Unko Kalaikz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Meh. Maybe they wouldn't plot against you if you didn't impose draconian international laws on them. Wait... what? What international law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Thank you for proving my point. Actions like this obviously do not work with these people. Did it occur to anyone that trying something new might get better results? One must first define what this "better result" would be before one can determine a means of achieving it. Generally, however, when someone spits in the face of former opponents who have buried the hatchet, they are deliberately looking to cause trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) Must? Ha. This alliance does not deserve this fate, end of story. lulz GATO. Edited March 1, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) mosquito's need to eat too. NPO is quite justified, I am just jealous they get all that free tech. Planet Bob should exercise a war tax, where the victorious alliance must pay a 28% tech tax to the planet. Taxes are implemented at the barrel of the gun. I would be down for a global tax though, where NPO, NATO and assorted allies takes tech and money from everyone else on the planet. That's just me though. (hint: there is no global tax or any such repression... is it possible that civilization is not oppressive?) Edited March 1, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony_Gunz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 mobile over 5000 troops lawl id love to see them pull something off that tactical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 A valid CB, despite what others are saying. One thing though, did you really need a dozen posts with "good luck" in them? It's not like you need luck for this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycurgus Rex Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I want to see these thousands of troops..., smashing them would give me something to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickCooley Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 It's funny. I was reading up on DevilDogs not too long ago and I remember thinking "Wow I wish I was around then to beat them down." Looks like wishes can come true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Some people never learn Let the tanks roll on o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suvorov Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 If it came to light that the leadership of a much smaller alliance than Zenith was plotting Zenith's destruction, what would you do?I am sincerely curious about it. * We would find out if there was a protectorate or other treaty in place * If so, we would try to get it removed * If successful or if no treaty had been found to be in place, we would declare war on said alliance Depending on circumstances, this would be our most likely response. I don't see anything wrong with this particular CB and wish Pacifica happy hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finster Baby Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I wish our Pacific friends good hunting and hope that they teach this alliance the lesson that they obviously didn't learn the first time. o/ NPO o/ IRON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 * We would find out if there was a protectorate or other treaty in place* If so, we would try to get it removed * If successful or if no treaty had been found to be in place, we would declare war on said alliance Depending on circumstances, this would be our most likely response. I don't see anything wrong with this particular CB and wish Pacifica happy hunting. Thankyou. Please put a muzzle on Rotavele, before he/she/it makes a fool of themselves again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Sounds like the name Jarheads fits their actions to a T. At least they provide a good and amusing blip of entertainment for the day. I only wish there was about 500 more to their memberbase in higher NS ranges cuz im bored... :jihad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 900 vs 50 YAY!Well alot less but yeaaaaaaaaaaa.Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 It's funny. I was reading up on DevilDogs not too long ago and I remember thinking "Wow I wish I was around then to beat them down." Looks like wishes can come true. It's not like round 1 was particularly fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suvorov Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) Thankyou. Please put a muzzle on Rotavele, before he/she/it makes a fool of themselves again. We do not really do gag orders at Zenith and even if we did, I am not in a position to decide on them alone. However, at this moment it should suffice to make it clear that Rotavele does not represent Zenith's government. In part because we don't have a position on the issue yet (even though I am quite confident it would coincide with my earlier statement) and also because, even if Rotavele would be voicing Zenith's opinion, the way in which it is currently communicated by him would most certainly not have been the way in which Zenith's government would have chosen to state its opinion on a matter that doesn't relate to us at all. Edited March 1, 2009 by Suvorov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 And you couldn't have thrown my name in parenthesis next to Jarheads?! Meh, all I can say is expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Sounds like after you're done with them, their heads aren't likely to be the only parts in jars. Now, a wise person/group uses second chances to start fresh and learn from their mistakes. Fortunately nobody ever accused Jarheads/Devil Dogs of being wise. Happy hunting, NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Called it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 If you plan to take out my alliance, I'll blow you up. This is remarkably obviously a good CB. In fact it's pretty much the one we used on Illuminati. Nobody whined then, so what are you talking about now? Good luck to Pacificans in their search for targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickCooley Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 It's not like round 1 was particularly fun Seems like round 2 isn't much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have no idea why you might be concerned about how many people were called up for a blitz. Now are we evil because we dont let our members have their beauty sleep? Hostility-like remarks over a mere question is redundant. Your "Casus Belli" is that they tried to take you out. Seriously do you think 90k NS and 50 members will take out 927 members at 21 million? Calling them Nazi's would have made a better casus belli . You know those guys who are uncomfortable with their size and yell "SIZE DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S HOW YOU USE IT?" Take that into consideration. NPO is merely attacking an alliance which directly threatened them. If an alliance didn't follow these actions and constantly allowed an alliance to threaten it and its inhabitants, the alliance in question fails to protect their members from any and all threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Once again we're late to the party Since this is just Jugheads it is obviously only a formality, but NATO wishes our allies in Pacifica well and offer our traditional support... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hostility-like remarks over a mere question is redundant. It was 6am and i wasn't thinking properly. I apologise for that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I think it's safe to say that most of us in the community would expect a better example of leadership from a world leader. As a chief pastor of world stability and peace, I would hate to think that at no point in time did the radical approach of attempting diplomacy would ever cross the minds of our world leaders.With all of NPO's options on the table - demanding reparations, demanding replacement of Jarhead leadership, installment of a viceroy, and all of those other things that NPO does with unmatched skill and finesse, it has instead decided to go straight to war. And what's worse? Having forgone all of the more responsible paths that a world leader would be expected to take, and acknowledging the fact that the threat that was being posed against the Order was not a threat at all, NPO has stood by its failure to set a good example for others to follow. While others plot to take down the Order, it's important to note that until there's an actual threat and diplomacy has failed, military action is not warranted. We, the CN community know this, and had hoped that NPO of all alliances, would know this as well. From this point on, NPO has lost every bit of its credibility as a responsible alliance in the eyes of many. For many others, this has already happened long ago. Cheers, NPO !! Enjoy your military victory. We're enjoying your political defeat. Did you read Moo's postings? If you honestly are saying you wouldn't attack an alliance for threatening yours twice now, remind me never to join an alliance you choose to lead, or ally to, respectfully. Viceroy? Waste of time my friend, this is the second time they have initiated serious actions, resulting in a logical CB in both situations. Their leaders represent their alliance, the members have chosen to join the alliance under their ideals, this is a spawning of an alliance which all once agreed to fight for their beliefs - something not entirely irrational, but is a threat towards NPO, whom also will fight for their beliefs. NPO was merciful enough to allow peace for irrational actions the first time, but now after receiving the peace, they abused the privilege and obviously learned absolutely squat from their previous actions. Demanding reparations? Why? So they could be considered tech mongers? Oh boy would they be attacked for this action as well. Demanding reparations towards an alliance which has threatened them twice now would be merely illogical and nothing short. Similar to all other alliances, NPO's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of their own members. Now, I will never state NPO is perfect, I am sure their members will, but I will say they are completely rational to expose and eliminate a threat they once were merciful towards the individuals who abused the gift they received and once again made the same mistake. Mercifulness and diplomacy only goes so far, take it from a Grämlin with the Codex. Too much diplomacy and allowing an enemy to make constant threats towards you numerous times without any imminent consequences isn't diplomacy, it is allowing to be stomped on and allowing a threat to rise. I could understand arguments with diplomacy for previous wars, but not with this situation. I am neither pro-NPO nor anti-NPO, I see them as another alliance which tries to strive for success by their means necessary in doing so. I am in an advantage because when one withholds animosity for another alliance, their views tend to go opposite of their 'opponent'. Logical and understandable, but in a sense, illogical because the anti-advocates will state the one which they oppose is making a mere mistake out of their own biased-view rather than the logicalness within the situation. Take a neutrel stance and any logical leader would never allow an alliance such as the Devildogs to make not once, but two mistakes in two different situations which exposed their motivation in the annihilation of an alliance, whether possible or not, a threat is a threat. 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.