KingSuck Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Despite this, we tried constantly to avoid warfare but with the hostile aggression you have showed us, we had no choice. You do realise you guys attacked them whilst you held a Non-Agression Pact with them right? Doesn't really sound like trying to avoid warfare if you ask me.. They wont recieve peace, they wont get no grand celebration, rather, they will die a quiet death should they choose to keep this up, that much I promise you. and how pray tell would you enforce such a promise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Didn't you guys make a promise too? Something about giving us a good fight I think? Seems like our side is the only one good at keeping a promise. Like the one about not imposing draconian terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Not for once second should you act like TPF couldn't destroy PC on day 1. They very well could have annihilated PC on day 1, hell they could have back in November or December, but both times they chose not to. Sure maybe PC was put under terms that they didn't like, but it sure as hell could have been worse. You weren't forced to disband, so get over it. There was a time when people weren't so serious, that's why you don't see people blubbering about NAAC's death, unlike other alliance's death. Pick up, move on, have fun. Go to war, but why so serious? They don't see it that way. We had the military and political power to roll them months ago and mhawk chose to try for peace instead of war. That didn't work out that well for us but you live and learn I guess. It's also funny that he said we'd been trying and failing to destroy them "from day 1" as we gave them a protectorate treaty when they left TPF while they got on their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Like the one about not imposing draconian terms? in before 'draconian is in the eye of the beholder' weaselly crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energizer Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 You do realise you guys attacked them whilst you held a Non-Agression Pact with them right? Doesn't really sound like trying to avoid warfare if you ask me.. You also realise that the same NAP we signed with mhawk written BY mhawk had intended loopholes for TPF to use right? If you'd like, you can even ask TPF for a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 You also realise that the same NAP we signed with mhawk written BY mhawk had intended loopholes for TPF to use right? If you'd like, you can even ask TPF for a copy. Do you need the ladder handed to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 You also realise that the same NAP we signed with mhawk written BY mhawk had intended loopholes for TPF to use right? If you'd like, you can even ask TPF for a copy. I've not seen an explanation as to how these loopholes worked. Can you explain please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I for one look forward to the day PC is no more, as much as I disliked TPF in the past I now find myself wishing the had taken a day out of their schedule and exterminated that bunch. Are you the person who has all the cake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 They don't see it that way. We had the military and political power to roll them months ago and mhawk chose to try for peace instead of war. That didn't work out that well for us but you live and learn I guess.It's also funny that he said we'd been trying and failing to destroy them "from day 1" as we gave them a protectorate treaty when they left TPF while they got on their feet. Also, as the guy who started PC.. uhh.. you're kind of glossing over all the behind the scenes stuff, the stuff you know nothing about. On the surface all appeared rosy, but, it was anything but. It's not your fault though, you don't know what you're talking about (that's not meant as a dig, just .. you really don't, unless you were there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Didn't you guys make a promise too? Something about giving us a good fight I think? Seems like our side is the only one good at keeping a promise. Seeing things like this makes me happy that you're not in upper government. I wonder which question was more important? ...meh. Who knows? Edited June 23, 2009 by Heyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 You also realise that the same NAP we signed with mhawk written BY mhawk had intended loopholes for TPF to use right? If you'd like, you can even ask TPF for a copy. Firstly I'd bet pretty much anything that was just a poorly written treaty, not an intentional 'loophole'. Secondly, and more importantly, the 'loophole' was utter bs. If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void. Of course if you break a pact it's considered null and void; it's the same scenerio with pretty much every treaty out there. The only difference was that it was stated in the actual treaty. Something tells me if you attacked a MADP partner they'd consider that treaty null and void; is that a loophole? Secondly look at the word I bolded, you still broke a NAP to attack them, which indicates you guys didn't exactly try to "avoid warfare" with TPF. Thirdly, you seem to have avoided answering my question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 It is very gracious of you to let those folks out that wish to go. Two months is a long time, and involves a lot of sacrifice on their part. Cool that you acknowledge and appreciate that. For those of you that did it, much respect. For those of you that choose to continue on, you are so very very lucky. You have a great leader, and a solid reputation for keeping to your commitments, even when the odds are insane. I admire your resolve and dedication. Know that my thoughts are with you, and I wish you well. o/ mhawk o/ tpf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Firstly I'd bet pretty much anything that was just a poorly written treaty, not an intentional 'loophole'. Secondly, and more importantly, the 'loophole' was utter bs. Of course if you break a pact it's considered null and void; it's the same scenerio with pretty much every treaty out there. The only difference was that it was stated in the actual treaty. Something tells me if you attacked a MADP partner they'd consider that treaty null and void; is that a loophole? Secondly look at the word I bolded, you still broke a NAP to attack them, which indicates you guys didn't exactly try to "avoid warfare" with TPF. Thirdly, you seem to have avoided answering my question I think this is the only time in the history of PB that people have actually put any stock into an NAP, or an NAP being broken, and it was only ever done to make Poison Clan look bad. The countless times it was done in the past didn't matter, but this time? This is the one time that an NAP was worth more than an