Lyria Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 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. NPO lost far more and took far stricter terms. If TPF isn't even willing to be remotely reasonable, then I suppose there isn't much hope for anything else. At the very least, mhawk is in no position whatsoever to be talking to our leadership that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann 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." That's the thing, they don't have to negotiate. If mhawk's replies or discourse with MK were anything like those between him and Vox Dei Doitzel, then there's no opportunity to negotiate, anyway, just mhawk spouting crap and ultimatums as if he's still in a position to scare people. He's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Let me get the ramifications of this straight, just so I'm entirely clear with the situation: An alliance that formed as a result of a merger, in which one of the parties is Totalfark!, which in turn was formed because they were too sissy to stand and take it from the GOONS like a man, is now on course to possibly be the new FAN? I love this thread, so much. Edited July 25, 2009 by Atanatar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 TPF seems intent on seeking better terms, and/or continuing to fight out on this line if it takes all summer. It is their right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. They can desire peace without that being the only thing they desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. By your logic TPF does not desire peace, then. And fine if they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 That's the thing, they don't have to negotiate. If mhawk's replies or discourse with MK were anything like those between him and Vox Dei Doitzel, then there's no opportunity to negotiate, anyway, just mhawk spouting crap and ultimatums as if he's still in a position to scare people. He's not. You are right they don't have to negotiate but that means they don't truly "desire peace" and trying to come off as magnanimous and we should kiss their feet and be overjoyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You guys should be careful in defining our terms as 'fair', unless you want to establish a new precedent for when you all turn on each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. "Desiring" peace does not mean "we do whatever you want". Of course Karma wants peace with TPF, they want this war over as it no longer serves any purpose to them. As you well know, to want and to desire are synonyms, neither of which mean that the subject is willing to do anything to get the desired item. So, no, Karma will not do "whatever it takes" to get peace, because it has already been extraordinarily reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What I don't think a lot of you get is that there just aren't a lot of us with warchests left. A lot of us are in bill lock. Only 2 TPF members have not fought in this war. Everyone else has been out there getting nuked. NPO had a lot of banks stay hippy the whole war... We didn't. Should we have kept a reserve? Maybe. But at the risk of sounding like Warbud, it is what it is. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 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. And they deserve white peace... why? Other parties with far less of a finger in the starting of this war have rightfully paid reparations as a signal of defeat, in a strictly karmic sense TPF has far more restitution coming to them then these terms. It's one thing to bargain your position for a better result but spitting in the face of those trying to work with you is quite counterproductive. The 6-7 mill NS lost was completely voluntary, don't you forget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You guys should be careful in defining our terms as 'fair', unless you want to establish a new precedent for when you all turn on each other. You sir, just won the thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich 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. Surely, no one is responsible for things they did over a year ago!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 By your logic TPF does not desire peace, then. And fine if they don't. Link me to an announcement where TPF has said they "desire peace." It is TPF's right if they want to refuse any terms as it is MK's right to not negotiate terms but don't be disingenuous and say you "desire peace" when it is apparent you do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Why would TPF surrender when they're winning? /sarcasm Seriously TPF, it's over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Link me to an announcement where TPF has said they "desire peace." It is TPF's right if they want to refuse any terms as it is MK's right to not negotiate terms but don't be disingenuous and say you "desire peace" when it is apparent you do not. I didn't say that TPF said that they desire peace. If they don't desire peace, that is fine with me. They can continue their war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Let me get the ramifications of this straight, just so I'm entirely clear with the situation: An alliance that formed as a result of a merger, in which one of the parties is Totalfark!, which in turn was formed because they were too sissy to stand and take it from the GOONS like a man, is now on course to possibly be the new FAN?I love this thread, so much. Thats a brilliant point. I owe you a drink, good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. Just because you "desire" something doesn't mean you'll do whatever it takes to obtain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) You are right they don't have to negotiate but that means they don't truly "desire peace" and trying to come off as magnanimous and we should kiss their feet and be overjoyed. There's a difference between desiring peace and giving up. You guys should be careful in defining our terms as 'fair', unless you want to establish a new precedent for when you all turn on each other. If this is the new definition of fair terms, then it's already lightyears beyond the definition during the Pax Pacifica. You should probably just hush. What I don't think a lot of you get is that there just aren't a lot of us with warchests left. A lot of us are in bill lock. Only 2 TPF members have not fought in this war. Everyone else has been out there getting nuked. NPO had a lot of banks stay hippy the whole war... We didn't. Should we have kept a reserve? Maybe. But at the risk of sounding like Warbud, it is what it is.-Bama A nation is its own ATM. Once out of bill lock with the help of the outside aid you're allowed to receive for a reason, you can handle the reps like the big boys you pretended to be for the past 3 years. Big surprise, TPF ends up whining about being out of money in yet another war. Edited July 25, 2009 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. What is it with people and extremes in propagan-oh right. There are degrees between indifference and "omg I want this more than anything else in the world ponies!" you know. What am I saying, of course you do. The misleading hyperbole was intentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL 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. I don't buy that in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted July 25, 2009 Author 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. We desire peace, but not unconditionally. You are right they don't have to negotiate but that means they don't truly "desire peace" and trying to come off as magnanimous and we should kiss their feet and be overjoyed. We allowed them outside aid and as far as the rest is concerned, didn't offer anything we didn't think was fair and reasonable to add. I guess we could have added in some harsh terms so that we had them to negotiate away, but we wanted a more honest approach than that. At some point just giving more concessions is just unreasonable, and we've reached that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Link me to an announcement where TPF has said they "desire peace." It is TPF's right if they want to refuse any terms as it is MK's right to not negotiate terms but don't be disingenuous and say you "desire peace" when it is apparent you do not. There's no need for us to negotiate terms when we came out with ones like these. You're trying to play off the fact that we came out with lower terms than expected and say we should negotiate further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So, the logic behind the OP is that the longer one stays at war honoring their treaties,the harsher are the terms they should expect? Wow, that's just h...nvm I should just go look up "Karma" in a dictionary (again) I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What I don't think a lot of you get is that there just aren't a lot of us with warchests left. A lot of us are in bill lock. Only 2 TPF members have not fought in this war. Everyone else has been out there getting nuked. NPO had a lot of banks stay hippy the whole war... We didn't. Should we have kept a reserve? Maybe. But at the risk of sounding like Warbud, it is what it is.-Bama You've had a lot of nations in peace mode for some time now. If they decommed all that useless military (useless because they planned on a prolonged visit to peace mode) to lessen their bills, they certainly could've built up some kind of warchest in their long reprieve. 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.