The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Congratulations to NPO for getting peace. Hat's off to CCC for sticking to principals and accepting only white peace.As for the rest of the opposition who have been stating they disagreed with the terms, you could have done the same thing CCC did. Instead you followed along like sheep, going where your masters told you to go. Principals are for schools, not wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 You post this like these are your achievements. They are not. If I remember correctly, you were kicked out of HB post-war, and then you proceeded to not be a part of the Optional Aggression coalition. A fool speaks where knowledge is lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Nukem Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 A fool speaks where knowledge is lacking. This sentence doesn't make any sense. You won't make cents if you don't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I'm sure someone's said this before, but the use of oA clauses to bring lots of strength down on opposing forces this war isn't at all unprecedented, innovative, or even that notable. We didn't even see any preempts and only one alliance hit without a commonly accepted treaty chain. This war's been fairly tame as wars over the past three years go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 This sentence doesn't make any sense. You won't make cents if you don't make sense. Your original post did not make sense. But you are correct, I am no longer in govt, and with people taking political potshots at me lately, its important to remember a lion still has claws. I still have a career to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 9 month incubation period huh? That is going to be one gnarly baby. Somehow I doubt NPO will be the one violating that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I don't think anyone will. It sounds about right until another war happens. Â Post-war is always the best part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 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. I think a lot of alliances could better themselves by following the golden rule as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Lord of Funk Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Principals are for schools, not wars. Â Spoken like a fool that's never smelled cordite or the vibration of the ground from impacting shells..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Lord of Funk Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Your original post did not make sense. But you are correct, I am no longer in govt, and with people taking political potshots at me lately, its important to remember a lion still has claws. I still have a career to consider. Â A one man "non-alliance" at 300NS in Peace Mode. Not much of a lion there little guy... Â nGLF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Â Sorry, that monicker belongs to AfGOONistan, as a bi product of the UJW. I will have to ask you to remove the usage of it. Â Nah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinny Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Its good to see this drawn to a conclusion. The terms aren't all that horrible. We've all seen worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre4mwe4ver Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Well done, CCC. Congrats on peace, NPO.Took the words right out of my mouth. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Its good to see this drawn to a conclusion. The terms aren't all that horrible. We've all seen worse. Â No we haven't. These are the worse terms in the history of planet bob. They are draconian and make all other terms tremble in their presence. All those involved are absolutely ebil because giving terms to an alliance who entered in defense of another has never, ever been given terms before particularly the harshest terms planet Bob has ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Just keeping notes on who deserves reps next war around, nothing to see here. Then bring them. It's amusing that so many in your coalition act like war is not an extension of politics. When coalitions go to war it seems like very many of this community expect for everyone to act like gentlemen, put away the politics that led to the outbreak of the conflict, and congratulate alliances that defend their allies for doing their jobs and honoring their treaties. This may be an irreconcilable ideological divide because I believe that this viewpoint is absolute nonsense, but I don't believe this to be the case. Let the record show which alliances deem it fit to punish another alliance for honoring a treaty. I hope no one in the OP expects leniency next time they find themselves on the losing side of a war; save CCC.Many similar names from when the hegemony was in power it looks like. Your conclusion follows your propaganda line very nicely but is completely wrong. In no way, shape, or form did myself or any of the other alliance leaders who drafted and argued for terms against NPO do so because NPO honored their MDP with NSO.  It's great that you're permanently positioned to demand reps when you're on the winning side, and to call it hypocrisy when and if you lose.  But as the most butch, tough-talking proponent for reps in the entire war, maybe you should delegate the hypocrisy policing to someone else? When discussing imposing terms on an alliance at the conclusion of a war, one has to be aware of the precedent it sets for future conflicts. A decent portion of this community has got the idea in their heads that terms and reparations are dishonorable and shouldn't be used stemming from a stagnation of politics and activity, which another group is fundamentally opposed to. Following Equilibrium ending with zero reparations given to any alliances, a similar outcome to this war would have been the nail in the coffin for imposing terms in the future except for in the most extreme of cases. In my opinion that would be unacceptable and would only lead to further political stagnation.  The terms imposed on Pacifica was below the belt and spiteful move. Let's be honest, you'd be upset about terms imposed on any of your allies for any reason. Spite had nothing to do with it.  I'm sure someone's said this before, but the use of oA clauses to bring lots of strength down on opposing forces this war isn't at all unprecedented, innovative, or even that notable. We didn't even see any preempts and only one alliance hit without a commonly accepted treaty chain. This war's been fairly tame as wars over the past three years go. Just wanted to reiterate the truth of this statement. So many who are now decrying the use of a clause in the most widely used treaty were very recently standing complacent or in favor of "pre-empts" or outright declarations of war with no casus belli. If someone's going to be so upset because they're losing a war that they have to denounce the activation of treaties to achieve a political end then there's really no hope in trying to argue with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 congrats on the peace, Pacifica... Â o/ NPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Â No we haven't. These are the worse terms in the history of planet bob. They are draconian and make all other terms tremble in their presence. All those involved are absolutely ebil because giving terms to an alliance who entered in defense of another has never, ever been given terms before particularly the harshest terms planet Bob has ever seen. Â No one who entered this war in defense of an ally has got any terms. Â Because sitting in PM for the entire length of the conflict isn't exactly my definition of "entering a war", much less "in defense of an ally". Edited February 12, 2014 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 No one who entered this war in defense of an ally has got any terms. Because sitting in PM for the entire length of the conflict isn't exactly my definition of "entering a war", much less "in defense of an ally". Point #1: A number of the nations on the OP list fought in this war, losing over half their NS.Point #2: These terms primarily damage low-tier nations that fought and have less sources of aid available to help them. In fact, your coalition rejected an offer of 272 days of the OP nations not being able to receive tech (which would have only punished them) in favour of 100 days of them not being able to send aid (which punishes other nations).I do not personally find us being having terms imposed on to be morally reprehensible, merely the regrettable consequence of a war we couldn't muster enough resources in, but let's not pretend that it's all kumbaya and "Light Treatment" either. These terms were put out there with a specific design to harm the Pacific - let's all just face that and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why would we bother with terms that helped or did nothing to NPO? Of course they were designed to hurt you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why would we bother with terms that helped or did nothing to NPO? Of course they were designed to hurt you. Exactly, all terms are designed to hurt. "Hurt" is the point of launching a war against someone. My argument isn't that hurting people is somehow evil, I'm just saying people shouldn't try to sugar-coat it by pretending that packaging the hurt in the way it has been here is somehow "better" or "worse" than any other way. Pain is pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why would we bother with terms that helped or did nothing to NPO? Of course they were designed to hurt you. Shouldn't have dropped the actual PM part of the terms, tbqh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Exactly, all terms are designed to hurt. "Hurt" is the point of launching a war against someone. My argument isn't that hurting people is somehow evil, I'm just saying people shouldn't try to sugar-coat it by pretending that packaging the hurt in the way it has been here is somehow "better" or "worse" than any other way. Pain is pain. Â Well no, not all pain is equal. NPO wouldn't've spent as much time as it did negotiating for this amount over another amount if it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hombre de Murcielago Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Glad to see this finally over, even if it comes with ridiculous terms and even more ridiculous posts defending them. Â 0/ Â NPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Congratulations on the peace, Pacifica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 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. Â Really it would of been better to of made a peace agreement with NPO before this peace agreement, because "your" signature is on the peace agreement with the terms on it. This could come across as a PR spin. Edited February 12, 2014 by the rebel 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.