WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Everyone in their right mind knows those negotiations were a farce. They just wanted to do the same thing they accused us to have done to OV. If they didn't want peace talks, they would've just not entered them and keep attacking seeing as how NPO started the whole war, ya know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Everyone in their right mind knows those negotiations were a farce. They just wanted to do the same thing they accused us to have done to OV. peace talks are there for a reason, im sure you've come to realize that Karma was no need to play towards pleasing the masses by offering terms that they dont expect you to accept. Everyone pretty much hates you for one reason or another and im sure there are those who want your entire alliance destroyed and scattered to the wind, however Karma still offers you terms which you turn down because you think their unreasonable. Im sorry but i think your a bit past white peace at this point, the reps are gonna hurt no matter how long you wait. All you are doing now is wasting time, we have plenty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagato the Great Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 If they didn't want peace talks, they would've just not entered them and keep attacking seeing as how NPO started the whole war, ya know? yeah, it was NPO who started the whole thing anyway. they made their deathbed, now they have to lie in it. NPO thought they could steamroll anyone who came at them, but they underestimated Karma so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 yeah, it was NPO who started the whole thing anyway. they made their deathbed, now they have to lie in it. NPO thought they could steamroll anyone who came at them, but they underestimated Karma so badly. wow, i dont know what to say to that exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagato the Great Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 sorry lol. just came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 You guys is everyone who's been blaring that same line over and over again, thinking that the alliances on the front of NPO will break down without getting their objective achieved. If they won't take the terms that's fine too, they're just delaying the inevitable. I don't understand where this belief comes from either, that the various Karma alliances will just disappear. I suppose it's internal propaganda that's distributed to try to keep their spirits up. But the VE has the memory of the Viridicide, while GR has the memory of Hyperion, and Atlantis. In GR we're just getting our second wind. B) Seriously NPO, you should just take the terms. If you think about it rationally, the people who really don't care about the conflict aren't going to fight to weaken the terms, whereas those who believe the terms are too light are extremely committed, and will fight tooth and nail to keep them from being weakened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 You guys is everyone who's been blaring that same line over and over again, thinking that the alliances on the front of NPO will break down without getting their objective achieved. If they won't take the terms that's fine too, they're just delaying the inevitable. I don't think they're going to break down because of the NPO, let's just make that clear. I think they're going to break down because that's what happens. Ordinarily, not all of these alliances would be running together, correct? And wars happen. I'm just saying that I expect a completely separate alliance war before NPO gives up. And no doubt they'll say they won and declare victory. If they didn't want peace talks, they would've just not entered them and keep attacking seeing as how NPO started the whole war, ya know? Didn't TORN drop out because NPO sought to peace out with OV? peace talks are there for a reason, im sure you've come to realize that Karma was no need to play towards pleasing the masses by offering terms that they dont expect you to accept.Everyone pretty much hates you for one reason or another and im sure there are those who want your entire alliance destroyed and scattered to the wind, however Karma still offers you terms which you turn down because you think their unreasonable. Im sorry but i think your a bit past white peace at this point, the reps are gonna hurt no matter how long you wait. All you are doing now is wasting time, we have plenty. I don't hate the NPO. I hate people. I find it much more enjoyable to hate people on a personal level than to hate people because they're friends with other people. When people were saying "oh noez, NPO's gov are a bunch of hippies," Bilrow came out with proof that only 2-3 members of government and milcom were actually in peace mode, and I think one of them was on vacation. That kind of "just the facts, ma'am" approach is one I like. But when I see people hating on Pacificans solely because they have a certain AA, my respect for them drops. If they want to hate someone, find a decent reason to hate someone, it makes the game much more fun for all of us, and contributes to much better drama than "ZOMG NPO SUXXORS!" NPO actually hasn't objected to the reps. They offered to pay more. They object to war being in the peace terms. "But they've done it to other alliances!" people cry. Who cares? NPO has given bad deals to others, and they took them. NPO was given a bad deal and they didn't. What's wrong with that? My guess is that NPO has more time than you. If you had more time, there wouldn't be so many Pacificans in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 some how i doubt this will happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 some how i doubt this will happen I love it when people just read the OP and post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I love it when people just read the OP and post. Actually, he was replying to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 In my opinion, individual surrenders are just bull. They're the same to me as dropping a treaty in war-time; you made a commitment to fight when you signed that piece of paper or when you joined that alliance, and you should be expected to honor that to the end, end of story. Dropping in the middle is just... )): If you have grievances with the people you're defending, you should have either done so well beforehand or wait until after.Also, lol at vengeful moo logs. How is accepting an individual surrender from an alliance any different from an alliance surrendering before its treaty partners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 How is accepting an individual surrender from an alliance any different from an alliance surrendering before its treaty partners? Did I say it wasn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) How is accepting an individual surrender from an alliance any different from an alliance surrendering before its treaty partners? Wait, is this a rhetorical question and you agree? You wrote it like one. When you join an alliance you pledged war slots to defend that alliance. Just the same when you signed a MDAP you pledged your alliances wellbeing to support that alliance. So yes, they are the same thing. Edited July 1, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llednar Twem Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 In addition to offering alliance-wide surrender terms, Karma has also offered individual surrender terms. Any NPO nation can surrender at any time. The only thing stopping them is the fear of retaliation from their own alliance. You've got to be kidding me. This is honestly what you believe? Every NPO nation knows that they can surrender at any time. Do you want to know the real reason why they refuse to surrender? They don't want to surrender and leave the NPO. The NPO community is a close-knit group that will protect each other through thick and thin and will give the skin off of their bones if it will help another Pacifican. I know this because I have been a part of this alliance for a long time, and I have seen this with my own eyes. The reason that they do not surrender is because they are committed to helping people that they see as close friends, people that they call comrades, and helping a community that has stuck with them through any issue (RL or CN). There is also another reason: the NPO community is greater than the sum of its parts. We have a great pride (pride which can be mistaken for and can turn into arrogance; this is probably what the rest of the CN community has seen) in what we have accomplished as an alliance, in both internal and external affairs, and that is something that people are very willing to fight for. It is not out of fear of retaliation, and to be quite frank, I think the NPO has bigger issues than dealing with people who left during wartime at the moment. What does happen when a person leaves (for any reason, not just surrendering) is that the rest of the NPO community tries to convince them to change their mind. Sometimes it works, and other times it does not. It is sad when a member chooses to leave or surrender, but there are other people who are capable and willing to step up to fill the gaps. And to be honest, there's nothing else we can do but fill the gaps. The person has left, and we have failed in making them reconsider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 This mans speaks the truth from the bottom of his heart. You seem not capable to understand that we are we our heart wants us to be. We really ARE Pacificans. Is not just an affiliation for us still there, is a way of life. My brothers and sisters and in this world are there, and I wouldn't dream of leaving them unless I were leaving it all... Fear of retaliation? From an alliance whose numbers have been harshly damaged? Please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 This mans speaks the truth from the bottom of his heart. You seem not capable to understand that we are we our heart wants us to be. We really ARE Pacificans. Is not just an affiliation for us still there, is a way of life. My brothers and sisters and in this world are there, and I wouldn't dream of leaving them unless I were leaving it all... Fear of retaliation? From an alliance whose numbers have been harshly damaged? Please... Well, NPO still isn't quite nothing to sneeze at, I'm sure that if they weren't dealing with Karma they probably could hunt deserters down. Whether they would is another story. If they deserted, then they just aren't Pacificans and shouldn't be expected to be let back in either, correct? I've seen people claim that NPO has a reign of terror over its members several times, but is there even a precedent for attacking deserters during a major war? Granted, this is the worst war in NPO's history so conditions are a bit different, but has anything like this actually happened before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I don't think they're going to break down because of the NPO, let's just make that clear. I think they're going to break down because that's what happens. Ordinarily, not all of these alliances would be running together, correct? And wars happen. I'm just saying that I expect a completely separate alliance war before NPO gives up. And no doubt they'll say they won and declare victory. Actually if you look at the list most of those alliances work very well together, especially on the NPO front. NPO might wait till the next war to get in a good shot, then again that was GOONS' plan as well and it took them quite a while. Didn't TORN drop out because NPO sought to peace out with OV? Yes that actually validates my point that there was peace talks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Yes that actually validates my point that there was peace talks Well, it validates the point that there were peace talks for TORN, as they got peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, it validates the point that there were peace talks for TORN, as they got peace. That too. Or the original point which validates there was the peace talks with NPO after they attacked OV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 That too. Or the original point which validates there was the peace talks with NPO after they attacked OV. I was more making a little jab about how it's apparently OK for some people to attack during peace talks, as long as they're leaders of smaller alliances that haven't been the subject of exposés on the forums for months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, it validates the point that there were peace talks for TORN, as they got peace. No it proves that we are better than the NPO, several times they have not bothered to even give terms to defeated alliances. NPO has terms as an alliance and as individuals. They can take them or not, as they see fit, but the whining about how we want to kill their alliance is frankly stupid. If we wanted to we'd have taken a page from your book and simply never offered terms. I'd love to see the war end personally, but as long as the NPO cant show even one scrap of humility we get nowhere, they STILL treat the peace process as if they were annoyed 10 year olds. They don't like the terms so they are going to hold their breath till they get better, and its our fault for being such meanies. Such an attitude wins them no friends from Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I was more making a little jab about how it's apparently OK for some people to attack during peace talks, as long as they're leaders of smaller alliances that haven't been the subject of exposés on the forums for months. The attacks were already ongoing before the peace talks started, NPO had already attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The attacks were already ongoing before the peace talks started, NPO had already attacked. We're talking about a different set of peace talks. Anyway, had NPO been offered the same set of terms that TORN was for doing the exact same thing, I doubt we'd be here discussing this now. That's all I was trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 We're talking about a different set of peace talks. Anyway, had NPO been offered the same set of terms that TORN was for doing the exact same thing, I doubt we'd be here discussing this now. That's all I was trying to say. Probably, but I very much enjoyed the war finally starting so I'm not complaining Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 No it proves that we are better than the NPO, several times they have not bothered to even give terms to defeated alliances. NPO has terms as an alliance and as individuals. They can take them or not, as they see fit, but the whining about how we want to kill their alliance is frankly stupid. If we wanted to we'd have taken a page from your book and simply never offered terms.I'd love to see the war end personally, but as long as the NPO cant show even one scrap of humility we get nowhere, they STILL treat the peace process as if they were annoyed 10 year olds. They don't like the terms so they are going to hold their breath till they get better, and its our fault for being such meanies. Such an attitude wins them no friends from Karma. Well, Karma did offer terms I can only assume they know that NPO would refuse, but didn't care because it was "what they deserved." And I think they've showed a great deal of humility, for NPO, they repealed the Moldavi Doctrine. What, that means nothing? And again, they're not really caring if they get better terms. If they do, they do, if they don't, well, they get to be an annoyance to you for a while to come. The larger this gets dragged out, the more they look like FAN. People joke about "Free NPO" and "VietNPO" now, but soon enough people will really just want this whole mess to be done with and move on with their lives. Even if the Karma leaders stay strong, it's hard to keep people interested in a war with no forseeable end. History has shown that to be the case, has it not? Heck, I still see people protesting Bush and the war on my way to work. 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.