uaciaut Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Am I the only person who disagrees with this war? No.it seems people disagree with you too. Disagreements and wars are what make Planet Bob go round. Edited December 29, 2009 by uaciaut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) What are the other choices then?Did MK offer terms that were not real or did Athens renege on there surrender? I seem to remember you squacking about how incompetence was not an excuse the last 2 days but now when you are faced with the fact that you and yours were incompetent in writing a peace treaty you expect it to be a valid excuse to throw out the wording of your treaty. You can't have it both ways. No, Athens was not at war with TPF, so they weren't involved in that document. It said with Karma in general, yes, but at that point Athens had gotten out of the war. As a result, Athens would not be a part of "Karma" as they were not at war with anyone at the time. Karma was the coalition of nations fighting, not a formal bloc. See, I can manipulate the surrender terms to mean what I want them to mean to! Edited December 29, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 A curbstomp war against TPF is far more likely to destroy the TPF community then TPF's plan was to destroy Athens so you can all stop with the BS HEINOUS ACTS crap What exactly does VietPF mean then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 The "other choice" as you call it. Or as the rest of us with common sense see it as what happened.TPF conducted acts of war against Athens. Athens not its allies knew of these acts of war at the time. TPF negotiated peace with other alliances besides Athens that didn't cover those acts of war. But Athens still granted TPF peace and surrender for the Karma war. That absolves TPF of the acts and since they did not continue them after receiving peace they have not done anything that they have not already been absolved for. If TPF did not surrender to Athens for the Karma war your point would be much more valid but the fact is they did. Why Athens allowed it is beyond me, but again they did and now they are trying to "take it back" and that makes them liars who are violating TPF's surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 All these arguments just show that you all want to work towards peace. I appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) No, Athens was not at war with TPF, so they weren't involved in that document. It said with Karma in general, yes, but at that point Athens had gotten out of the war. As a result, Athens would not be a part of "Karma" as they were not at war with anyone at the time. Karma was the coalition of nations fighting, not a formal bloc.See, I can manipulate the surrender terms to mean what I want them to mean to! Athens was still providing protection to NPO under the banner of Karma were they not? And were still protected under the surrender clauses that said surrendered alliances could not harm karma alliances were they not? Edited December 29, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Somebody thought it was valid enough to launch a war over, right? There ya go. You weren't one of them. C'est la vie. But how does that justify anything? What is your argument? What is your point? That someone thinks, or at least pretends to think, the CB is valid? Why would you even bother saying that? This whole discussion makes my brain vomit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I have no qualms with a plan that is less likely to destroy a community then attacks on there nations would have. A curbstomp war against TPF is far more likely to destroy the TPF community then TPF's plan was to destroy Athens so you can all stop with the BS HEINOUS ACTS crap So you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Athens was still providing protection to NPO under the banner of Karma were they not? Read the last line. It would explain quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 But Athens still granted TPF peace and surrender for the Karma war. That absolves TPF of the acts and since they did not continue them after receiving peace they have not done anything that they have not already been absolved for. If TPF did not surrender to Athens for the Karma war your point would be much more valid but the fact is they did. Why Athens allowed it is beyond me, but again they did and now they are trying to "take it back" and that makes them liars who are violating TPF's surrender. TPF would have been absolved for that crime if: They admitted to the acts of war during peace negotiations with Athens then they agreed to peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) All these arguments just show that you all want to work towards peace.I appreciate it. Yes, I do want peace once TPF has been punished for their crimes, including but not limited to: admission of guilt, and surrendering. I am not a proponent of eternal war. Edited December 29, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 So you endorse the ideals behind the plan, of attempting to destroy an alliance and its community through means not related to their nations? Taking all things into account specifically that mhawk was under the impression that Karma was attempting to destroy NPO's community then yes. fight fire with fire, thats what Karma was all about anyway wasn't it? If his only way to defend NPO's community from being destroyed was to destroy a different community then thats what he was going to do destroy one community to defend another. Since intent seems to matter so much this week I guess I will say that his intent makes it excusable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 TPF would have been absolved for that crime if:They admitted to the acts of war during peace negotiations with Athens then they agreed to peace. So in a surrender, if an alliance does not disclose every single act of war against every single alliance in the war there surrender is void? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 But how does that justify anything? What is your argument? What is your point? That someone thinks, or at least pretends to think, the CB is valid? Why would you even bother saying that?This whole discussion makes my brain vomit. I said it because someone said it isn't a valid CB. If you're having trouble keeping up with the thread, I suggest starting at the beginning and slowly working your way in. It's easier that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 So in a surrender, if an alliance does not disclose every single act of war against every single alliance in the war there surrender is void? In a surrender both parties have to speak. Athens and TPF did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 In a surrender both parties have to speak. Athens and TPF did not. Then why was TPF allowed to surrender to Athens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I said it because someone said it isn't a valid CB.If you're having trouble keeping up with the thread, I suggest starting at the beginning and slowly working your way in. It's easier that way. Okay. So your argument is: The reason for war is valid because there is war. That's just terrible logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Yes, I do want peace once TPF has been punished for their crimes.I am not a proponent of eternal war. Then again, your logic is flawed! Indeed, If you fuel peace with war, we can only have more wars because, you see, acts of war during the war will lead to a new war wich will itself cause more acts of war during the war leading to a new war! Then again you might say "Athens was not a war with TPF". However, attacking TPF is an act of war against IRON since they seems to be our friends. Answering it would lead to AN ACT OF WAR. OH NO! This is why we will just ignore this attack to provide the PEACE TO CN. I fear that I have said too much, I will probably get fired from IRON for REVEALING OUR MASTER PLAN. But if that is the price to pay for IRON, well I'm sure I can make a career in MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Then why was TPF allowed to surrender to Athens? Athens never had peace talks with TPF because it wasn't aware of the acts of war done to it by TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Then again, your logic is flawed!Indeed, If you fuel peace with war, we can only have more wars because, you see, acts of war during the war will lead to a new war wich will itself cause more acts of war during the war leading to a new war! Then again you might say "Athens was not a war with TPF". However, attacking TPF is an act of war against IRON since they seems to be our friends. Answering it would lead to AN ACT OF WAR. OH NO! This is why we will just ignore this attack to provide the PEACE TO CN. I fear that I have said too much, I will probably get fired from IRON for REVEALING OUR MASTER PLAN. But if that is the price to pay for IRON, well I'm sure I can make a career in MK. I am in tears. My nation will need a bit of time to recover before formulating a response to this. You are quite ridiculous good sir please try reading the thread before posting a reply that is quite insane. You also smell of stale raspberries D: Edited December 29, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Athens never had peace talks with TPF because it wasn't aware of the acts of war done to it by TPF. Yet we still surrendered to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Okay. So your argument is: The reason for war is valid because there is war.That's just terrible logic. Nope. Reading comprehension is your friend! What I meant was the valid/not valid argument is retarded because one side will always say it is while the other will deny it. Regardless of which side is true, there's still a war going on. Continue to argue semantics for hours though, if that's how you get your kicks. I won't stop you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Athens never had peace talks with TPF because it wasn't aware of the acts of war done to it by TPF. So TPF was Allowed to surrender to Athens because of there own shortsightedness and incompetence. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Nope. Reading comprehension is your friend!What I meant was the valid/not valid argument is retarded because one side will always say it is while the other will deny it. Regardless of which side is true, there's still a war going on. Continue to argue semantics for hours though, if that's how you get your kicks. I won't stop you. Well that's different. It's also wrong, but at least it's not as logically revolting as the other one. So that's a step up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Then again, your logic is flawed!Indeed, If you fuel peace with war, we can only have more wars because, you see, acts of war during the war will lead to a new war wich will itself cause more acts of war during the war leading to a new war! Then again you might say "Athens was not a war with TPF". However, attacking TPF is an act of war against IRON since they seems to be our friends. Answering it would lead to AN ACT OF WAR. OH NO! This is why we will just ignore this attack to provide the PEACE TO CN. I fear that I have said too much, I will probably get fired from IRON for REVEALING OUR MASTER PLAN. But if that is the price to pay for IRON, well I'm sure I can make a career in MK. You're logic, or rather lack thereof, is utterly insane. Yet we still surrendered to them. Did you talk to athens about surrendering and get them to agree? 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.