SpiderJerusalem Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Stop moaning, you can still come and play with me Nuke anarchy But I will... Some day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilo Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I am happy to see peace achieved. I knew NATO as an alliance of friendly and polite people, so white peace makes me feel good, they are not bad people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I don't know what to say about this. Usually "congratulations on achieving peace" works. Before GGA? Seriously? GGA? NATO is no GGA. I don't think that either alliance is bothered by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 You've got some nice selective memory going on with that sig. lolTo NATO, this makes me want to hurl. One round of wars for a mighty Q alliance? Come on. I expected and even hailed some of the other surrenders, by the smaller and less politically stable alliances, but when I see one of the mighty Q alliances surrender this fast, it's just pathetic. I've always held a great amount of respect for NATO and for Anu Drake, who was such a catalyst to NATO's political strength, but this move is a complete 180. NATO: Politically strong, Militarily weak. Whatever works, I guess. Congrats on keeping most of your infra. Grow a pair, Admin Damn It. One cycle of war. ONE? Come the $%&@ on. And we all thought NATO had a real military, since they were so willing to use it alongside NPO in the past. It seems we were mistaken. If any of the 1V alliances bail this fast, I'll be very, very disappointed. You sure do offer up a lot of opinions for someone whose nation could be rebuild entirely with one war aid transaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand I Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) No idea what that means What he meant is that NATO members signature says " North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Until Last man. Until Eternity. " Edited May 1, 2009 by Ferdinand I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraigfangbouchard Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 o/NATO o/ANU DRAKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abhull Alhazred Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Fellow commies, I find it hard to believe giving in so easily to an alliance called NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 o/ NATO you fought with honour and against the odds, well done on a peace well earned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Peace! Edited May 1, 2009 by General Oglethorpe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Usually "congratulations on achieving peace" works. You might think so, but no NATO is no GGA Exactly. They have proven themselves to be something quite different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizoral Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) so where do we send the promised weed NATO? Nice to see peace, good luck to everybody. Edited May 1, 2009 by Nizoral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tom Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) looking for a pipe right now. It was a fun war. Edited May 1, 2009 by King Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Terror Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have always known NATO to be a respectable and fair alliance, and from my numerous dealings with them in the past, I can honestly say they are among the best of CN alliances. I look forward to a stable and healthy relationship in the coming months. It was a good fight, and I feel we can all walk away with the knowledge that our bonds are stronger than ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 You sure do offer up a lot of opinions for someone whose nation could be rebuild entirely with one war aid transaction. I'm sorry. I missed the memo. What is the required nation strength or infrastructure level one must meet before having an opinion? Please let me know so I don't step on anyone's toes, ya gump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonian Emperor Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I can't believe an alliance as strong as NATO has just surrendered like this, while NPO, TPF, IRON and others fight on...total humiliation on the other side though, thanks to that humiliation, you avoided annihilation xDD Good effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juslen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 IMO a good ally not only defends their friends, but they also know when its time to admit defeat. You start a fight, and your friends back you up, its only a matter of time before the blood spilled starts to make you question why you are still fighting in the first place. This war can end with NPO accepting peace. If they do not, then their ally's have to make the tough choice, is it worth it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I can't believe an alliance as strong as NATO has just surrendered like this, while NPO, TPF, IRON and others fight on...total humiliationon the other side though, thanks to that humiliation, you avoided annihilation xDD Good effort Nice first post. I'll go ahead and jump in here before the Karma toadies do it. NATO was never in any danger of being annihilated. They honored their treaty, then withdrew when it got too hot. I may not have high praise for NATO's military efforts, but to say they were going to be annihilated shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about. NATO is one of the most respected alliances on Bob - allied leaders and enemies alike will agree with this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonian Emperor Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nice first post. I'll go ahead and jump in here before the Karma toadies do it.NATO was never in any danger of being annihilated. They honored their treaty, then withdrew when it got too hot. I may not have high praise for NATO's military efforts, but to say they were going to be annihilated shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about. NATO is one of the most respected alliances on Bob - allied leaders and enemies alike will agree with this statement. In that case they're a bunch of pushovers. If they weren't in danger of anihilation- why surrender? Karma Alliances don't do it- why should Hegemony Alliances do it? This war smells fishy, Alliances with thousands of nukes and hundreds of nations not yet in anarchy surrendering. That's total !@#$%^&*. They could have taken down someone with them- I'm sure the huge and "respectable" NATO was capable of at least taking out a single Alliance. Nato- Huge, yes. Respectable, not anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Congrats on the white peace NATO, lets be friends now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Couture Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) In that case they're a bunch of pushovers. If they weren't in danger of anihilation- why surrender? Karma Alliances don't do it- why should Hegemony Alliances do it? This war smells fishy, Alliances with thousands of nukes and hundreds of nations not yet in anarchy surrendering. That's total !@#$%^&*. They could have taken down someone with them- I'm sure the huge and "respectable" NATO was capable of at least taking out a single Alliance.Nato- Huge, yes. Respectable, not anymore. Yes, you're right, we are capable of taking out a small alliance. When we're at full military gear up and not getting hit by 5 other alliances. As was said earlier, we fouled up our pre-war build-up as we were focusing not only on trying to stop this war, or at least keep it from starting when it did, but also with building our nations up and recruiting. Energy was being diverted from one area to other areas. As to why Karma alliances aren't surrendering and the alliances on our side are, look at the numbers. It's basically 3:1 across the board. Why would any Karma alliances need to worry about surrender? As for annihilation, yeah, we're far from it, and probably could have gone a lot longer in this war. But recovery would have steadily grown harder and the help we would have been giving our allies would have steadily decreased in worth. Not to mention that, once again, we fouled up our pre-war in favor of other factors in the previous months. We did a number on the alliances we were fighting, and I for one had a blast fighting them (wouldn't want to do it again, but that's cause they're great guys). The only damper was my quad attacks getting fouled up (OOC: curse you server crashes at midnight! )): /OOC) on my opponents. So to be frank to you and others who have called us cowards/infra lovers/etc. Shove it. We did our part. EDIT: Obligatory o/ Commies and o/ NATO Edited May 1, 2009 by Jace Couture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nice first post. I'll go ahead and jump in here before the Karma toadies do it.NATO was never in any danger of being annihilated. They honored their treaty, then withdrew when it got too hot. I may not have high praise for NATO's military efforts, but to say they were going to be annihilated shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about. NATO is one of the most respected alliances on Bob - allied leaders and enemies alike will agree with this statement. I think \m/ and Atlantis would disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 In that case they're a bunch of pushovers. If they weren't in danger of anihilation- why surrender? Karma Alliances don't do it- why should Hegemony Alliances do it? This war smells fishy, Alliances with thousands of nukes and hundreds of nations not yet in anarchy surrendering. That's total !@#$%^&*. They could have taken down someone with them- I'm sure the huge and "respectable" NATO was capable of at least taking out a single Alliance.Nato- Huge, yes. Respectable, not anymore. You totally misunderstand what she's saying. The community may not have been annihilated, but their numbers would have been. And Karma alliances don't have a 3:1 disadvantage stacked against them. Sure, IPA took on an alliance much larger than itself, but we also had other, much larger allies there with us, and our numbers stayed mostly consistent during the week of warfare. I'm not saying we used our allies as meatshields, I'm just saying the damage that NATO dealt was spread more evenly because there were more of us. And yeah, NATO mucked up their pre-war planning. My two guys turtled within two days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Christ Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 In that case they're a bunch of pushovers. If they weren't in danger of anihilation- why surrender? Karma Alliances don't do it- why should Hegemony Alliances do it? This war smells fishy, Alliances with thousands of nukes and hundreds of nations not yet in anarchy surrendering. That's total !@#$%^&*. They could have taken down someone with them- I'm sure the huge and "respectable" NATO was capable of at least taking out a single Alliance.Nato- Huge, yes. Respectable, not anymore. So an alliance that surrenders after putting up a fight in a war they didn't start, against enemies that they didn't want to fight, against overwhelming numerical and military superiority, is a pushover? What die hard, gung-ho, never-surrender alliance are you representing, again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I think \m/ and Atlantis would disagree. I don't want to get into that mess, but let me just say that you're comparing apples to oranges. NATO is very well liked. \m/ was well liked among a lot of people, and detested by a lot. Atlantis, to a lesser extent, but more of the same. I really don't think very many people actually HATE NATO. I know that quite a few really hated some of the disbanded alliances. I know you're just trying to pin another one on Pacifica, but you're really barking up the wrong Emperor, when it comes to \m/. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 When Karma shows leniency in their peace terms, it helps make it easier for their enemies to surrender. Think back in history to WW2 where millions of German refuges and soldiers traveled hundred of miles just to surrender to the Allies because they were afraid of retribution for their atrocities in Russia.It's a "moral victory". The morality of Karma's white peace defeating the past harsh surrenders terms of the Harmony oppressors. When you have no loyalty to those you leave behind its easier too. Face it, theres no other reason. 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.