Canik Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Fair terms. Although if Karma follows through with it's claims of a higher morality after the war that's when I'll really be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Tiki Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) I have edited my nation's bio to reflect my offer of these surrender terms. ACTIVE 25-APRIL. I will not accept the Karma surrender termswithout you also destroying your FAFB and all Intelligence Agencies. ((#280308305. Flag 31 designer. Former ICSN Minister of Defence.)) Edited April 26, 2009 by Comrade Tiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 So the unofficial group is offering unofficial surrender terms that aren't officially accepted by any actually alliance and may not be officially acknowledged. Sounds Legit to me. Someone needs to learn to read. o/ US being better than them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I think you are trying too hard now. Too complicated for you or something? Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 i am sorry, but i am officially confused now. You want karma (meaning all nations connected to that coalition) to destroy a wonder (the Foreign Airforce Base :unsure: of all things ?) and our intelligence agencies before you will surrender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Someone needs to learn to read.o/ US being better than them I can read just fine thank you. But these terms are kind of like if I wanted to post my own terms for the NPO POWs. I would much prefer to hear from the leaders of each alliance, because then it is credible...not just someone unofficially speaking for the group. Not that I would surrender, I'm just pointing out how this doesn't seem very official at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Too complicated for you or something? Heh. Not for me, no. But if you can't find any fault in the terms then I guess you have to go to that extra effort of delving into fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Tiki Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 i am sorry, but i am officially confused now.You want karma (meaning all nations connected to that coalition) to destroy a wonder (the Foreign Airforce Base :unsure: of all things ?) and our intelligence agencies before you will surrender? Woops, sorry - - my wording was unclear. I am currently fighting on Karma, and will not recognize a surrender without the surrendering nation also complying to remove Foreign Air Force Base and Intelligence Agencies - - as these are purely war-capable devices a surrendering nation is not entitled to. I have edited my original post to make this more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixxx Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Woops, sorry - - my wording was unclear. I am currently fighting on Karma, and will not recognize a surrender without the surrendering nation also complying to remove Foreign Air Force Base and Intelligence Agencies - - as these are purely war-capable devices a surrendering nation is not entitled to.I have edited my original post to make this more clear. who are you to state higher surrender requirements than the coalition you're fighting for? or are you saying you're nothing more than a bandwagonner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Woops, sorry - - my wording was unclear. I am currently fighting on Karma, and will not recognize a surrender without the surrendering nation also complying to remove Foreign Air Force Base and Intelligence Agencies - - as these are purely war-capable devices a surrendering nation is not entitled to.I have edited my original post to make this more clear. No FAFB decom is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 No FAFB decom is required. I believe he is making up his own terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Limburg Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 who are you to state higher surrender requirements than the coalition you're fighting for? or are you saying you're nothing more than a bandwagonner? Who are you to call an INT member a bandwagoner? These terms weren't negotiated with the INT afaik, thusly Tiki has every right to demand more than those extremely soft terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Never give up, never surrender! Sorry, no thanks, a captain goes down with his ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 2. Why wasn't INT consulted before this was announced? The International approved of this. PM me if you're still concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feardaram Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 These terms look exceptionally fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Who are you to call an INT member a bandwagoner?These terms weren't negotiated with the INT afaik, thusly Tiki has every right to demand more than those extremely soft terms. The terms were actually discussed as Karma HQ which I believe The International has access to. You might want to head over there and discuss matters rather than get into a slanging match here. From what I can see The International was fine with from what was posted at Karma HQ. Edited April 26, 2009 by Tygaland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chigurh Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 So the unofficial group is offering unofficial surrender terms that aren't officially accepted by any actually alliance and may not be officially acknowledged. Sounds Legit to me. I can understand your confusion because certain past major powers have had a very shacky history of saying what they mean, and meaning what they say... If you have not noticed over the last few days though, it's been pretty well proven that what the Karma side says is legit, is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Fox Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Very merciful terms. I would recommend that those in the Hegemony under the heaviest of fire swallow their pride and take them. I've taken the most damage. Any of you out there thinking of accepting these terms because of damage taken, think of me and know someone out there is taking more without even considering such actions. I will not name call, point fingers, and think less of you who do what you feel is best for your nation. I will simply post this and continue to do what is best for my nation. Onward NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You could always look at the Wiki, I guess. NSO and others have said they are not part of Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickyman1984 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Very reasonable terms. If Karma is going to be better than the current power structure we're going to have to go above and beyond in terms of fairness and justice, this looks like a good move in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Tiki Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 who are you to state higher surrender requirements than the coalition you're fighting for? or are you saying you're nothing more than a bandwagonner? These terms are unofficial to our coalition, yes? I choose to recognize them, with one additional clause. Secondly, I am fighting only those which have declared war upon The International. I can not settle for allowing these members of NATO to remain a military threat to me, having played too many games of Command & Conquer: Red Alert. (I was tempted to request that any surrendering nation maintain their government type as "Communism" for thirty days, but I decided to exclude that for brevity ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 NSO and others have said they are not part of Karma. I was advising to be on the safe side, Alterego. Try taking an answer in full and in context of the question that it answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 These terms are unofficial to our coalition, yes? I choose to recognize them, with one additional clause.Secondly, I am fighting only those which have declared war upon The International. I can not settle for allowing these members of NATO to remain a military threat to me, having played too many games of Command & Conquer: Red Alert. (I was tempted to request that any surrendering nation maintain their government type as "Communism" for thirty days, but I decided to exclude that for brevity ). The International has accepted these terms. Perhaps you should consult with your government before making yourself out to be a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedian Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I have two questions for those concerned:1. Why are these terms so lenient? KARMA have bitten of more than they can chew and don't want to be bogged down on what is going to be long and destructive war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Tiki in that case i'd say you have to take that up with your goverment. Though i must add that your point is pretty moot, spy operations are forbidden in any case so wether or not they have those improvements doesn't matter much. Demanding that they decom a Wonder is pretty harsh though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts