Tygaland Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Well, now that has been put to rest we can move on. Edited December 30, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 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. The CB is questionable only to you guys (well, the guys not declaring the war). I'd imagine that if the goal was to hurt the target and its allies they'd likely attack the target and its allies right away without giving the allies any chance to build up. Also where's that diplomacy TOP tried in GWIII again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 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? This isn't why IRON isn't defending us. They don't even care about the Athens thing. They found out about deeds far more dastardly and that's why they're staying home. Zero Hours spy within TPF somehow found out that it was us who poisoned Moo with the swine flu during the Karma War. The purpose of doing that was so our spies in NPO could take over and accept any crappy peace agrement that came along. When that didn't work we peaced out FAN, of course. I think those two reasons are why IRON is holding out on us. But I could be wrong. Or making it all up. I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 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. so what you are saying is that because you think the CB is questionable and are being taunted, you should not have to uphold your word and honor by defending your ally? wonderful. simply wonderful. o/ Pixels/1s&0s > Friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The CB is questionable only to you guys (well, the guys not declaring the war). I'd imagine that if the goal was to hurt the target and its allies they'd likely attack the target and its allies right away without giving the allies any chance to build up. Well, the target certainly was hit without anytime to build up (and at the worst time of year). A preemptive attack wouldn't be as effective as that would hurt your side's PR, which you've been vigorously trying to defend; nor would such an attack make any sense because if we're to believe the CB then TPF is guilty of espionage and worse so many of TPF's allies wouldn't be bound to defend them. You still aren't proving your point and are simply trying to discredit it by calling it absurd. So I ask you, is the idea that the war on TPF is aimed also at some of those on TPF's side impossible? If not, what is the purpose of this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 so what you are saying is that because you think the CB is questionable and are being taunted, you should not have to uphold your word and honor by defending your ally? wonderful. simply wonderful. o/ Pixels/1s&0s > Friends. I didn't come to that conclusion. But I suppose you will hear what you want to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Well, the target certainly was hit without anytime to build up (and at the worst time of year). A preemptive attack wouldn't be as effective as that would hurt your side's PR, which you've been vigorously trying to defend; nor would such an attack make any sense because if we're to believe the CB then TPF is guilty of espionage and worse so many of TPF's allies wouldn't be bound to defend them. Well yes, there's no reason to allow the target to build up. The time of year is largely irrelevant tbh, this is Planet Bob . Are you implying also that TPF's allies wouldn't defend them if the CB was even more solid however? You still aren't proving your point and are simply trying to discredit it by calling it absurd. So I ask you, is the idea that the war on TPF is aimed also at some of those on TPF's side impossible? If not, what is the purpose of this thread? You're asking me to prove a negative. The crux is on you to prove that there's a plot to "get you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 so what you are saying is that because you think the CB is questionable and are being taunted, you should not have to uphold your word and honor by defending your ally? wonderful. simply wonderful. o/ Pixels/1s&0s > Friends. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion/response from what he posted. Maybe you quoted the wrong post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Any reasonable (and honest) observer would have to conclude that the primary target of this war isn't TPF, and that getting to knock TPF back down is just icing on the cake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're asking me to prove a negative. The crux is on you to prove that there's a plot to "get you." No, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion; you seem to assert that it's absurd to think that there are no ulterior motives at play. While I do believe that there are, I'm not the one who made a thread about it. I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact, just stating what it is based on the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You still aren't proving your point and are simply trying to discredit it by calling it absurd. So I ask you, is the idea that the war on TPF is aimed also at some of those on TPF's side impossible? If not, what is the purpose of this thread? Probably not. It seems that Athens and RoK considered the issue with ZH for one day before declaring war. They probably saw mhawk go into peace mode (which might have been a mistake ) and decided to attack TPF before the whole membership went to war. However, you are correct in asserting that Athens and Ragnarok did not attempt a diplomatic solution before attacking TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I have no idea how you came to that conclusion/response from what he posted. Maybe you quoted the wrong post? possibly. i had multiple screens up. i apologize to Hayzell for either misreading his post or mixing it up with a different post. well, i think i will be done for a bit to allow my brain to clear up to ensure i do not make anymore mistakes of this nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Any reasonable (and honest) observer would have to conclude that the primary target of this war isn't TPF, and that getting to knock TPF back down is just icing on the cake. why is that? honestly, it