble cause -- can't be spun any other way than Pacifica actually simply wants to continue fighting. That's fine, don't pretend anyone else is holding up peace though. Well sure i have only been in one place but at least that gives me the knowledge of what we are doing, they call that stability and with stability comes i know how my AA works. As well your trying to minimise agian what it is Using numbers like 8 or .8 or a percent you know as well as i do that gives a false impression of minimizing the true numbers. Try talking with real numbers as the cost over the time. Then the true effect is seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Do you wanna list the wars when NPO was in charge and the outcomes of those wars mate? I was there. Alliances disbanded at the end of those wars. Viceroys were installed at the end of those wars. Massive reps were levied. So on and so forth. See a much worse pattern here? agian when was that... The point is the DH war was a purpose to make us more transparent and to adapt to current times. We did so as you can see. In fact now after that this war is now becoming hippocritical to what you people did not want back in them days. You are now imposing a limit currently the very things you fought against back in the day. Just goes to show whom is spinning and whom has actually changed. And i know you will again minimize what you are doing now :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Wait, did you seriously say no terms when NPO hit FAN? hahahahahahahaha is that what NPO is teaching these days? There was a reason for the vietFAN II mate. Cuz FAN "broke" the terms levied on them by NPO. And broke is a rather loose term. NPO just wanted to hit them again. Agian dealt with and in the past lets move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Wait, did you seriously say no terms when NPO hit FAN? hahahahahahahaha is that what NPO is teaching these days? There was a reason for the vietFAN II mate. Cuz FAN "broke" the terms levied on them by NPO. And broke is a rather loose term. NPO just wanted to hit them again.Doch, stop tripping balls and accept that the most recent wars aren't the same as the old wars. FAN and Fark's pre-empt during Grudge was not concluded with reparations. Edited February 1, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Well sure i have only been in one place but at least that gives me the knowledge of what we are doing, they call that stability and with stability comes i know how my AA works. As well your trying to minimise agian what it is Using numbers like 8 or .8 or a percent you know as well as i do that gives a false impression of minimizing the true numbers. Try talking with real numbers as the cost over the time. Then the true effect is seen Yes, let's just ignore history when it's suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, it was done out of pixel-hugging fear. That's why Polar ran to TOP in August. TOP didn't need Polar's military strength, but it gave them a more immediate chance to finish off Equilibrium. And here we are today, with Umbrella (and maybe TOP) trying to punish NPO for Brehon's actions against Umbrella in EQ, despite the fact that those actions ended up not costing Umbrella any pixels in the final analysis. But let's not forget, we wouldn't be here without Polar's war of naked aggression. When you treaty a former enemy then start a preemptive war just because people are calling you names on the OWF, that says a lot about your character. Edit: words This was more than just a calling of names. I was in TIO when NG came sniffing around to see if we would join NG/NSO in their war. IIRC, it was only when NPO said something that it was considered. As for Brehon's actions, just because NPO could not rally support for their terms, does not mean they did not demand terms. Yeah, they were so involved and made a lot of pushes to get NSO and NG to declare. They even got a resounding "no" from their allies and still pushed it forward. Now, let's head back to reality, please. So, they tried to get their allies involved in the aggressive war against Polaris, got told no. But they were never involved... except to ask their allies to get involved in war... NPO was not an advocate of that war in any way shape or form, however I think it is obvious if 80% of their allies ended up on one side of a war they would end up alongside them. Who cares anyway, anyone with half a brain can see this war's CB is one of the more justified ones in the past 5 years, there is no secret that certain alliances wanted NpO's head, and NpO did something about it. Great, makes for exciting times. Where everything get's a bit squirrelly is when you start demanding terms for stupid reasons. This war should have been over a month ago, people's pig-headedness and desire to recreate a unipolar power structure is what's pushing it forward. Yup, could have ended a month ago if NPO simply signed the surrender treaty. Instead, people's pig-headedness and desire to try and finally gain support to roll certain alliances in order to create a unipolar power structure just as they had in the past, is what is holding this war up. It's all rhetoric. You claim that these terms are so terrible and are the worst ever, yet they don't even pass the sniff test when even some of your greatest apologists compare them to the terms you've delivered to alliances in the past. Your emperor has been caught dipping out on peace talks more than once -- and every time you all have to invent a new reason why you're holding your own coalition hostage. It's quite enjoyable, really -- because they're not dumb, and if you think you're going to walk the dog another month, you're going to find yourself empty handed. Sure, if any of us were in Pacifica's position we'd do the same. In fact, some of us have done the same when Pacifica has attempted to levy such terms. The fact remains that those fighting for you are beaten and your emperor has no clothes -- desperately trying to spin the position that your enemies are close to folding and that they're being unreasonable. Wrong on both accounts. Now shush, this is apparently not about Pacifica's past, so you cannot possibly bring that up. It does not matter that when NPO was in a similar position that they levied some of the worst terms in the history of Bob and not just against the core alliances but against as many as they possibly could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, let's just ignore history when it's suitable. History should never be ignored, however I'd rather ignore it entirely then live in it forever. Have spankings in the past really festered in your subconscious that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Here's my counter-offer as a not-quite-neutral bystander: both sides stick their bad posters into a new alliance (let's call it FAIL for now, since the one-time leader of that AA would definitely approve). Then we takes it in turns to hit them for say 2-3 weeks. I am sure everyone would toss their grievances aside following such poignant retribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Now shush, this is apparently not about Pacifica's past, so you cannot possibly bring that up. It does not matter that when NPO was in a similar position that they levied some of the worst terms in the history of Bob and not just against the core alliances but against as many as they possibly could. If you guys want to make this war a punishment about what happened 5 years ago, then go ahead and make it. I can accept the position that we will constantly need to be punished again and again for the same thing, and act accordingly. It would be a perfectly valid thing for you to do imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Meanwhile, five days later -- your emperor floats garbage offers to offer to pay a coalition who has never asked for reps, reps. Clearly done with the intent of trying so hard to find a way to make the actual terms fit the narrative. With the emperor storming out of negotiations effectively extending the war over an 8 day difference while negotiating was ongoing -- and suffering in billions of damage to Pacifica -- and those allies who think they are supporting a noble cause -- can't be spun any other way than Pacifica actually simply wants to continue fighting. If you read the offer carefully, you'll see that it is not necessarily reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, let's just ignore history when it's suitable. in that post you said this ... where did i mention history in that quote ? .. man see what i mean stability means comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) If you guys want to make this war a punishment about what happened 5 years ago, then go ahead and make it. I can accept the position that we will constantly need to be punished again and again for the same thing, and act accordingly. It would be a perfectly valid thing for you to do imo. These terms are not punishment for anything NPO did or did not do, they are simply to stabilize the postwar period. From what I see here NPO members need some history lessons and philosophical reeducation, and with raw ambition removed as a factor, NPO will see a new era of renaissance if the leadership allows it. Edited February 1, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) wrong quuote Hampering growth is not stabilizing .. it is giving another the chance to grow while one sits stagnant giving advantage to the other side. Edited February 1, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 If you read the offer carefully, you'll see that it is not necessarily reps. If I didn't want the war to end, I too would change the terms of reps that until Farrin stormed out of the room -- both sides had found acceptable. You can keep stalling but at this point you're just hurting those you claim you're so thankful for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hampering growth is not stabilizing .. it is giving another the chance to grow while one sits stagnant giving advantage to the other side. Growth under neo-imperialism is seldom a good thing. Before Pacifica can be ready to rule, it must follow. That was the secret of the old glory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Growth under neo-imperialism is seldom a good thing. Before Pacifica can be ready to rule, it must follow. That was the secret of the old glory. Ready to rule ? Man you talk about us not knowing history. Edited February 1, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Ready to rule ? Man you talk about us not knowing history. I have been for and against the Order at different points in history, but I have never seen a membership so ignorant of its founding ideals. That has to be rectified if Pacifica ever wants to be a world leader again, you cannot reign effectively by fear alone in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 If I didn't want the war to end, I too would change the terms of reps that until Farrin stormed out of the room -- both sides had found acceptable. You can keep stalling but at this point you're just hurting those you claim you're so thankful for. If it didn't have a Tywin clause, it wasn't a genuine offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opportunity Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yup, could have ended a month ago if NPO simply signed the surrender treaty. Instead, people's pig-headedness and desire to try and finally gain support to roll certain alliances in order to create a unipolar power structure just as they had in the past, is what is holding this war up. Oh, so you mean NpO and TOP aren't trying to create a unipolar power structure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I have been for and against the Order at different points in history, but I have never seen a membership so ignorant of its founding ideals. That has to be rectified if Pacifica ever wants to be a world leader again, you cannot reign effectively by fear alone in this world. try living it .. might give ya some incite .. and i am not sure but i thinking being for or against only makes you a fan or not .. not give you insight to our culture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 try living it .. might give ya some incite .. and i am not sure but i thinking being for or against only makes you a fan or not .. not give you insight to our culture I was a member of Pacifica in 2010 during the reign of Comrade Cortath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Oh, so you mean NpO and TOP aren't trying to create a unipolar power structure? A defeated NPO, even one under terms, does not make Bob unipolar. NPO is the leader of a sphere, not the only other sphere in existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I was a member of Pacifica in 2010 during the reign of Comrade Cortath. and so was I :) .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 So, they tried to get their allies involved in the aggressive war against Polaris, got told no. But they were never involved... except to ask their allies to get involved in war...Asking your allies if they would help you support your allies isn't commonplace? I'm fairly sure NSO did the same while telling me they didn't agree with an action I was pursuing. Maybe that only happens in the corner where you want to ensure you get as much support for an ally as possible, instead of throwing half your coalition to the wolves with hard fronts. 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.