Vulkan Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Really guys? Go back and read the OP. It specifically states that the term remained in place for so long mainly because of forgetfulness. Christ almighty. And thats better how? If anything that just makes them look bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasili Markov Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Congratulations GPA, this is a great day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 So, you are to assume that ex members wouldn't be annoyed that their old home was kept under terms for 11 months? I mean come on, that is a long time. Sorry, I didn't know Ragnarok is GPA 2.0 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Terms held solely for the lack of interest of the supervising party? Bad form from the coalition. Edited February 3, 2009 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Congrats on being free of surrender terms GPA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That surrender vote was the closest GPA vote I can remember, if it were up to me I'd still be fighting rather than validate a pathetic CB by accepting surrender. I always felt accepting those terms only laid the groundwork for future "harvests" whenever the powers that be decided they want a distraction. I only hope my beliefs are a fantasy. Unfortunately, my friend, your beliefs could not be more precise. These alliances thrive on regular conflict. Their existence, their oppressive stranglehold on the politics of this Cyberverse relies on it. It is conflict and continued abhorrence of an 'opponent', no matter whom that opponent may be, which unites this force. It maintains its activity, vitality and efficiency through selecting and scrutinising a group or single alliance and methodically eroding its political position, and sowing the seeds of detestation both internally and externally. Once these political and psychological processes reach their peak, the belligerents are rewarded with the fruits of their labour; a defenceless, isolated target for a destructive military campaign to satiate the desire for material gain and to fulfil the need for continued 'triumphs' in order to maintain the allegiance of their constituents. These aggressors do not care whether this repugnant procedure destroys months, or even years of work, nor do they have any qualms with eradicating entire communities, bolstered with a trumped-up casus belli, for their own enjoyment It is a process that has been perfected over the preceding eighteen months. The Green Protection Agency was placed under intense scrutiny in the lead-up to the conflict that removed the alliance from the heights of the Cyberverse. Every comment made, every policy pursued, and every step the Agency took was dissected in the search for justification for military action. Upon the realisation that validation for their sadistic schemes would not be found amongst the actions of a neutral organisation, that validation was manufactured. With this announcement, the aggressors attempt to protect themselves from criticism, to excuse their sordid act of restricting an alliance’s sovereignty and ability to defend itself for almost an entire year by claiming they merely forgot. What a joke. Where was the rigorous scrutiny that the Green Protection Agency was subject to prior to the war? If the eagle-eyed discrimination of the Green Protection Agency’s every move previous to the conflict was so natural, where did it disappear to over these past eleven months? Considering it would only take a somewhat discerning woodland animal to observe a restriction on an alliance’s nuclear purchases, it appears that extended oppression and castrating subjugation also comes naturally to many in this coalition. The only two heartening developments are that the Green Protection Agency is once again sovereign, and that at least one of the signatories of this announcement has since distanced itself from such aggressive practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamDean Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Sorry, I didn't know Ragnarok is GPA 2.0 . And we didn't realise that the idea of people expressing their opinions would be so alien/offensive to MCXA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Ideas and opinions are fine as long as they don't go opposite the status quo What I never understood about the GPA hub bub was why Kurushio was literally let off scott free when it appeared he was the one hid details from membership and other things. Of course my knowledge of the whole conundrum is only what I read via here, but it appeared that way to me. Anyhow, it is nice to see the GPA is going to be allowed to progress on peacefully and hopefully they will be allowed to continue their neutral path. I never doubted their neutrality despite all the accusations, and to me, the GPA team up was a horrible event in our history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 If GPA didn't want to accept the nuclear restrictions, they could have chosen not to. Once they accepted, they were bound to stick by them for as long as the victors felt necessary. Whether it was just or not to keep the restrictions for 11 months is irrelevant. The restrictions could have been in place forever, according to the surrender terms. So be happy that the GPA has been released from the term, and not use this opportunity to bash the victors for something that they and the defeated party agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Neutrals...So weak. So feeble. So disgusting. Well, I guess that is why I stand, to allow those who wish to live on their knees the right to exist in peace, instead of being bullied. Tread lightly, Starfox, for it is statements such as the foregoing that blur the line between that which you purportedly stand for and that which you purportedly stand against. Good luck to GPA, and congrats on getting your shiny nukes back. Regards, EmperorVIcious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 If GPA didn't want to accept the nuclear restrictions, they could have chosen not to. Once they accepted, they were bound to stick by them for as long as the victors felt necessary. Whether it was just or not to keep the restrictions for 11 months is irrelevant. The restrictions could have been in place forever, according to the surrender terms. So be happy that the GPA has been released from the term, and not use this opportunity to bash the victors for something that they and the defeated party agreed to. Actually, it is entirely relevant. How an alliance, or coalition, treats its prisoners of war and a vanquished opponent says a great deal about character, values and honour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That may be so, but none except those involved know whether the restriction was in place for so long due to forgetfulness, malice, or something else. So it is hard to draw any conclusions about character, values and honour, unless there is a preconceived notion about these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It is rather easy to draw accurate conclusions when you examine both the facts of the conclift and the history of the belligerent alliances. I displayed that in my initial contribution to the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It has been admitted that the coalition forgot about GPA terms right? If thats the case then it reflects terribly on them. Forgetting about PoW's is not acceptable no matter how you present the facts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) The opening statement explicitly states the terms were from a lack of remembrance, if I am to take the coalition at its word the length of the terms was a result of neglect. Edited February 3, 2009 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That just proves my point about preconceived notions. You already thought that the victorious alliances were aggressive, warmongering and underhanded, and so your perception of the issue of nuclear restrictions is coloured by that. The belief that the victors are aggressive and underhanded leads to the assumption that the restriction was in place to keep the GPA down. The belief that a neutral alliance was subjected to terms for so long in order to keep them down then strengthens the notion that the victors are aggressive and underhanded. It's a vicious cycle. Anyway, my point is that someone with a different starting belief about the character of the victors would reach a different conclusion about the nuclear restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That just proves my point about preconceived notions. You already thought that the victorious alliances were aggressive, warmongering and underhanded, and so your perception of the issue of nuclear restrictions is coloured by that. The belief that the victors are aggressive and underhanded leads to the assumption that the restriction was in place to keep the GPA down. The belief that a neutral alliance was subjected to terms for so long in order to keep them down then strengthens the notion that the victors are aggressive and underhanded. It's a vicious cycle. Objectively examining the facts of history and drawing a conclusion does not equal preconceived notions. Anyway, my point is that someone with a different starting belief about the character of the victors would reach a different conclusion about the nuclear restrictions. And they would be incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Pfft. If all the alliances that liked to come and cry about how awful the NPO and their friends are actually decided to stop whining and fight for what they believe we might actually see a war worth fighting. They are too scared or weak or have some other excuse though. Isn't that right Revanche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Forgetting about a prisoner of war is akin to not feeding one’s dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Pfft. If all the alliances that liked to come and cry about how awful the NPO and their friends are actually decided to stop whining and fight for what they believe we might actually see a war worth fighting. They are too scared or weak or have some other excuse though. Isn't that right Revanche? You know, I was wondering when you were going to show up. Consistently following me and responding to my posts is flattering, but some roses and chocolates might get you further. If you believe throwing 2.3 million total nation strength against a mound of treaties that threatens to block out the sun is prudent, I can see a bright future ahead for Enigma. Though, I must thank you; it had been too long since I had heard the "do something about it" defense. Edit: Typo Edited February 3, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Sorry, I didn't know Ragnarok is GPA 2.0 . Just like MCXA isn't NADC 2.0? c wut i did thar? Pfft. If all the alliances that liked to come and cry about how awful the NPO and their friends are actually decided to stop whining and fight for what they believe we might actually see a war worth fighting. They are too scared or weak or have some other excuse though. Isn't that right Revanche? Didn't Vanguard get involved in the last war to try to change something? My memory might be wrong, but I'm almost positive that they did. Edited February 3, 2009 by Chickenzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 And they would be incorrect. Heh. Well I would disagree, but I think we have both made our respective points about this topic well enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) You know, I was wondering when you were going to show up. Consistently following me and responding to my posts is flattering, but some roses and chocolates might get you further. If you believe throwing 2.3 million total nation strength against a mound of treaties that threatens to block out the sun is prudent, I can see a bright future ahead for Enigma. Though, I must thank you; it has been too long since I have heard the "do something about it" defense.Edit: Typo Meh, there are far too few I really enjoy butting heads with. Ah, so it's weak in your case is it? At least you didn't dodge your shortcomings. Carry on with your bawfest then. Also, since we generally like minding our own business I think we'll be fine. Though I do make an exception here and there. Didn't Vanguard get involved in the last war to try to change something? My memory might be wrong, but I'm almost positive that they did. Yeah, Vanguard's deeds are forgettable. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and DoW somebody with the reason"You guys are arseholes!" I'd remember that. Edited February 3, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Meh, there are far too few I really enjoy butting heads with.Ah, so it's weak in your case is it? At least you didn't dodge your shortcomings. Carry on with your bawfest then. Also, since we generally like minding our own business I think we'll be fine. Though I do make an exception here and there. Magicninja, can you please get a little better at 'butting heads' if you are going to do it? Revanche seems to easily get the upper hand every time you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It has been admitted that the coalition forgot about GPA terms right? If thats the case then it reflects terribly on them. Forgetting about PoW's is not acceptable no matter how you present the facts Shameful behavior unworthy of the civilized man. 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.