Emperor Stranger Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Edit: Pretty trivial, I probably shouldn't have posted this if a debate's going to start :/ OP hit first, OP declared war first. Therefore, it was OP who fought LE. The emperor of TE has spoken. It is final. I don't see why OP are being cowards by not accepting this fact. They started a war; they should be congratulated. Edited November 17, 2009 by Emperor Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 OP hit first, OP declared war first. Therefore, it was OP who fought LE. The emperor of TE has spoken. It is final. LE took aggressive actions against OP, and OP recognized a state of war. I don't know who you are, but no revisionist is going to get in the way of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 LE took aggressive actions against OP, and OP recognized a state of war.I don't know who you are, but no revisionist is going to get in the way of truth. LE sanctioned a few nations. Hardly a declaration of war, and not a valid CB on anywhere else but Steve. But instead of doing diplomacy, OP declares war. QED, OP declared, not recognized, war on LE. And I don't know who you are, but some no one from OP isn't going to try to tell me, an unbiased observer, what is 'truth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) LE sanctioned a few nations. Hardly a declaration of war, and not a valid CB on anywhere else but Steve. But instead of doing diplomacy, OP declares war. QED, OP declared, not recognized, war on LE.And I don't know who you are, but some no one from OP isn't going to try to tell me, an unbiased observer, what is 'truth'. Try it again... but use facts this time. See, LE manipulated the Black Team senators into serving their personal goal by sanctioning our members on Black. OP retaliated by launching military strikes against the Black Team senators who were responsible. Then there was LE spying some nukes from us... and then you have: Ordo Paradoxia hereby recognizes a state of war with Lafayette Escadrille. Quod erat demonstrandum. (If you're going to use a Latin phrase, use it properly.) Edited November 17, 2009 by Titus Pullo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Try it again... but use facts this time. See, LE manipulated the Black Team senators into serving their personal goal by sanctioning our members on Black. OP retaliated by launching military strikes against the Black Team senators who were responsible. How the $%&@ is that any different than what I just said? LE had a few nations in OP sanctioned. Big. !@#$@#$. Deal. Guess what? You could have talked to the senators about having the sanctions removed, or even LE. Problem solved, no war. But no, OP decides to, wait, what? Hit LE with a military strike? Wow, kind of sounds like OP declared war on LE.. And if I am not mistaken, the title of the thread was "Ordo Paradoxia Declaration of War", not "Ordo Paradoxia Recognition of War". Faulty logic is faulty. Then there was LE spying some nukes from us... and then you have:Quod erat demonstrandum. (If you're going to use a Latin phrase, use it properly.) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73287 The title is misleading. You can't both declare war and recognize war; it's an either or situation. Considering it wasn't a military strike on OP, OP had no reason to "recognize" war. Therefore, OP declared war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadyFireAIm Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 So LE did commit acts of aggression against OP? It's about time you realized it. Did I ever say LE did not sanction or spy on OP? My entire argument is that LE was in the right to do so consider the stance your leader took regarding LE. Can you really blame LE for doing so after these pics were posted? Also, why do you keep ignoring what your leader did to start this war? For you it seems to all start with the LE sanctions and spy attacks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 How the $%&@ is that any different than what I just said? LE had a few nations in OP sanctioned. Big. !@#$@#$. Deal. Guess what? You could have talked to the senators about having the sanctions removed, or even LE. Problem solved, no war. But no, OP decides to, wait, what? Hit LE with a military strike? Wow, kind of sounds like OP declared war on LE..And if I am not mistaken, the title of the thread was "Ordo Paradoxia Declaration of War", not "Ordo Paradoxia Recognition of War". Faulty logic is faulty. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73287 The title is misleading. You can't both declare war and recognize war; it's an either or situation. Considering it wasn't a military strike on OP, OP had no reason to "recognize" war. Therefore, OP declared war. You're still leaving out the fact that OP recognized a state of war due to the aggressive actions carried out on OP by LE. See, and I'm going to use another latin phrase here, LE de facto declared war via its hostile and aggressive actions against OP. Did I ever say LE did not sanction or spy on OP? My entire argument is that LE was in the right to do so consider the stance your leader took regarding LE. Can you really blame LE for doing so after these pics were posted? Also, why do you keep ignoring what your leader did to start this war? For you it seems to all start with the LE sanctions and spy attacks.... So LE was righteous in stripping members of another alliance, and members of other alliance, of their sovereign economic rights? In fact, they obtain this moral guidance due to a picture obtained through espionage of someone who doesn't have much, if any authority, in OP declarations of war saying he is "wholeheatedly in any war