appears that TPF is the primary target and that Athens/friends simply assumed that TPF's allies would jump in to defend TPF. i doubt that any alliance who plans a war ever neglects to take the other alliance's friends into account. the issue is the lack of support in terms of military aid that TPF has received. so, i doubt that just any reasonable and honest observer would jump to the conclusion you assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 No, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion; you seem to assert that it's absurd to think that there are no ulterior motives at play. While I do believe that there are, I'm not the one who made a thread about it. I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact, just stating what it is based on the circumstances. So your opinion is not based on any fact or proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) So your opinion is not based on any fact or proof? My opinion is based on what I've observed and my critical thinking skills. I've explained why I hold it, so you already know what it's based on. What is your opinion based on? Edited December 30, 2009 by Hayzell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 My opinion is based on what I've observed and my critical thinking skills. Clearly I've explained why I hold it, so you already know that. What is your opinion based on? The facts that we have backing up our CB and actually knowing ours and our ally's governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkova Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 so what you are saying is that because you think the CB is questionable and are being taunted, you should not have to uphold your word and honor by defending your ally? wonderful. simply wonderful. What he's saying is that before TPF's allies dive in head-first, they'll want to make sure that that isn't exactly what we want them to do. It's one of the stages of military planning. Attacking someone to get at their friends certainly isn't unheard of. You're asking me to prove a negative. The crux is on you to prove that there's a plot to "get you." The governments of those alliances are taking everything into consideration before they decide on a course of action. They're taking their sweet time with it, but still. I would expect ours to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Who cares if this is some secret plot, IRON, you're allies are being attacked. Go go go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The facts that we have backing up our CB and actually knowing ours and our ally's governments. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the attacking gov'ts involved harbor some grudges, both against TPF in particular and ex-Hegemony in general. You still haven't proven your point sir. I realize the importance of your PR campaign but nothing you have said so far discredits the notion you initially mocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The governments of those alliances are taking everything into consideration before they decide on a course of action. They're taking their sweet time with it, but still. I would expect ours to do the same. They have to consider all these things to support their own allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I don't think it's a stretch to think that the attacking gov'ts involved harbor some grudges, both against TPF in particular and ex-Hegemony in general. You still haven't proven your point sir. I realize the importance of your PR campaign but nothing you have said so far discredits the notion you initially mocked. There's your opinions again. If you'd take the time to waddle through our (MK's) embassy with TPF, you'd see that we've given them a clean slate essentially to anything pre-karma war. Given how MK was the main alliance on the TPF front and Athens wasn't even fighting there, it's not much of a stretch at all now is it? Your notion is based on your opinion with no facts to back them, that's like asking me to prove Jesus isn't real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Who cares if this is some secret plot, IRON, you're allies are being attacked. Go go go. I wouldn't expect a ninja to rush head first into a trap. Better to consider things carefully, plan, then act. Assuming of course, IRON is going to attack, the certainty of which I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Probably not. It seems that Athens and RoK considered the issue with ZH for one day before declaring war. They probably saw mhawk go into peace mode (which might have been a mistake ) and decided to attack TPF before the whole membership went to war. However, you are correct in asserting that Athens and Ragnarok did not attempt a diplomatic solution before attacking TPF. According to the Athens cancellation on MASH thread, MASH had given info of a pending attack to TPF, so Athens had to attack sooner rather than later to catch TPF nations before they put up their "Peace Mode" national defense shields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Your notion is based on your opinion with no facts to back them, that's like asking me to prove Jesus isn't real. I think the point is, there is no definitive proof either way. Both our opinions are a result of how we experience the world, something that's different for both of us. Like I said, you haven't proven your point, nor at any point are you going to. It's up to each observer to determine what they believe, based on history, present events, and how they're inclined to view things. That said, I think this conversation has exhausted itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I think the point is, there is no definitive proof either way. Both our opinions are a result of how we experience the world, something that's different for both of us. Like I said, you haven't proven your point, nor at any point are you going to. It's up to each observer to determine what they believe, based on history, present events, and how they're inclined to view things. That said, I think this conversation has exhausted itself. When I make my opinions I normally present facts as well, such as the TPF embassy on MK one and such. 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.