Rush Sykes Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 First off, we don't have to, this was not forced at all. Second there were talks between us and NPO about this for many months going back. Your war didn't need to happen for this to occur. I will not get into a debate of insulting anyones intelligence, so please do not insult mine. "Talks" that began many months back, should have taken a grand total of 20 seconds to complete, if you "Truly" wanted this war with FAN over. Its almost like when massive treaty cancellations precede a war...everyone denies the reason. The citizens of this planet are not foolish, and its time those formerly in power, realize this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I will not get into a debate of insulting anyones intelligence, so please do not insult mine. "Talks" that began many months back, should have taken a grand total of 20 seconds to complete, if you "Truly" wanted this war with FAN over. Its almost like when massive treaty cancellations precede a war...everyone denies the reason. The citizens of this planet are not foolish, and its time those formerly in power, realize this. Incase you didn't notice, us peacing out with fan months ago would have resulted in nothing. This is a matter of war and the responsible thing is to ensure all parties are out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Incase you didn't notice, us peacing out with fan months ago would have resulted in nothing. This is a matter of war and the responsible thing is to ensure all parties are out. Setting a trend would result in nothing? If it were both you and NPO engaging in these talks IN GOOD FAITH, months ago, you really stand pat that peacing it out back then would have meant nothing? Really? Seriously? edited cuz my right hand types faster than my left. Edited May 14, 2009 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Oh come on. Really.This is a matter of war, we won't leave our allies hanging. Even when your allies are criminals? See, that was the point. You are the quintessential meatshield mhawk. Strict adherent to an immature morality that lazily justifies evil in the name of 'honour'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 The citizens of this planet are not foolish, and its time those formerly in power, realize this. Perhaps not foolish, but incredibly arrogant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Incase you didn't notice, us peacing out with fan months ago would have resulted in nothing. This is a matter of war and the responsible thing is to ensure all parties are out. What sort of timetable comes into play on this? I only ask because it didn't seem to apply for the first 23 months or so. Seriously, though, you might just wanna let this one go. I don't see much of anyone who hasn't already bought the party line likely to be convinced that it was all in the works before eerie voices on the forums began suggesting NPO might do well to get the same treatment. Too many coincidences lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Even when your allies are criminals? See, that was the point. You are the quintessential meatshield mhawk. Strict adherent to an immature morality that lazily justifies evil in the name of 'honour'. No here is my issue. MHA upholds a war for 650* days, peaces out and is hailed. TPF refuses to peace out FAN until NPO peaces because we want the war to be finally over and talk both parties about it, peace is achieved 651* days into it and we are called out. *I know mha wasn't in the whole time at the start, or that is the actual length, I'm just demonstrating the ending time line. If our treaty partner upholds a policy we think needs changed, we discuss it with them. Work out issues, talk to involved parties ect. This is how an ally behaves. You use the term criminal, but there is no world law here, does that make alliances that fight without treaties criminals? What about alliances that use first strike nukes? You call my actions as immature, but idealism is the immaturity here, and my approach to various issues of disagreement has always been that of a realist. What is the most effective way to accomplish your goals? I've felt given positioning it is to work with allies, not to plot their downfall. Second I justified nothing in the name of honor, I just wanted this all done and wouldn't peace out to leave our allies to fend for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Congratulations on peace TPF and FAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 No here is my issue. MHA upholds a war for 650* days, peaces out and is hailed. TPF refuses to peace out FAN until NPO peaces because we want the war to be finally over and talk both parties about it, peace is achieved 651* days into it and we are called out. *I know mha wasn't in the whole time at the start, or that is the actual length, I'm just demonstrating the ending time line. If our treaty partner upholds a policy we think needs changed, we discuss it with them. Work out issues, talk to involved parties ect. This is how an ally behaves. You use the term criminal, but there is no world law here, does that make alliances that fight without treaties criminals? What about alliances that use first strike nukes? You call my actions as immature, but idealism is the immaturity here, and my approach to various issues of disagreement has always been that of a realist. What is the most effective way to accomplish your goals? I've felt given positioning it is to work with allies, not to plot their downfall. Second I justified nothing in the name of honor, I just wanted this all done and wouldn't peace out to leave our allies to fend for themselves. Has it never occurred to you that if an ally practices a policy that is detrimental to the image of both you and your allies, then maybe it is time to reassess how much that ally values YOUR opinion? Leaving your allies fending for themselves against an alliance in peace mode? One which your ally alone holds a 30 to 1 NS advantage over? Are you kidding me? What about leading by example? Peacing out FAN for example, then showing, through action, what a wonderful idea it would be? Novel idea. Or perhaps you took notice, like I did, when Golden Sabers got steamrolled just for a senate vote. Imagine what would happen should someone ZOMG peace out with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Tolstoy Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 o/ FAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 wait, does this mean I have to edit my sig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Has it never occurred to you that if an ally practices a policy that is detrimental to the image of both you and your allies, then maybe it is time to reassess how much that ally values YOUR opinion? Leaving your allies fending for themselves against an alliance in peace mode? One which your ally alone holds a 30 to 1 NS advantage over? Are you kidding me? What about leading by example? Peacing out FAN for example, then showing, through action, what a wonderful idea it would be? Novel idea. Or perhaps you took notice, like I did, when Golden Sabers got steamrolled just for a senate vote. Imagine what would happen should someone ZOMG peace out with them. My image means less to me than results. There are folks here that think we are the devil and there is little that can be done to assuage that regardless of action. I have no idea what you are alluding to with peace and GS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunTzuWannabe Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 O/ FAN Cant wait to see where you are in the next 3 months. :war: :war: :war: :war: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) No here is my issue. MHA upholds a war for 650* days, peaces out and is hailed. TPF refuses to peace out FAN until NPO peaces because we want the war to be finally over and talk both parties about it, peace is achieved 651* days into it and we are called out. Yes, you continued to be an accessory to the crime so long as the crime continued. A better man would have ceased to do wrong the moment he realized it was wrong. You claim to have been working on this for months. And yet months ago the NPO was in full control of the war with FAN. Ending the war for TPF would not have been abandoning the NPO to FAN. I can see fighting on now against Karma to not abandon one's allies if one didn't agree with the war. But NPO was in no dire straights against FAN months ago. Your problem is that your loyalty to the NPO made you continue to do wrong even (supposedly) after you realized it was wrong. Perhaps a lot of people are hypocrites for their reaction to MHA's announcement. I only commented on the term black peace, I didn't stick around for the rest. They still have bloodstained hands to me, but they're scrubbing harder. If our treaty partner upholds a policy we think needs changed, we discuss it with them. Work out issues, talk to involved parties ect. This is how an ally behaves. Ah, but you didn't just do that. You helped them uphold the policy you thought needed change. You continued to enact that wrong policy all in the name of sticking with your allies. See the immaturity there? It's a moral laziness that allows you to find a course of action without having to deliberate the moral significance. Similar to the 'just following orders' defense. You use the term criminal, but there is no world law here, does that make alliances that fight without treaties criminals? What about alliances that use first strike nukes? This isn't all that relevant, but indicative of your moral immaturity. Fighting without treaties? Depends on the situation (see, the need to deliberate, instead of just reacting, inherent there?). You call my actions as immature, but idealism is the immaturity here, and my approach to various issues of disagreement has always been that of a realist. I said your morality is immature. Not your actions. Edited May 14, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I said your morality is immature. Not your actions. It is not worth debating this with you any longer given the overwhelming degree of arrogance exuded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I don't think one can compare the MHA-FAN peace to this, as our peace was for an entirely different (though not completely unrelated) conflict. We had an actual, different CB against FAN, an individual declaration of war, and conducted peace talks individually and separately from any other alliance. Yes MHA and TPF have announced peace with FAN around about the same time, but that doesn't make MHA and TPF similar - we merely have something in common for the moment and it's likely that the people posting here have made that distinction. It boils down to not a critique of the act of giving peace, but the alliances who are giving it. Some people just like apples more than oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) I don't think one can compare the MHA-FAN peace to this, as our peace was for an entirely different (though not completely unrelated) conflict. We had an actual, different CB against FAN, an individual declaration of war, and conducted peace talks individually and separately from any other alliance. Yes MHA and TPF have announced peace with FAN around about the same time, but that doesn't make MHA and TPF similar - we merely have something in common for the moment and it's likely that the people posting here have made that distinction. It boils down to not a critique of the act of giving peace, but the alliances who are giving it. Some people just like apples more than oranges. The one thing in common you have is that you both participated in a war of ridiculous length against FAN, both contributing equally to keeping them down. You cannot e-lawyer your way out of the facts ("our peace was for an entirely different (though not completely unrelated) conflict" - unbelievable ). It is right to say that you get hailed and TPF gets slammed for the same actions simply because you are liked more by most, but some of us see through it. You were just as complicit in the war against FAN and are just as responsible for keeping them down for a ridiculous amount of time. Edited May 14, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 o/ the Federation of Armed Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I don't think one can compare the MHA-FAN peace to this, as our peace was for an entirely different (though not completely unrelated) conflict. We had an actual, different CB against FAN, an individual declaration of war, and conducted peace talks individually and separately from any other alliance. Yes MHA and TPF have announced peace with FAN around about the same time, but that doesn't make MHA and TPF similar - we merely have something in common for the moment and it's likely that the people posting here have made that distinction. It boils down to not a critique of the act of giving peace, but the alliances who are giving it. Some people just like apples more than oranges. Ok, so you had a "different CB" because FAN spied and released shots showing you were going to be declaring on them for the same reasons we fought them. Totally different... Thanks for reminding me that you guys used to consider spying serious enough to go to war over, thought I am sure that was TOTALLY different too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 See, I had reduced my post to make it more succinct, but by different war I meant because we were not really involved in VietFAN. In fact, we remained essentially neutral against FAN until they spied on us. That was our CB for war, we even had our own nifty DoW to go along with it. We continued the war due to the continued acts of espionage by FAN. This is different to TPF and others who simply joined NPO's re-declaration on FAN and used that as their primary CB for two years. I say "not completely unrelated" only because FAN spied on us due to our connection with NPO/Q. I don't think it's e-lawyering to say the two wars were separate, because they are. I have also not denied that we maintained a ridiculously long war with FAN, but we did have our own reasons for doing so and our own reasons for declaring peace in that ridiculously long war. Whereas some may see TPF's peace as trying to save their image, the same cannot be said for MHA as we have an image already of being peaceful and merciful to others. So our peace was more "expected" than these others, as it's something MHA is known to do, and that is my point. The criticism is not of giving peace, but the alliances giving it and why, for which MHA and TPF are fundamentally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Ok, so you had a "different CB" because FAN spied and released shots showing you were going to be declaring on them for the same reasons we fought them. Totally different...Thanks for reminding me that you guys used to consider spying serious enough to go to war over, thought I am sure that was TOTALLY different too. Facts are fun. FAN released shots of us declaring war on an alliance, which was Wolfpack, and we in turn declared on them. My announcement (which I think you just read and took all your knowledge from) was merely to poke fun at the fact they "caught" us preparing for war, only to then be declared on themselves. Your second sentence makes no sense. We clearly said in our peace announcement that FAN had ceased spying and the original spying incident was too long ago to even keep fighting for. But yeah, it's still different from TPF and I'm not sorry people still don't like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Wait, mhawk is arguing that the reason this took so long is because he was working hard on getting NPO to peace FAN, and you guys are still criticizing him for that? You think it would've been better for him to peace FAN while just letting NPO keep them at eternal war? I mean the TPF military machine was obviously an essential part of the war effort against FAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Now FAN and mhawk can be brought together with their love of gunpr0n. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 For those slow on the uptake: March 7th 2008 - FAN spies on MHA and posts that they will be going to war soon. March 9th 2008 - MHA declares war on FAN for spying. (Note, there is no PREVIOUS war with FAN) Stuff, more spying Stuff, more spying Stuff, discussions on not spying anymore (I'm guessing, I was no longer in MHA) May 12th 2009 - MHA and FAN announce Black Peace MHA was not involved in VietFAN or the Disarmed Nations Massacre that led to a lot of peace modeness. Now back to your regularly scheduled bawwing about everyone liking MHA better than TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edikroma Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) mhawk.... we could save the world from an asteroid by landing on it and tearing it apart with our bare hands and they still wouldn't like us. Oh well... Oh, and...I couldn't find a gun, so I brought this.... am i doin it right? EDIT: Grammar Edited May 14, 2009 by edikroma 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.