AlmightyGrub Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Corrupted Polaris? You realize that Polaris has a history of asking for terms right? Refresh my memory Doch, when was the last time Polaris imposed terms at the conclusion of a war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Refresh my memory Doch, when was the last time Polaris imposed terms at the conclusion of a war? Not saying it has not been a while mate but D34th made it sound like y'all never have. All I am saying is that it is tiresome to wade through all the idiotic bullshit propaganda that is passed around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Corrupted Polaris? You realize that Polaris has a history of asking for terms right? Again, another person with these mysterious "disgruntled" members. Calling you out as well mate. Either name names or just admit you are !@#$%^&*ting. Or talking about IRON/Valhalla.Does it matter who I'm talking about? You named two, it doesn't matter if anybody else is in the group or not for the intent of my post. The winning category whilst you're in the losing? :VActually I think I qualified as lost! But that wasn't an option you cheater :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Refresh my memory Doch, when was the last time Polaris imposed terms at the conclusion of a war?You've won like one or two with any capacity to enforce terms in the last four years. Let's be realistic. Edited February 13, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Does it matter who I'm talking about? You named two, it doesn't matter if anybody else is in the group or not for the intent of my post. Actually I think I qualified as lost! But that wasn't an option you cheater :( Actually it does matter since your post indicates there are disgruntled members of our side. And since I keep hearing all about these disgruntled members from people on your side, I am simply asking someone to prove it. No one has been willing which means that more than likely there is no evidence to back up the claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Actually it does matter since your post indicates there are disgruntled members of our side. And since I keep hearing all about these disgruntled members from people on your side, I am simply asking someone to prove it. No one has been willing which means that more than likely there is no evidence to back up the claims.You named two yourself, did you not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) 1) We wished to ensure that our treaty obligations were fulfilled to our allies in the most satisfactory manner possible. "The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs""In the situation where either party is asked to join in an offensive war, participation is not mandatory but is encouraged." Edited February 13, 2014 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marelea Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I wasnt saying it was brilliant from a tactical perspective, but from a strategic point of view I think it was. 1. The will of Pacifica was broken first. 2. The coalition held together despite dissident elements. 3. We reduced moralism and the white peace mentality. 4. We steered the direction of future warfare towards maneuver (strategic oAs) rather than static defense (MDP). 5. We managed to surprise the enemy despite the intricate planning involved. Polar is still representing Moralism :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 You named two yourself, did you not? lawlz, Valhalla is allied to MI6 mate and has not really been complaining all that much. IRON, I dunno but you really want to talk about being used. NG dumps Valhalla for doing exactly what IRON did, but IRON is kept. Yup, wonder why NG did not dump IRON... So, I named two alliances that your side has brought up continuously as two of the alliances being "disgruntled". The only two mind you; while others have been implied none have been named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Yup, wonder why NG did not dump IRON... Because one of our longest serving MDoAP treaties doesn't get cancelled on a whim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Valhalla was canceled "on a whim" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Valhalla was canceled "on a whim" ? No. The usage of "on a whim" was probably the wrong term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Must not have been that high of a horse, hope you didn't hurt yourself falling off. The horse was high as balls :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) That would mean NPO going back on their word, which I doubt they would do. For CCC it is more a case of doing our best to follow the golden rule as the Gospels tell us. Your signature is still on it. I predict that the CCC will get a Lady Macbeth complex if it continues with logic like this. The blood's still there.. I assure you. You say you worry about reflect the values of the Gospel, well, let me just go on the record as saying that the GPA does a better job. Edited February 13, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Your signature is still on it. I predict that the CCC will get a Lady Macbeth complex if it continues with logic like this. The blood's still there.. I assure you. You say you worry about reflect the values of the Gospel, well, let me just go on the record as saying that the GPA does a better job. I like you more and more every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. Nothing has changed over here. Like drunk people always say: "Are you crazy? I'm totally sober." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Don't kid yourself, NPO's opening bid for the end of EQ was no tech/aid to umbrella for months. *sigh* My friend, you cannot in one post mention that you dont like THESE terms, say they are not YOUR terms, but the terms of other stakeholders, then harken back to last war and totally ignore the same fact in regard to NPO. Those terms were NOT NPOs terms, those were the terms demanded by their coalition partners. Those were terms that began NPOs falling out within its own coalition, because while NPO delivered the terms, their coalition knew they did not WANT those terms. If the excuse works for GOONS now(I am ok with this, because I take you at your word)... then you need to keep your perspective on the reversed positions of the last war. In addition, Umbrella in the last war, were the cause.. the catalyst... they committed the "wrong".. the "crime" that led to the war. They were not simply in on a defensive treaty. It barely even qualifies as a similar example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 *sigh* My friend, you cannot in one post mention that you dont like THESE terms, say they are not YOUR terms, but the terms of other stakeholders, then harken back to last war and totally ignore the same fact in regard to NPO. Those terms were NOT NPOs terms, those were the terms demanded by their coalition partners. Those were terms that began NPOs falling out within its own coalition, because while NPO delivered the terms, their coalition knew they did not WANT those terms. If the excuse works for GOONS now(I am ok with this, because I take you at your word)... then you need to keep your perspective on the reversed positions of the last war. In addition, Umbrella in the last war, were the cause.. the catalyst... they committed the "wrong".. the "crime" that led to the war. They were not simply in on a defensive treaty. It barely even qualifies as a similar example. As someone that was actually in Equilibrium......what? I'll give you that NPO didn't want to put terms on people other than Umbrella, but as someone that argued against the feasibility and desirability of further terms on Umbrella, NPO only came around to that well after it became clear Equilibrium wasn't going to last long enough to enforce anything. It's worth noting that part of the justification for the extended war terms on Umbrella was that they were explicitly modeled on the previous DH-NPO peace terms. Perhaps they were secretly against them all along, but it was a pretty well kept secret if that's the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 So, I named two alliances that your side has brought up continuously as two of the alliances being "disgruntled". The only two mind you; while others have been implied none have been named. It's us. We're extremely disgruntled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitchellBade Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) The horse was high as balls :| Your entire coalition appears to be high as balls :| Edited February 13, 2014 by MitchellBade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) As someone that was actually in Equilibrium......what? I'll give you that NPO didn't want to put terms on people other than Umbrella, but as someone that argued against the feasibility and desirability of further terms on Umbrella, NPO only came around to that well after it became clear Equilibrium wasn't going to last long enough to enforce anything. It's worth noting that part of the justification for the extended war terms on Umbrella was that they were explicitly modeled on the previous DH-NPO peace terms. Perhaps they were secretly against them all along, but it was a pretty well kept secret if that's the case. You say "WHAT".. then proceed to not really challenge anything I say. NPO did want the extended war in some form, NPO did NOT want the aid restrictions that were posed alongside of them. The reasons were simple... if you "extend the war", then you extend the time before the aid restrictions would start. NPO knew that C&G would not agree to these terms and exit the war. On one hand you all went !@#$% on NPO by accusing them of catering to C&Gs safety and not their own coalitions, so ask yourself... if they were more concerned with C&Gs safety, as you all liked to convict them of, how do you reconcile that with them being in favor of terms they were told up front by C&G, that WE would not accept. There is only one logical conclusion where 2+2=4. Edited February 13, 2014 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 You say "WHAT".. then proceed to not really challenge anything I say. NPO did want the extended war in some form, NPO did NOT want the aid restrictions that were posed alongside of them. The reasons were simple... if you "extend the war", then you extend the time before the aid restrictions would start. NPO knew that C&G would not agree to these terms and exit the war. On one hand you all went !@#$% on NPO by accusing them of catering to C&Gs safety and not their own coalitions, so ask yourself... if they were more concerned with C&Gs safety, as you all liked to convict them of, how do you reconcile that with them being in favor of terms they were told up front by C&G, that WE would not accept. 2+2 =/= 3. Brehon said he was proposing aid restrictions and would only wanted half the proposed period if Umbrella were to negotiate them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Brehon said he was proposing aid restrictions and would only wanted half the proposed period if Umbrella were to negotiate them down. Consider this a free lesson to you , from me, about coalitions. Things are rarely what they seem. There is ALWAYS a centralized structure of 2, maybe 3, sometimes 4 alliances that really do make all of those decisions. Sengoku was not among them. I was in wars where Athens was not among them, one where TLR was not among them. In those situations, as the news filters down to the peripheral alliances, it is dressed, primped and preened, so as to make everyone think they have their own little say in what is going on, when the reality is, you do not. This is not meant to insult you, each alliance has a station within a coalition. If you think, as gov of Sengoku, that you had a clue as to NPOs intention, you are deluding yourself. Or are you yet another one who did not listen to a single bootleg episode and hear the number of times Brehon said he would never insist on a term other than a handshake and white peace? Edited February 13, 2014 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Rush you're forgetting that Sengoku would do everything they could to try and fuck with Brehon because he didn't let them lead EQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Consider this a free lesson to you , from me, about coalitions. Things are rarely what they seem. There is ALWAYS a centralized structure of 2, maybe 3, sometimes 4 alliances that really do make all of those decisions. Sengoku was not among them. I was in wars where Athens was not among them, one where TLR was not among them. In those situations, as the news filters down to the peripheral alliances, it is dressed, primped and preened, so as to make everyone think they have their own little say in what is going on, when the reality is, you do not. This is not meant to insult you, each alliance has a station within a coalition. If you think, as gov of Sengoku, that you had a clue as to NPOs intention, you are deluding yourself. Or are you yet another one who did not listen to a single bootleg episode and hear the number of times Brehon said he would never insist on a term other than a handshake and white peace? I wasn't in Sengoku, first off. And yeah, I think I have some kind of idea what I am talking about as someone that was against the terms, wanted the war to be wrapped up, and was fairly vocal about it and took the things Brehon was saying at face value. I'll grant you that it's fairly clear different things were being said to different people and a lot of retrospective ass coverage has gone on. 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.