RandomInterrupt Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Also when has ANYone or ANY alliance started a war if they thought they will lose it? Yup, thats what I thought. I guess every color is a hitting color then. The Orders in GW1. Vox Populi. The Unjust War was initially very matched and there was a decent chance that we could have lost, and yet we declared anyway. Multiple small alliances throughout history have defended themselves from aggressors or declared wars when no chance existed to win. It's called having a spine. It's understandable why this is a foreign concept to you though. All you and yours do is pick up the table scraps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I can not see why this is interesting. Despite being against tech raiding myself (i remind everybody that LSF does not allow tech raiding ), i must remind everybody that a sovereign alliance is a sovereign alliance. IS is a sovereign alliance and nobody can dictate them their rules of engagement. The end.That said, i must add that i find CG's behaviour extremely irresponsible. Only a few days ago, RAD refused to call in any allies and preferred taking a small beating over starting a war beyond control. Now CG is doing the exact opposite, threatening to throw a whole sphere into war over a tech raid and 100m damage, just for not having the patience to properly put pressure through the right channels. I do not believe that this behaviour can claim to be of high morality or seriousness. I do not know whether this will end with peace and reps for CG, but it certainly isn't gaining my respect. Difference being CG did not start this war. IS started this war and then tried to call it a tech raid. So, you have IS starting a war of aggression and lying about it. Pathetic really. (oooh #2.... come on tell me how many more insults i need to throw at IS before they show me their tough face?) Also, the fact that one of their Trium stated it was not for tech kinda defeats IS calling it a tech raid..... Frankly, i seriously wish i could tech raid IS at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 IS and Pink are pathetic. The alliances on Pink are trash and garbage. They have no right to exist whatsoever. ok, how many more times do i need to post that before IS attacks me as they have CG? stating that the whole reason for a war is insults shows that the aggressor is little more than a whiny little cry baby, who should not have any sort of power whatsoever. Grow some thicker skin. I could have sworn that i have seen Pink alliances including IS throwing around insults at others, yet IS are too much of a !@#$%* to take it. Pathetic and hopefully IS will simply become a smoldering crater of an alliance soon. I agree with my treaty partner Dochartaigh here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Frankly, i seriously wish i could tech raid IS at the moment. You and me both... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 The Orders in GW1. Vox Populi. The Unjust War was initially very matched and there was a decent chance that we could have lost, and yet we declared anyway. Multiple small alliances throughout history have defended themselves from aggressors or declared wars when no chance existed to win. It's called having a spine. It's understandable why this is a foreign concept to you though. All you and yours do is pick up the table scraps. lol that's rich Seriously A+ work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 This thread made me while I did this It made my day though, seriously Thanks everyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike717 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 There is a clear difference between their opinion and overt, blantant trolling/flaming. If you can't see that, well I am not even go to waste my time responding to any of your post since you obviously don't have the intellectually capacity to have a meaningful debate about the situation with.I love how you ended the quote of mine right before the next part. If you bash someone who is bigger then you and you have no one protecting you, you deserve to get hit for the pure stupidity of the move. I would love to see you try that with no protection, I know I will be waiting for that moment. Considering the way IS has acted towards other alliances i would say they are guilty of far far worse than anything i've seen out of CG as for the second part of your quote, i understand now, they aren't getting attacked because they "had it coming", they're getting attacked because they had it coming AND couldn't defend themselves. Classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Difference being CG did not start this war. IS started this war and then tried to call it a tech raid. So, you have IS starting a war of aggression and lying about it. Pathetic really. (oooh #2.... come on tell me how many more insults i need to throw at IS before they show me their tough face?) Also, the fact that one of their Trium stated it was not for tech kinda defeats IS calling it a tech raid..... Frankly, i seriously wish i could tech raid IS at the moment. You know, your alliance could make a statement...a doctrine, allowing tech raiding of IS for a temporary period of time. You are a sovereign alliance as is every other alliance. It is getting old seeing all the people saying what they wish they could do when they actually can do it. I wouldn't go so far as to defend IS, no way, but atleast they do what they want to do. Seems alot of people here are unable to say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooksland Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 The Orders in GW1. Vox Populi. The Unjust War was initially very matched and there was a decent chance that we could have lost, and yet we declared anyway. Multiple small alliances throughout history have defended themselves from aggressors or declared wars when no chance existed to win. It's called having a spine. It's understandable why this is a foreign concept to you though. All you and yours do is pick up the table scraps. Didn't The Orders try to change history and claim their won GW1 after everyone they fought against in it were gone? So how did they enter the war knowing they will lose, then later claim they won it? Interesting. Vox Populi, well I will give you credit there I guess that one works, although I consider it more of a protest movement. The Unjust War doesn't work here, there were many players on both sides that thought they would win the war, although there were also some on each side who thought they were going to lose. By the way I remember attacking you in that war, and even though you took everyone way too seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 *insert Admiral Ackbar quote here* Really, did you not think the Sith would be able to detect a trap so obvious? Poor attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingAdam Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 IS you guys are full of class. I hope you get the beating you deserve. Good luck sorting this out CG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You know, your alliance could make a statement...a doctrine, allowing tech raiding of IS for a temporary period of time. You are a sovereign alliance as is every other alliance. It is getting old seeing all the people saying what they wish they could do when they actually can do it. I wouldn't go so far as to defend IS, no way, but atleast they do what they want to do. Seems alot of people here are unable to say that. Not every member of an alliance can just snap their fingers and produce official policy, hell in most alliances not even government members can do that. So it is not as simple for Doch to just make a statement that would allow him to attack IS without abandoning his alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Not every member of an alliance can just snap their fingers and produce official policy, hell in most alliances not even government members can do that. So it is not as simple for Doch to just make a statement that would allow him to attack IS without abandoning his alliance. We have better things to do Like grow. And acquire nookz. And coup Chimaera. Also hai fellow Star Wars alliance. EDIT: I forgot something else we like to waste time on. Edited August 20, 2009 by KahlanRahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trikoupis Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Difference being CG did not start this war. IS started this war and then tried to call it a tech raid. So, you have IS starting a war of aggression and lying about it. Pathetic really. (oooh #2.... come on tell me how many more insults i need to throw at IS before they show me their tough face?) Also, the fact that one of their Trium stated it was not for tech kinda defeats IS calling it a tech raid..... Frankly, i seriously wish i could tech raid IS at the moment. I didn't notice IS calling this themselves a tech raid. As you said, they have themselves stated that it is not for tech. I'm rather under the impression that CG is calling it a tech raid, perhaps to gain forum sympathy or simply because of the absence of a DoW. In any case, i would wait for IS to clarify the situation before jumping into early conclusions. I don't find that the point of view of IS, with 30 members and being a member of pwn, has less value than the point of view of a 12 members alliance, with no treaties i know of and which was ready to recognise it's failure, disband and merge in another alliance. So i would rather wait a bit if i were in your place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Poor show IS. You should be watching your backs after this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Didn't The Orders try to change history and claim their won GW1 after everyone they fought against in it were gone? So how did they enter the war knowing they will lose, then later claim they won it? Interesting. Vox Populi, well I will give you credit there I guess that one works, although I consider it more of a protest movement. The Unjust War doesn't work here, there were many players on both sides that thought they would win the war, although there were also some on each side who thought they were going to lose. By the way I remember attacking you in that war, and even though you took everyone way too seriously. I believe that was just NPO and more specifically Vladimir. Polaris in general and RandomInterrupt in particular have always maintained that we lost GWI. In fact, the disagreement highlighted a significant difference between our cultures that grew into deeper problems later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordAkanata Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I'm rather under the impression that CG is calling it a tech raid, perhaps to gain forum sympathy or simply because of the absence of a DoW. In any case, i would wait for IS to clarify the situation before jumping into early conclusions. Nope. IS tried calling it a tech raid to keep this atrocity quiet, but CG and most people hear see this attack for the war that it is. I'm not going to argue about tech raiding; you do as you want with unaligneds. But giving an alliance a full-scale blitz for merely criticizing them is extremely low, and I'll love smelling their tech and infra burning over my skies. Edited August 20, 2009 by LordAkanata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) So hold on, someone is asking us to get involved in a war where neither party has any relation to us or who is of any particular interest to us? How in the world did the discussion even become NSO? OOC: Jeez NSO,people must really hate your guts for you to get dragged into every thread rolleyes.gif Anyway, good luck sorting this out CG. lolpink Edited August 20, 2009 by SpoiL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So hold on, someone is asking us to get involved in a war where neither party has any relation to us or who is of any particular interest to us? How in the world did the discussion even become NSO? Anyway, good luck sorting this out CG. lolpink You know that in every war from now on, people are going to say you should pick one or the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So hold on, someone is asking us to get involved in a war where neither party has any relation to us or who is of any particular interest to us? How in the world did the discussion even become NSO? Just look at the very first reply in this thread. You can't tell me you honestly expected you guys wouldn't be mentioned. *Shakes fist at Locke* I'm getting too slow for this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Didn't The Orders try to change history and claim their won GW1 after everyone they fought against in it were gone? So how did they enter the war knowing they will lose, then later claim they won it? Interesting. Vox Populi, well I will give you credit there I guess that one works, although I consider it more of a protest movement. The Unjust War doesn't work here, there were many players on both sides that thought they would win the war, although there were also some on each side who thought they were going to lose. By the way I remember attacking you in that war, and even though you took everyone way too seriously. Like Penguin said, I've never said we won that war. Mostly because we lost it. Also I felt the UJW was suited to your example, but I can see how some could disagree. So even if we stick with Vox Populi and GW1 I think my point has been made. My point being that many alliances have actually started or gone into wars they would certainly lose. It's only alliances like yours that can't fathom what it's like to actually stand up for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You know that in every war from now on, people are going to say you should pick one or the other side. But I thought this was a raid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I didn't notice IS calling this themselves a tech raid. As you said, they have themselves stated that it is not for tech. I'm rather under the impression that CG is calling it a tech raid, perhaps to gain forum sympathy or simply because of the absence of a DoW. In any case, i would wait for IS to clarify the situation before jumping into early conclusions. I don't find that the point of view of IS, with 30 members and being a member of pwn, has less value than the point of view of a 12 members alliance, with no treaties i know of and which was ready to recognise it's failure, disband and merge in another alliance. So i would rather wait a bit if i were in your place. well, LordAkanata summed it up nicely. As for IS, from what i have seen from most of their, they are an alliance i rather dislike. As for CG, just because they, at one point, were ready to merge does not mean that they failed (unless you wish to call the many other alliances such as MCXA failures......) and i trust CG's word over IS any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiasmaCircle Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Just look at the very first reply in this thread. You can't tell me you honestly expected you guys wouldn't be mentioned. *Shakes fist at Locke* I'm getting too slow for this... Being mentioned is one thing. Having the matter beat to death no fewer than 8 times is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Like Penguin said, I've never said we won that war. Mostly because we lost it.Also I felt the UJW was suited to your example, but I can see how some could disagree. So even if we stick with Vox Populi and GW1 I think my point has been made. My point being that many alliances have actually started or gone into wars they would certainly lose. It's only alliances like yours that can't fathom what it's like to actually stand up for yourself. IAA in the 1V-GATO war (along with the one or two other alliances that defended GATO) and i am sure there are other wars that could be pointed out, i am just to lazy to attempt to remember them. 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.