against them [LE]"? Still, I'm glad you've realized that LE was the aggressor and that all the coalition alliances are bandwagoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McShady511 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 there is no coalition. and we arent bandwagoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domhnall Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 44% of OP is in anarchy and has lost over 200K AS -enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 there is no coalition. and we arent bandwagoning. By very definition, there is a coalition and you are bandwagoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McShady511 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 By very definition, there is a coalition and you are bandwagoning. by traditional CN Definition a coalition is a formed group that is typically tied together by treaties (in case you havent noticed we arent) and has a single DoW (we didnt) and has a usually has a single POW AA (the only one i know of is WAPA has one.) and we arent bandwagoning because each alliance has different issues with OP. we all didnt say "oh they declared war so lets declare war too." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 by traditional CN Definition a coalition is a formed group that is typically tied together by treaties (in case you havent noticed we arent) and has a single DoW (we didnt) and has a usually has a single POW AA (the only one i know of is WAPA has one.) and we arent bandwagoning because each alliance has different issues with OP. we all didnt say "oh they declared war so lets declare war too." Look at the "Karma Coalition" and then get back to me. As for bandwagoning, look for the conversation we've already had in one of these threads. I know it's around here somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McShady511 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Look at the "Karma Coalition" and then get back to me. As for bandwagoning, look for the conversation we've already had in one of these threads. I know it's around here somewhere... Karma POW almost got sanctioned. and the DoW's were because of treaties we dont have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Karma POW almost got sanctioned.and the DoW's were because of treaties we dont have. What does sanctioning have to do with whether or not you are a coalition? You don't have treaties that give you casus foederis, yet you declared war anyways. Only after LE took the blunt of any blitz OP was able to manage and after LE has retaliated in kind... [sarcasm]No, of course you didn't bandwagon. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadyFireAIm Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 What does sanctioning have to do with whether or not you are a coalition?You don't have treaties that give you casus foederis, yet you declared war anyways. Only after LE took the blunt of any blitz OP was able to manage and after LE has retaliated in kind... [sarcasm]No, of course you didn't bandwagon. [/sarcasm] nobody cares about treaties in cn:te. This isn't standard edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 nobody cares about treaties in cn:te. This isn't standard edition. McShady brought up treaties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McShady511 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 What does sanctioning have to do with whether or not you are a coalition?You don't have treaties that give you casus foederis, yet you declared war anyways. Only after LE took the blunt of any blitz OP was able to manage and after LE has retaliated in kind... [sarcasm]No, of course you didn't bandwagon. [/sarcasm] we declare war because you violated your own tech raiding rules because you think you are high and might and that no one can harm you. i guess your realizing that that simply going to happen in TE. most of the alliances dont take OP's crap. i am awaiting the day when OP has to surrender because they cant fight anymore. your not going to win. the more OP loses the more defensive they get. they accuse alliances that arent communicating of being a "Coalition" when there isnt. you accuse us of bandwagoning. which we arent. we are attacking you because you were to stupid to follow your own rules. you managed to piss off enough people that you alliance is going down the tubes under our attacks. OP's Strength: CAN ANYONE SEE A TREND? ANYONE AT ALL? oh... and you need to work on the sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McShady511 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 btw good job on forming your own coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) you think you are high and might and that no one can harm youi am awaiting the day when OP has to surrender because they cant fight anymore. your not going to win. they accuse alliances that arent communicating of being a "Coalition" when there isnt. you accuse us of bandwagoning. which we arent. Show me where I have stated I think OP is "high and might" and "that no one can harm" us. Didn't think so, moving on: I await that day to, unless you missed it: We're the Russians at Stalingrad. We are already victorious. Look at this: Coalition: a combination or alliance, esp. a temporary one between persons, factions, states, etc.Alliance: a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations Bandwagon: A cause or party that attracts increasing numbers of adherents. 9 states (I think it is 9... haven't had time to count...) have temporarily merged their interests by attacking OP, a cause which has been attracting an increasing number of adherents. So yea, it's a bandwagon coalition. You just proved that. btw good job on forming your own coalition. Thank you. Edited November 17, 2009 by Titus Pullo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 we declare war because you violated your own tech raiding rules because you think you are high and might and that no one can harm you. i guess your realizing that that simply going to happen in TE. most of the alliances dont take OP's crap. i am awaiting the day when OP has to surrender because they cant fight anymore. your not going to win. the more OP loses the more defensive they get. they accuse alliances that arent communicating of being a "Coalition" when there isnt. you accuse us of bandwagoning. which we arent. we are attacking you because you were to stupid to follow your own rules. you managed to piss off enough people that you alliance is going down the tubes under our attacks. OP's Strength: CAN ANYONE SEE A TREND? ANYONE AT ALL? oh... and you need to work on the sarcasm. the majority of that damage was at the hands of LE, don't take credit for their skilled warriors. people have openly admitted this is a coalition to take down OP so you can just stop that broken record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) I don't see what the big deal is.Was there evidence of spy activity by LE prior to OPs declration? Yup. Was there evidence of spy activity by OP against LE prior to OPs declaration? nope. Were our allies spying on OP forums, and manipulating posts to make it look like our agenda was morally correct? Yup. Was there going to be a war between LE and OP that week? I think it's safe to say 'yes' because it is what LE was shooting for. All that happened was LE struck thinking the rest of Steve would back them against the perceived threat, and they were right. *Fixed* Keep on plugging with your 4/5 vs 1 and barely hanging on. Cause OP is just that awesome . War is fun, semantics don't really matter, but be honest at least. Your propoganda is better than your warfare...which is probably one of the better ones. Flying kiwis are pretty good as well. EDIT: Regardless, you want to show our decline in NS, take a look at our opponents as well. When you post them all, maybe we can get an objective view. Edited November 17, 2009 by Chalaskan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 You're still leaving out the fact that OP recognized a state of war due to the aggressive actions carried out on OP by LE. See, and I'm going to use another latin phrase here, LE de facto declared war via its hostile and aggressive actions against OP. It was not a de facto war. Their aggressive actions at best were sanctions. As I said, it's hardly enough of a CB on Bob. And if you want to use facts and !@#$, then what about OP? OP's leader literally stated that he wanted to see LE rolled multiple times. A lot of leaders in it kept saying the same thing. We saw the screenshots. And ffs, this is Steve. Why is it such a bad thing that you admit to OP's aggression? I might actually respect you a little for starting a fight. (Using your logic, I have to respect LE de facto because according to you, they started the war.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) It was not a de facto war. Their aggressive actions at best were sanctions. As I said, it's hardly enough of a CB on Bob. And if you want to use facts and !@#$, then what about OP? OP's leader literally stated that he wanted to see LE rolled multiple times. A lot of leaders in it kept saying the same thing. We saw the screenshots.And ffs, this is Steve. Why is it such a bad thing that you admit to OP's aggression? I might actually respect you a little for starting a fight. (Using your logic, I have to respect LE de facto because according to you, they started the war.) If an alliance on this so called "Bob" were to start spying away nukes and sanctioning an alliances members, I'm not so sure this would be your argument. I don't read all of these posts because Im not really into the politics here anymore.. but if this argument is still going on, then when will LE and the collective admit that it was a baiting tactic to try and validate their reasons to attack OP ? I might actually respect them more for admitting that. Other than that as I really am not part in either side so blow each other up and have fun.. Edited November 17, 2009 by KingDingaLing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKongIl Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Lol, there probably isn't any. but we figured it must be someone who didnt like us, and since your leader oh so kindly said he wanted us dead, we put two and two together you guys know you did it, it might have been a secret from normal members though so not everyone in OP may know. and really, who cares? were already fighting, it doesnt matter whos agressive or defending anymore lets just get our fight on! I never thought LE was the one to get so bent out of shape over two words. My "I concur" post was in reference to someones suggestion that we try to ally with LE. You guys are reading way to much into it. We only wanted LE dead after they sanctioned our nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKongIl Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 the reason they sanctioned and spied on your nations was because your leader said he wanted to "exterminate" LE. Without that, none of this would have happened. That post alone is what started all this. You can argue all you want, but ultimately everything that has occurred was started by that statement. I never said that. This story keeps growing with every iteration. I merely agreed with someone's response to the suggestion we try to ally with LE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts