Matthew Conrad Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 When I first heard of these terms being discussed and presented before mhawk, I thought they were quite lenient. This accounts for the bad blood between PC and TPF. I find it very odd that they have still refused such terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Thank God! I was worrying we wouldn't get a new FAN out of this war. I look forward to TPF's 2 years of war. They were a much better candidate than NPO anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) It boggles the mind how in alliance whose hands are so dirty from the past could reject what amounts to very fair terms. Edited July 25, 2009 by cookavich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) These are pretty harsh terms, given TPF is pretty much been reduced from an 7-8mil NS alliance to a 1mil NS alliance. At this point, while I honestly hate to say it given I despise mhawk, I think TPF deserves much better than this -- much lesser terms or white peace. Fought long and hard earned something lesser than what's presented. Just end the war once and for all, I think its just gotten pretty pathetic to continue it any further. Edited July 25, 2009 by Balsamic Vinegar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 When I first heard of these terms being discussed and presented before mhawk, I thought they were quite lenient. This accounts for the bad blood between PC and TPF. I find it very odd that they have still refused such terms. I know right? I was thinking PC would demand disbandment and then settle for a gazillion tech and whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, if mhawk really wants to stay at war, who are we to tell him he can't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, if mhawk really wants to stay at war, who are we to tell him he can't? My thoughts exactly. I applaud your reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 These are pretty harsh terms, given TPF is pretty much been reduced from an 7-8mil NS alliance to a 1mil NS alliance. At this point, while I honestly hate to say it given I despise mhawk, I think TPF deserves much better than this -- much lesser terms or white peace. Fought long and hard earned something lesser than what's presented.Just end the war once and for all, I think its just gotten pretty pathetic to continue it any further. I think you need to be PZI'd, but that doesn't make it right. Or even remotely close to justifiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think what most people are saying is that they are fair. Though if you believe these terms to be unfair (which is what I think you're saying), then how do you feel about the surrender terms TPF has imposed in the past? Has TPF been fair in their victories? Not always. But we haven't imposed any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago. MK has every right to be unhappy about that, but it was a year ago. It would be really petty if we came back a year from now and forced these alliances to pay us this money back. Then again, this is CN, people constantly astound me with how long their memories are in some cases and how short they are in others. Another thing that I think irked Mhawk is that he personally gave white peace to MK as leader of Elysium. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 We desire peace, and the reasonable terms we have offered remain open whenever TPF can bring themselves to accept them. Obviously you don't desire peace that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not always. But we haven't imposed any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago. MK has every right to be unhappy about that, but it was a year ago. It would be really petty if we came back a year from now and forced these alliances to pay us this money back. Then again, this is CN, people constantly astound me with how long their memories are in some cases and how short they are in others. -Bama Thats why I said considering what happened to the NPO, you should count yourselves pretty damn lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Obviously you don't desire peace that much. Yes, they should bend over backwards to satisfy the demands of a losing opponent, something you and yours did frequently in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not always. But we haven't imposed any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago. Might want to double check that statement with PC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwthegreat Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Good Luck to our allies in TPF On a side note the terms are a little bit harsh. Spare the rod and spoil the child Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Just end the war once and for all, I think its just gotten pretty pathetic to continue it any further. It is pathetic, and ending the war is exactly what all parties but TPF are working for. Having a martyr complex isn't the same as honor. TPF has fought well and gone beyond their duties to their allies, if they can't accept the (light) consequences of war it's mainly themselves who will suffer for it. Clarification edit. Edited July 25, 2009 by Choader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Obviously you don't desire peace that much. Says the man who needed Green Lebensraum. If you don't think this is reasonable, I suggest you reread your own terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 These are pretty harsh terms, given TPF is pretty much been reduced from an 7-8mil NS alliance to a 1mil NS alliance. At this point, while I honestly hate to say it given I despise mhawk, I think TPF deserves much better than this -- much lesser terms or white peace. Fought long and hard earned something lesser than what's presented.Just end the war once and for all, I think its just gotten pretty pathetic to continue it any further. Seriously? Yeah, you're right. We should enable and reward TPF for fighting long and hard in the war they helped start. Shut uuuuuup. Bullies don't "deserve" anything but their own bloody nose one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Yes, they should bend over backwards to satisfy the demands of a losing opponent, something you and yours did frequently in the past. I did not say that. However to say you "desire peace" on one hand and then on the other hand refuse to consider the possibility that you might have to negotiate for that peace you so "desire." Then you might be stretching the truth a little or maybe should have used better terminology since if you really "desired peace" you would do whatever it took to get it. Says the man who needed Green Lebensraum. Huh? Edited July 25, 2009 by Bilrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilla Island Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Mhawk and TPF's Government must have really lost their minds. The terms they received were ridiculously lenient. It proves that TPF's Government really does not have their Alliance's future in mind. It's one thing to have honor. It is quite another to commit needless suicide. (sighs)Se le guerre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 TPF has fought well and gone beyond their duties to their allies, if they can't accept the (light) consequences of war If they've fought so well and gone beyond their duties to their allies... why not White Peace at this point? They've lost 6-7mil NS and most of its membership -- that's more than enough consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 This is a little off topic, but why do people think a year is a long time? It's really not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I did not say that. However to say you "desire peace" on one hand and then on the other hand refuse to consider the possibility that you might have to negotiate for that peace you so "desire." Then you might be stretching the truth a little or maybe should have used better terminology since if you really "desired peace" you would do whatever it took to get it. So I suppose months of negotiations with a group that has refused to budge an inch is not nearly desirous enough of peace for your tastes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not always. But we haven't imposed any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago. MK has every right to be unhappy about that, but it was a year ago. While that's certainly not the only mark on TPF's record, let's use that one as an example. By your own admission, TPF was less than "fair" in that instance. Has TPF since then taken to apologizing for their part in this wrong doing? Has the hand of friendship been offered in the knowledge of past wrongdoing? Such wounds cannot be expected to heal themselves so what I'm basically saying is that if TPF has done nothing to remedy the reasonable disdain they have created then TPF deserves to reap what they have sown. So given that TPF has not been fair, why should they be treated fairly (by your definition mind you, not mine. These terms seem mighty lenient to me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not always. But we haven't imposed any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago. MK has every right to be unhappy about that, but it was a year ago. It would be really petty if we came back a year from now and forced these alliances to pay us this money back. Then again, this is CN, people constantly astound me with how long their memories are in some cases and how short they are in others. Another thing that I think irked Mhawk is that he personally gave white peace to MK as leader of Elysium.-Bama You meant to say "we haven't had the chance to impose any sort of terms since noCB nearly a year ago, otherwise we would have." Obviously you don't desire peace that much. Obligatory hurrr, then join TPF and continue the fight against injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So I suppose months of negotiations with a group that has refused to budge an inch is not nearly desirous enough of peace for your tastes. If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. 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.