WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Let me see if I'm getting this right. IRON and co.'s whole argument right now is that Athens and such is out to "get them." Really? Honestly we could care less if you guys defend them or not. We'd like a war of course now and then or this planet would be rather dull, but if you don't then whatever. I mean it's obviously cowardly not to do it (except for the alliances whom have a treaty that forbid espionage acts, which include IRON?) You guys know you can defend TPF and still disagree with them though right? That there's no need for mocking once you uphold your treaty and we'd have a merry good time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Honestly we could care less if you guys defend them or not. The 50 threads per hour you lot are making say otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I didn't know we had any beef with IRON and co >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If everyone was out to get them, wouldn't it make more sense to mount a collective defense, instead of letting one of their own get picked off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smacky Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I do expect that IRON will "be ready" at some point in the next couple days, but it wouldn't be a shock to see them !@#$% out. Once a coward always a coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) The 50 threads per hour you lot are making say otherwise What alliances are the people whom created those threads from again? Edited December 29, 2009 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 The 50 threads per hour you lot are making say otherwise This is an alien concept, I know, but some of us simply like large wars. It's not any personal vendetta against TPF's allies; if my former alliance was one of said allies, I'd still want to fight them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Honestly we could care less if you guys defend them or not. I am expressing my serious doubt about that for several reasons. The amount of posts covering this (coming from your side), including this thread. Indicates otherwise. The size of IRON which makes them at least somewhat noticeable and as such deserving of some attention (can do some damage, that bunch) and care no matter how much you outnumber them. I do expect that IRON will "be ready" at some point in the next couple days, but it wouldn't be a shock to see them !@#$% out. Once a coward always a coward. Not necessarily. They may make a strategic decision and gamble to wait for some more favorable times to smack some people around. Edited December 29, 2009 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I am expressing my serious doubt about that for several reasons.The amount of posts covering this (coming from your side), including this thread. Indicates otherwise. The size of IRON which makes them at least somewhat noticeable and as such deserving of some attention (can do some damage, that bunch) and care no matter how much you outnumber them. The posts are mainly from people who have prepared to fight to defend their ally but are disappointed into seeing an alliance back out (thus far). They were expecting a show down and are disappointed, but the point of this war isn't about IRON or whatever other alliance thinks there's a master plan against. This thread is more to clarify those points and express the bewilderment at IRON actually thinking that this conflict is some super secret way to get to hit them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 This thread is more to clarify those points and express the bewilderment at IRON actually thinking that this conflict is some super secret way to get to hit them. It reads out that way at moments, so I dunno. I don't really believe your thread will influence them much either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It reads out that way at moments, so I dunno. I don't really believe your thread will influence them much either way. Maybe it does, but what I just said really is the point of this thread. And yeah I suppose so, I was just hoping they would use their "tpf is our ally" argument for this war instead of the "super sekrit plotz against us" one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 The posts are mainly from people who have prepared to fight to defend their ally but are disappointed into seeing an alliance back out (thus far). They were expecting a show down and are disappointed, but the point of this war isn't about IRON or whatever other alliance thinks there's a master plan against. You mean the people who knew about this last week and were prepared are annoyed that [ooc]during christmas[ooc] people arent all sitting ready waiting and organised to respond. Can you link me the post or thread showing who backed out This thread is more to clarify those points and express the bewilderment at IRON actually thinking that this conflict is some super secret way to get to hit them. I see no proof to say it isnt much like the lack of spy proof for this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You mean the people who knew about this last week and were prepared are annoyed that [ooc]during christmas[ooc] people arent all sitting ready waiting and organised to respond. Can you link me the post or thread showing who backed out I'm sorry that some alliances actually have a decent military and can be ready to war in about 10 minutes. Also I can show you Lack of war for TPF, but like I said they can still jump in eventually. I see no proof to say it isnt much like the lack of spy proof for this war. Are you saying this is a secret plot to destroy IRON? :v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I'm sorry that some alliances actually have a decent military and can be ready to war in about 10 minutes. Also I can show you Lack of war for TPF, but like I said they can still jump in eventually. First, I accept your apology. Second, no no one backed out then, yes? Are you saying this is a secret plot to destroy IRON? :v Im saying there is as much evidence that this is a plot against IRON as there was that Athens was spied on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 First, I accept your apology. Second, no no one backed out then, yes? I acknowledge your !@#$ty militaries. Im saying there is as much evidence that this is a plot against IRON as there was that Athens was spied on. You mean besides mhawk and tpf admitting to the whole plot, just it not lasting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 If everyone was out to get them, wouldn't it make more sense to mount a collective defense, instead of letting one of their own get picked off? Strategy isn't for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) I acknowledge your !@#$ty militaries. I need no lecture about military stuff from someone who let his alliance disappear rather than put up a fight. You mean besides mhawk and tpf admitting to the whole plot, just it not lasting? So you agree zero spying was done just the ground work for something during a war that was never carried out. Edited December 30, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I need no lecture about military stuff from someone who let his alliance disappear rather than put up a fight. It's pretty obvious you have no argument and no clue when you have to pull this line out all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 It's okay if you needed to wait for your knight in shining armor to say he'll help you. So you agree zero spying was done just the ground work for something during a war. Once you admit it was aimed against an alliance they weren't at war with and never got peace from for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Given the implications of attacking TPF with such a questionable CB without a second of diplomacy, I don't think it's outrageous that some believe ulterior motives are also in play. You've done nothing to disprove this point of view, so I don't see what purpose this thread serves except to make this possibility seem silly to those that haven't thought about it or whose bias will make them likely to believe it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 We just want to give peace a chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Given the implications of attacking TPF with such a questionable CB without a second of diplomacy, I don't think it's outrageous that some believe ulterior motives are also in play. You've done nothing to disprove this point of view, so I don't see what purpose this thread serves except to make this possibility seem silly to those that haven't thought about it or whose bias will make them likely to believe it anyway. You're acting as if every alliance war in history has given the defender a chance at diplomacy first. Where was TOP's diplomacy during GWIII when you guys attacked GATO over a photoshopped image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're acting as if every alliance war in history has given the defender a chance at diplomacy first. Where was TOP's diplomacy during GWIII when you guys attacked GATO over a photoshopped image? Oh come on WC, it isn't hard to prove a negative now, is it? Just provide proof of the non-plot and we can put this to rest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're acting as if every alliance war in history has given the defender a chance at diplomacy first. Where was TOP's diplomacy during GWIII when you guys attacked GATO over a photoshopped image? When your CB is questionable to the point that all of your target's allies may come into play, and by extension the allies of those allies, etc, it would seem rational to first see if things can be settled diplomatically without causing massive harm to yourself and your allies. If however your goal is to attack and exact much damage upon your target and its allies then it does make sense to go in, guns blazing, with several allies. The blatant taunting of its allies only adds more weight to this perspective. And again, you've no proof that this is not the case and you don't seem to be attempting to disprove it, rather you're just calling those who do believe this silly and hoping that others will follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Oh come on WC, it isn't hard to prove a negative now, is it? Just provide proof of the non-plot and we can put this to rest! This is not a plot Done 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.