JamesdaLeo Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 my reasoning for support was nothing more than NAAW had our backs in an offensive war against the biggest alliance in the game. They have far proven many times that they are honorable allies. We shall defend them in Honor of this friendship we have formed over the last month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ammon Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 And when I said "I", I meant "we", since most of the Lafayette Escadrille have that same shared history of long term, large scale online battles. We love the battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ammon Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 As well you should JamesdaLeo. I only question the method, not the motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 my reasoning for support was nothing more than NAAW had our backs in an offensive war against the biggest alliance in the game. They have far proven many times that they are honorable allies. We shall defend them in Honor of this friendship we have formed over the last month or so. That says even more about you guys, that'd you even stick by your friends when they have made mistakes. Not everyone is able to do that. Very honorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius C Nero Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Also I just noticed a rather sad fact: Looks like both GDA and LE share a love for all things aeronautical ( I suppose thats a shot in the dark but the graphic up there led me to the guess) . You guys should get together and talk a bit, maybe you'd get along better than you think. If it has wings, we like it. Your assumption is correct I wish both sides the best in the coming days. May this war be a short one and may peace come quickly. Hail fest alert. o/GDA o/Our Allies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 D: another alliance to add to the NAAW war stats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesdaLeo Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 lol sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtndew Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 We have no problem fighting GDA. I think their reason to enter as as thin as a contact lense but that is still their business. I would however appreciate GDA nations not using "GDA Defense" for a reason of war. That is just ridicilous. No one attacked GDA...GDA is the PROVEN aggressor here and began it's attacks last night on LE nations. This entrance was their descision so I'm very curious of just who it is you are Defending from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyAGW Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Thanks for the kudos<S> James, indeed I did enjoy speaking with you as well. GDA, I don't fault you for supporting an alliance with NAAW. I do firmly believe that you could have averted this had you tried sincerely. NAAW may have been willing to accept peace if they knew their Allies did not agree with the premise of the war. Here again, we return to the premise and our major disagreement. I believe that small alliances have the right to defend themselves when pushed too far, even with the absence of treaties. LE is standing up for this belief. Now the unfortunate part simply is that GDA is on the opposite side, thus supporting the destruction of 'said' belief. Furthermore, each day this continues, while LE nation is blown apart one by one, the only lasting affect will be the illumination that NAAW and GDA when tied by treaties may act as 'tyrants' when applicable...because well...they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 We have no problem fighting GDA. I think their reason to enter as as thin as a contact lense but that is still their business. I would however appreciate GDA nations not using "GDA Defense" for a reason of war. That is just ridicilous. No one attacked GDA...GDA is the PROVEN aggressor here and began it's attacks last night on LE nations. This entrance was their descision so I'm very curious of just who it is you are Defending from? So all of a sudden treaties don't matter eh? If a friend was getting mugged in a park, would you help him? Or even better, if you're a cop and help is expected, would you help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) So all of a sudden treaties don't matter eh? If a friend was getting mugged in a park, would you help him? Or even better, if you're a cop and help is expected, would you help? Oh boy. I'd sure help my friend out of that particular jam, but when I found out my friend tripped the guy "mugging him" and then kicked him where it counts, prior to the "mugging"... I'd sure re-evaluate my friends, and why they were picking on this random dude. Second analogy was way better.. first... eh.... Edited January 8, 2009 by metal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsukage Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 So all of a sudden treaties don't matter eh? If a friend was getting mugged in a park, would you help him? Or even better, if you're a cop and help is expected, would you help? How aobut this one, it seems better: I would help my friend if he was getting mugged, however I wouldn't help a friend that is mugging other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 How aobut this one, it seems better:I would help my friend if he was getting mugged, however I wouldn't help a friend that is mugging other people. But this ones more accurate You see a friend mugging someone, but ask him to stop, then 3 of the muggees friends jump in and start beating him with a tire iron, so you walk up to them with beer and say please stop. And they agree to, but when you walk away they start swinging again. You wouldnt help him out after that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) But this ones more accurateYou see a friend mugging someone, but ask him to stop, then 3 of the muggees friends jump in and start beating him with a tire iron, so you walk up to them with beer and say please stop. And they agree to, but when you walk away they start swinging again. You wouldnt help him out after that ? Just when I thought we were making progress and seeing eye to eye Bill. No one in there right mind will believe a first-strike nuke and spying away nukes as saying "please stop". However in your hypothetical story, I can only hope the "mugger" , learns his lesson about mugging, after meeting Mr. Tire Iron. Edited January 8, 2009 by metal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Just