MADP, judging by all the comments after it was broken, and even now. Don't sit there and pretend like any NAP signed is worth a damn to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think this is the only time in the history of PB that people have actually put any stock into an NAP, or an NAP being broken, and it was only ever done to make Poison Clan look bad.The countless times it was done in the past didn't matter, but this time? This is the one time that an NAP was worth more than an MADP, judging by all the comments after it was broken, and even now. Don't sit there and pretend like any NAP signed is worth a damn to you. So what was the point in signing it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think this is the only time in the history of PB that people have actually put any stock into an NAP, or an NAP being broken, and it was only ever done to make Poison Clan look bad.The countless times it was done in the past didn't matter, but this time? This is the one time that an NAP was worth more than an MADP, judging by all the comments after it was broken, and even now. Don't sit there and pretend like any NAP signed is worth a damn to you. I don't think anyone is claiming its like an MADP, however it is very hard to listen to someone say they tried hard to avoid conflict and then they attacked us with a standing non aggression pact. I can accept pc wanted to hit us very badly and that to an extent they felt justified in doing so because of a past relationship with slayer. However he can not at the same time claim they tried hard to avoid conflict but were forced into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think this is the only time in the history of PB that people have actually put any stock into an NAP, or an NAP being broken, and it was only ever done to make Poison Clan look bad.The countless times it was done in the past didn't matter, but this time? This is the one time that an NAP was worth more than an MADP, judging by all the comments after it was broken, and even now. Don't sit there and pretend like any NAP signed is worth a damn to you. I'm not. I'm sitting here amused that a PCer claims they tried to avoid warfare with TPF. oh and personally If I signed a NAP I'd stand by it, but you're kind of missing the point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 So what was the point in signing it then? Ask both parties. My guess? And this is probably a very good guess, but PC signed it under duress, and TPF never had any intention of honouring it, but rather it was meant to keep PC in check. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing if I were in TPF's shoes, but I mean.. come on. Why was THIS treaty the one NAP broken that everyone seemed to care about? What about all the other one's that were broken without so much as a peep out of most people? Come on now, it's an NAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm not. I'm sitting here amused that a PCer claims they tried to avoid warfare with TPF.oh and personally If I signed a NAP I'd stand by it, but you're kind of missing the point here. Oh yeah, I'm sure you would stand by it, until it was convenient for you not to. please. None of you people are trustworthy or even slightly honourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I don't think anyone is claiming its like an MADP, however it is very hard to listen to someone say they tried hard to avoid conflict and then they attacked us with a standing non aggression pact. I can accept pc wanted to hit us very badly and that to an extent they felt justified in doing so because of a past relationship with slayer. However he can not at the same time claim they tried hard to avoid conflict but were forced into it. If the shoe were ont he other foot, you'd have done the same to PC, and you and I both know that. So I don't know why you're complaining about what happened. the only reason you or anyone else is up in arms over it is because they beat you to the punch for once. KTFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrrie Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) I think this is the only time in the history of PB that people have actually put any stock into an NAP, or an NAP being broken, and it was only ever done to make Poison Clan look bad. I beg to differ. Legion entering GW3 against TOP and FAN, anyone? I remember much bawwing about NAPs being broken there. Don't pretend like you're special. Anyway, this is not the time nor the place for this load of BS to be brought up again. Edited June 23, 2009 by ayrrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Oh yeah, I'm sure you would stand by it, until it was convenient for you not to.please. None of you people are trustworthy or even slightly honourable. The same as it would be pretty convenient for us to leave this war as well. Just because you would do it doesn't mean you can project that onto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Ask both parties. My guess? And this is probably a very good guess, but PC signed it under duress, and TPF never had any intention of honouring it, but rather it was meant to keep PC in check.I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing if I were in TPF's shoes, but I mean.. come on. Why was THIS treaty the one NAP broken that everyone seemed to care about? What about all the other one's that were broken without so much as a peep out of most people? Come on now, it's an NAP. Ah right, I thought you might have been around at the time of the signing hence why my question was directed at you, my bad. And I agree, it's not much better than cancelling a treaty and then declaring a few days later, but the "they were gonna attack us first anyway" argument doesn't hold all that much water. At least be honest about the true intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 The same as it would be pretty convenient for us to leave this war as well. Just because you would do it doesn't mean you can project that onto us. You go ahead and try to fool the world into thinking you have anything close to honour. I wish you luck in trying to tell a lie that big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 If the shoe were ont he other foot, you'd have done the same to PC, and you and I both know that. So I don't know why you're complaining about what happened.the only reason you or anyone else is up in arms over it is because they beat you to the punch for once. KTFO. You are projecting your own beliefs on myself. I would not have offered such a treaty had I wanted to destroy PC. If I had wanted to "beat to the punch" why wouldn't I just have gone in with a coalition against PC when they were COMPLETELY politically isolated a month before the NAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Very honorable and respect worthy. You have won my respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts