Amonra Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Many Invicta members here are claiming that they will never surrender. Can you blame Karma then, for upping the ante? The war will not end until you do surrender, and if that takes more pressure, then it must be done. Thats like blaming the effect for the cuase. Our members have started to dig in, becuase they see Karma dogpiling them . What would you have them do, turn around and run scared. Our fight is directly proportional to the fight we are given, when you apply more fight we will respond in kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learz Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I'm humming to myself. Oh, um, right, o/ TSO! Er, wait, I mean, welcome to the battle! Well, you're already in battle, err... Um, that's a nice waggon you got there, uh, I mean... Hey, is that caek? "Center collapsing, right destroyed, left retreating, I am attacking." --some old dead dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posta0 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I love you guys o/ Jose o/ Enimecnegnev Welcome to the Fight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatsam Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) I do not believe the coalition of alliances known as Karma truly have a common goal. Floatsam describes the goal of a number of alliances in the coalition; however, as usual, the reality of the situation is more complex, and people are at war for different reasons.Invicta is here in defense of her treatied allies. We will not stop honouring those treaties. If you want the war to end sooner, you need to focus less on trying to persuade us to dishonour those treaties and more on diplomatic contact with our allies. Karma itself has the stated goal of that which I described in my previous post. Regardless of what you think the goal of every single alliance in this conflict is, you must accept the fact that Karma would not exist if not for their stated goal. For all it matters, TSO could just be taking this opportunity to make up for some longstanding grudge (in fact, Karma as a whole is fighting to relieve their own grudge) and it still would not affect the goal of Karma as a whole. You make the mistake of identifying the Karma alliances as singular entities rather than a collective whole. Karma will not last long after this war, but it will last long enough to ensure that its goals are met. This does not matter what you believe the individual motives of each alliance are; the war will end as soon as the goals are met. I also contest that attacking you will not make a difference. You see, while you are free to stay in the war as long as you wish, it does not sit well in the conscience of the Hegemony alliances to make this war longer than it has to be, and allow their allies to be attacked unnecessarily. Diplomatic contact with your allies is being conducted, but that alone will not end a war with such stakes as this. Thats like blaming the effect for the cuase.Our members have started to dig in, becuase they see Karma dogpiling them . What would you have them do, turn around and run scared. Our fight is directly proportional to the fight we are given, when you apply more fight we will respond in kind. No, it is not like blaming a cause, unless you believe that a treaty is required to go to war. A treaty does make for a convenient casus belli, but it is definitely not the only legitimate one. You can only fight as long as your resources last. Eventually, the combined weight of your loss and the loss of your allies will draw the war to a close. We not be attacking you now if we believed that your allies did not care for you, or that you did not care for your allies. Edited April 28, 2009 by Floatsam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgBelial Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Surrender is always an option if you really feel that overwhelmed, you know. Nobody is forcing you to fight, and I'm sure you'll be given fair peace terms unlike FAN, \m/, GOONS, Genmay, /b/, Vox Populi, and the countless other alliances that you are responsible for destroying. Death first. And I can certainly say that most alliances on purple are not responsible for destroying any of those alliances. No more than you are responsible for not acting to save them at the time. I can think of one that fought on the same side even... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amonra Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M6 Redneck Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Didn't somebody say something about judging a person based on the calibre of his opponents...? Taking that as a yardstick I welcome declarations on Invicta and her allies as measures of resect. Please continue to stoke my ego in this way. As for TSO claiming to be ready to fight with TOP for the hegemony originally and then to join them on the Karma side... I could ask why you do not just merge as you follow them regardless. However I will instead state that it just shows up the folly of mutual defense and aggression as it forces an alliance to become the pawn of another stronger alliance. M6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 As for TSO claiming to be ready to fight with TOP for the hegemony originally and then to join them on the Karma side...I could ask why you do not just merge as you follow them regardless. However I will instead state that it just shows up the folly of mutual defense and aggression as it forces an alliance to become the pawn of another stronger alliance. M6 This is pretty unfair actually. Just because certain alliances will follow their friends regardless, like for instance, you guys following NPO whether or not you agree with their actions, doesn't mean they're not a sovereign alliance. I know TSO would follow TOP no matter what, I was there, I saw the conversations. While I would never fault you for following your friends, please don't criticize others for following theirs and implying that they do so out of anything other than the same respect which you pay to your allies by fighting with them. Good luck and you are honorable allies to fight as you do. Regards, VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicktheww2fanatic Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 enjoy the bandwagon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak47don Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 o/ Bandwaggon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M6 Redneck Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I agree VI, it was a cheap shot and one that could accurately be levelled against us. However, it does go to show that the treaty web is rather silly. That was the main point to make but I am rather a cheap fella at times. Hopefully all these mutual treaties will become a thing of the past. Not holding breathe tho. M6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 enjoy the bandwagon! When does it become a curbstomp, then indeed the Karma side will be reflecting the Hegemonic side. As for TSO, I was one of your louder critics when you came about. I still don't like what happened, but I applaud your move to follow your friends into battle. +1 Respect Enjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravey Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 o/ TSO o/ TOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Do not think for a second that a treaty is necessary for us to bring in additional forces in order to shorten the war. A treaty is only a statement of obligation; it does not prevent an autonomous alliance from declaring war against an opponent (unless there are stipulations; there are none in this case.) Why should you think that we need a treaty to fight this war? This is a coalition of alliances; it has a goal. A treaty does not stop an alliance from choosing to help achieve those ends. You guys are just full of honour. While this is not an NPO issue your own alliance put out a statement about people entering without a treaty. Its the bit in red you should read. Earlier, the MHA announced that we would not be fighting alongside the New Pacific Order. I would like to amend this announcement slightly to point our that the treaty is still active, and we will defend the NPO against anyone who seeks to bandwagon. At the request of Karma, those who are bandwagoning will be given one chance to back down. Those who fail to do so will find themselves in a state of war with the MHA. Thank you for your time, The MHA. EDIT for clarification: [17:41] <Count_Rupert[MHA]> Anyone attacking without treaty ties to the conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss I feel the need for a disclaimer: I have no position in TSO, other than drone and my comments are irrelevant but voluminous. I agree with this sentiment. In fact, I have wrote the same thing in various blog posts. The difference is that TSO is fighting out of loyalty for our friends at TOP and you will not hear any of the moralist preaching and vindictive rhetoric out of me. To be honest, I dislike both of the political ideologies represented in this conflict. I think the Continuum - especially Pacifica - have acted like elitists and now the rabble is dethroning them. The Rabble (Karma) are a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. You are correct. One ideology is as bad as the other. As for TSO claiming to be ready to fight with TOP for the hegemony originally and then to join them on the Karma side...I could ask why you do not just merge as you follow them regardless. However I will instead state that it just shows up the folly of mutual defense and aggression as it forces an alliance to become the pawn of another stronger alliance. Honestly, this is the least that TSO can do for TOP, and I for one welcome the opportunity to assist them. It is a privilege. We'll go to hell and back for TOP any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 We'll go to hell and back for TOP any day. Would you make a one way trip for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valashu Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Didn't somebody say something about judging a person based on the calibre of his opponents...?Taking that as a yardstick I welcome declarations on Invicta and her allies as measures of resect. Please continue to stoke my ego in this way. As for TSO claiming to be ready to fight with TOP for the hegemony originally and then to join them on the Karma side... I could ask why you do not just merge as you follow them regardless. However I will instead state that it just shows up the folly of mutual defense and aggression as it forces an alliance to become the pawn of another stronger alliance. M6 You have to keep in mind the manner in which TSO was created. We specifically chose to play together in this set-up. The group of friends that formed TSO all want to play together and leave the massive aspect of a alliance like TOP behind it. TOP, while great people, would be too big for what we want to get out of the game. Which is playing together in direct contact. A larger alliance would not suit us at this point of our CN experience (for me anyway.) That being said, during our creation, TOP was so awesome and stood by us. We now repay that trust and friendship. While the payment might not be on the same scale as TOP's actions toward us the meaning behind it does not change. We stand by TOP in their fight. That meant fighting Invicta and several other alliances. Good luck to them but the point of war is to defeat the opponent as fast and with as little damage to yourself as possible. That usually means getting as many people against the enemy. Numbers simply mean a lot in war. We provided extra numbers to make sure as little damage to TOP can be done. That is what we see as our duty due to our treaty and our friendship. Nothing personal, good luck in the war and afterwards. My respect for making the decisions that you've made. I know they can't have been easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 You have to keep in mind the manner in which TSO was created. All things being fair this is a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M6 Redneck Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Valashu, It was a cheap dig as I said before and the main thrust was towards overly binding treaties. Numbers - ha! Maths, what did that ever prove. Now just bing it on. M6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Is there a way that both sides can lose in this war? Because that's what I'd like to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heike lunta Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) Is there a way that both sides can lose in this war? Because that's what I'd like to see. The Siths turn all of our minds to fear and hate, and they become a 15k member alliance. Edited April 28, 2009 by heike lunta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 The Siths turn all of our minds to fear and hate, and they become a 15k member alliance. *takes down notes.* It is nice seeing TSO and Echelon hit each other. Please, hurt each other as much as you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuMMyWoRm Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) You know, for the first 5 pages i read i was feeling bad for you guys Invicta. But now, I hate to say it, but some of you guys are doing alot of whining. Theres no more angles you havnt covered on your feelings toward TOP and TSO. Just let it go. You said what you had to say now just let it go. Fight and go down in honor. Im not trolling. I just think you should realize your kinda making a fool out of yourself for not dropping it. Edited April 28, 2009 by GuMMyWoRm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Glen Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 One more, then I'm out for good. You can only fight as long as your resources last. Eventually, the combined weight of your loss and the loss of your allies will draw the war to a close. We not be attacking you now if we believed that your allies did not care for you, or that you did not care for your allies. Strictly speaking, and as I'm sure you know, you can sit there with no military, no infra, and no tech for as long as you want, just collecting periodically. In god's (OOC: Admin's) infinite wisdom, he has engineered things so that one nation cannot be removed from planet Bob by another; they only cease to exist by choice. I will never choose to. When my resources are gone, I will still be here; welcoming all comers. If you back down I will rebuild, and bringthe fight back to you. I really can fight you till the end of time if I so choose, ineffectually? Yes, but I can do it. I pray that many on the Hegemony side choose that option rather than surrender. Also there have been MANY comments arguing that TSO declaring in defense of TOP is the same thing as Invicta declaring in defense of NPO; treaty obligations. Let me finally and conclusively put this crap to rest. Invicta declared on a target who had declared on our MD partner legitimately in defense, when Orion had many, many, many defensive slots open and had taken very little damage. TSO declares on the side of TOP and Orion who, with the other four honorable alliances involved have accounted for Invictas slots already, six days after the conflict had started. Further, in our case, it legitimately WAS a treaty obligation: a MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT. TSO activated a OPTIONAL AGRESSION pact; this is NOT the same thing. Not close. Say what you will about treaties not being the only means of joining a war; you claim it was your reason, so I take issue out of it. Maybe had you been honest from the beginning, and simply admitted you were acting as part of Karma to force Invicta out of the war, I would have accounted you some respect. Instead, I have nothing but loathing for you all. I will never be part of any alliance which signs a treaty with TSO or TOP. I say it here for all to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I just think you should realize your kinda making a fool out of yourself for not dropping it. Thats submission and it will not happen. If you cant take the hassle of people posting here when they are vastly outnumbered in a war then you shouldn't have taken part in the biggest gang bang in history. 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.