when I thought we were making progress and seeing eye to eye Bill.No one in there right mind will believe a first-strike nuke and spying away nukes as saying "please stop". However in your hypothetical story, I can only hope the "muggee" as you put it, learns his lesson about mugging, after meeting Mr. Tire Iron. You always skip where your guys started hitting my guy again before we hit you. The spying was done intentionally because we were worried about a nuke. The nuke was not supposed to be shot off, but I guess our member got excited. But even with that NOONE came and asked me about it you just made a plot to attack us edit - the muggee would be the person getting mugged, the mugger would have been our guy Edited January 8, 2009 by KingDingaLing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) You always skip where your guys started hitting my guy again before we hit you. The spying was done intentionally because we were worried about a nuke. The nuke was not supposed to be shot off, but I guess our member got excited. But even with that NOONE came and asked me about it you just made a plot to attack usedit - the muggee would be the person getting mugged, the mugger would have been our guy "But I guess our member got excited." Yet another example of clearly refusing to admit/apologize for any mistakes. I somehow don't feel a much smaller alliance in size would get away with just excusing' a nuke off like that. As for your edit, your twisting of the story even confused your Archnemesis, good call and I have worked in a edit of my own reflecting your valid point. Edited January 8, 2009 by metal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 "But I guess our member got excited." Yet another example of clearly refusing to admit/apologize for any mistakes. I somehow don't feel a much smaller alliance in size would get away with just excusing' a nuke off like that. As for your edit, your twisting of the story even confused your Archnemesis, good call and I have worked in a edit of my own reflecting your valid point. He is sorry he raided you guys and we are sorry a guy went nuke rouge on you. Thats why we were attempting peace for the second time, that you turned down for "having more fun than ever" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 He is sorry he raided you guys and we are sorry a guy went nuke rouge on you. Thats why we were attempting peace for the second time, that you turned down for "having more fun than ever" If you were attempting it for the second time, you would have accepted any of the numerous attempts of late. From everything I hear you are just being overly stubborn about continuing the war. (This came as no surprise to me, having seen NAAW's prior actions, but it appears to be surprising a few others now along the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 If you were attempting it for the second time, you would have accepted any of the numerous attempts of late. From everything I hear you are just being overly stubborn about continuing the war. (This came as no surprise to me, having seen NAAW's prior actions, but it appears to be surprising a few others now along the way) Why ? Why would I accept it after you deny it twice ? Your logic is flawed there. You denying it twice is the exact reason Im not accepting it now. That, and my people voted unanimously to stay in the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Why ? Why would I accept it after you deny it twice ? Your logic is flawed there. You denying it twice is the exact reason Im not accepting it now. That, and my people voted unanimously to stay in the war. I don't recall denying it twice. Please help me out. BW denied a white peace under false pretense. You noticed there was a big stick backing BW up and quickly changed your tune. Once again.. we've gone over & over this too. This guy isn't singing the same tune: Message: Alright, sounds good. As a sign of good faith I will peace out with the nations now. I assume I should switch my AA too but I'll wait for your call on that. Nor this guy: Subject: heyaMessage: im attacking NAAW soon so dont attack me por favor BW Soldier: "Yeah that guy sent me the same message. He said he would not attack me anymore and that he would turn against NAAW when the time was right, as he feels what he is fighting for is wrong. " I'll hope you'll understand as I can not release the names of those individuals. I'd hate for them to be "mugged". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I don't recall denying it twice. Please help me out. BW denied a white peace under false pretense. You noticed there was a big stick backing BW up and quickly changed your tune. Once again.. we've gone over & over this too. This guy isn't singing the same tune: Nor this guy: BW Soldier: "Yeah that guy sent me the same message. He said he would not attack me anymore and that he would turn against NAAW when the time was right, as he feels what he is fighting for is wrong. " I'll hope you'll understand as I can not release the names of those individuals. I'd hate for them to be "mugged". Whomever they are we are better off with out them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Whomever they are we are better off with out them Yeah, god forbid an individual thinks outside the tiny oppressive box of their leader and stands up and chooses "right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Yeah, god forbid an individual thinks outside the tiny oppressive box of their leader and stands up and chooses "right". I offered my people the opportunity to ask for peace, they voted to keep fighting.. the 2 people that sent you a message are thinking outside the box that their comrades have chosen, not just I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strykewolf Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 oh just swallow some things and peace out Both alliances have good folks in them. But then, I'm just a noob that has no clue on how things work ;-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I offered my people the opportunity to ask for peace, they voted to keep fighting.. the 2 people that sent you a message are thinking outside the box that their comrades have chosen, not just I. I personally do not feel that you rule as a Democracy Bill, thus I refuse to lump the general sum of NAAW population into your methods. Surprisingly to you I'm sure, but I've been led to believe that a solid chunk of your people do know right from wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts