Looks like the NPO's making it's counter strike

[Azaghul]

Having nations go in an out of peace mode as part of a wave strategy is fine.

Using peace mode after criticizing others for it and threatening enemy nations with perma-ZI if they used it is quite appalling hypocrisy. After the appalling crap they pulled on GATO they deserve the ridicule being thrown at them for this.

[shahenshah]

Where were these comments during the noCB war. You play the all mighty, we need to change CN now. Only because you are now on the losing end and facing the destruction of your pixels/alliance. Hey you had your chance to end the cycle, you didn't take it because you benefited it from it. Maybe when you are on the winning end next time, if that comes, you can try to change it again.

I didn't bother with OWF during NoCB war and as a matter of fact, I was one of those *Silent members* who read Alliance forums, post now and then, and dissapear. Only until December or around that time I got more involved when the winds of war started blowing. When I visited OWF, it was useless to make any post. There was blind hatred, trolling and one-line taunts, I was like, so wow is that a norm? And I myself probably trolled thinking I was countering the trolling, but I was just actually feeding that and falling for such stupid taunts. I have learned my lesson and I am glad I learned it. Only after war did the atmosphere become bit more civilized.

Let me tell you something about Pixels and IRON, over here we have a saying "Pixels are temporary, causalities are forever". We will have members of Academy to all the way to upto mostly all the councilors mindlessly grinding for casualties. Majority of my comrades are very fond of this.

Regarding taking benefits, yes perhaps by being aligned. The last reps that directly involved IRON were waived off. Almost everything after that involved Bloc politics and if you are saying that only IRON benefited from it, let me remind you some alliances that fight on your side benefited more from it. We have payed the price and debt to whomever we had wronged by being aligned to certain blocs and getting our pixels destroyed and we have also fulfilled our obligations by honoring the treaties of those blocs. Others took benefit of the blocs, didn't pay any price or debt for wronging anyone by providing strength and enabling the blocs to act like they did and in the end did not even fulfill the obligations, yes yes, you can give me n amount of valid reasons, even we had valid reasons, more than anyone else as it mattered most to us than others, but then, words are words and actions are actions. I hold nothing against such alliances, live and let live.

Regarding your very last sentence, that sounds awfully like Hegemony's "Do something about it". I would hate to see someone concluding thats too good to be that similar, because your personal opinions do not represent something I should get worried about. Nor mine represent such implications.

I'm glad that finally the Hegemony is seeing just why their past actions are so wrong and why this war is necessary. I have seen so many of it's members change in a matter of weeks if not days, from justifying PZI to condemning it, from supporting GATO being a viceroyalty (until very recently) to condemning the practice and I think that this war has shown them the light.

You cannot selectively embrace certain views of mine and say "change has come". Alot of us did not bother to air many of our views simply because we would be 'condemned' for them, whether we did right or wrong, you can cite your examples on such. The atmosphere has become much better as all that hatred that was stored was let to go off.

[Haflinger]

This suggests the possibility of murdering a man once, in multiple states. This intrigues me and I believe warrants further exploration.

Suppose you decapitate a man while he's lying on the state line, head in one state, chest in the other.

Ah, the legal complexities.

[oinkoink12]

Suppose you decapitate a man while he's lying on the state line, head in one state, chest in the other.

Ah, the legal complexities.

Glad we dont have any statelines in our nations

[bzelger]

If the idea is to balance the retribution to the past 'excessive' retribution else it becomes 'unfair' then do we have a new precedent for excessive retributions? Its a cycle that will never stop, This is exactly what I believe has already happened in the past. people however do have an opportunity to stop it, those that had it before them, see how that ended. I feel there is a perception gap that needs to be addressed. I shall attempt to in another thread.

There is a glaring problem in your point here. The harsh surrender terms most cited in the conflict - those given during the noCB war / war of the Coalition / Second Patriotic War or whatever the devil you kids are calling it these days, could in no way be considered retribution. You may call it opportunism, or piracy, or suppression of a potential threat, but to call it retribution is nonsensical because most of those alliances hadn't done anything to warrant retribution. All they did was honor their treaties against a baseless war of aggression.

In this instance the question is about an alliance who did all the above (the piracy / opportunism / suppression, that is) and is here because they started another baseless war of aggression. To compare the two instances is entirely disingenuous.

Edited May 5, 2009 by bzelger

[Haflinger]

There is a glaring problem in your point here. The harsh surrender terms most cited in the conflict - those given during the noCB war / war of the Coalition / Second Patriotic War or whatever the devil you kids are calling it these days, could in no way be considered retribution. You may call it opportunism, or piracy, or suppression of a potential threat, but to call it retribution is nonsensical because most of those alliances hadn't done anything to warrant retribution.

Whether you think it was justified or not (and I would suggest it was largely not justified), retribution was in fact a driving motive for a lot of the alliances on the Coalition side in that war.

Frequently, those out to avenge past wrongs are not justified in their quest.

I should know.

[bzelger]

If you exclude Polaris from your analysis and look at the reparations demanded from peripheral alliances I don't see what they could have been in retribution for.

[Haflinger]

If you exclude Polaris from your analysis and look at the reparations demanded from peripheral alliances I don't see what they could have been in retribution for.

Well, I only know about STA and the Mushroom Kingdom. There were disputes with both alliances over certain members.

I really don't want to go into this now though.

The point is that one can pursue retribution even if it's unjustified.

[Ludacrism2]

@ All Karma haters

Karma states, what goes around comes around, so those criticizing Karma on goading NPO out of peace need to seriously stop.

When NPO did it was right?

I'm not even saying Karma is even doing it but even if they were to, you would call it wrong?

Nice mentality you have there.

[Orkules]

There is a glaring problem in your point here. The harsh surrender terms most cited in the conflict - those given during the noCB war / war of the Coalition / Second Patriotic War or whatever the devil you kids are calling it these days, could in no way be considered retribution. You may call it opportunism, or piracy, or suppression of a potential threat, but to call it retribution is nonsensical because most of those alliances hadn't done anything to warrant retribution. All they did was honor their treaties against a baseless war of aggression.

In this instance the question is about an alliance who did all the above (the piracy / opportunism / suppression, that is) and is here because they started another baseless war of aggression. To compare the two instances is entirely disingenuous.

But CnG had openly crushed the NPO and friends and opposed them. We deserved bloody retribution and insane terms that some of us (TDSM8) could never hope to complete.