brother in arms Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 57th, I am disappoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yes, this war was stupid, the last war was stupid... yet you all !@#$%* and cry when the wars end. Make up your minds. All I want is for one war announcement that says something like: We here at [alliance A] really don't like those mother $%&@ers over in [alliance B]. That said, we're just gonna bomb the !@#$ out of them. What's our CB you ask? $%&@ you, that's our CB. Just for once say what you mean people and do want you want because you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 So hostility towards each other to the extent that one plans to hit another on a chain of around 9 ODP's isn't enough of a reason for war... you have to use someone elses CB and dress it up as helping allies? so long as the treaties chain together properly, it doesnt matter if they like you or not. They clearly said their ability to do this depended on how the DoWs fell. The fact that they dont like you doesnt make it not justified, but it does make it a hell of a lot more fun to them. Had they planned to DoW you without treaty ties, I am certain the folks from BOTH sides would have put a stop to that...See MHA in Karma war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 So what's the current argument by the wrong side? That pre-emptive strikes are immoral? Does that nonsense even warrant a response? If you know someone is gonna stab you in the back the moment you turn around, you knock them out first. Solid evidence, solid case, solid CB, take em down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I'm going to have to say this. Extremely poor show 57th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I would say it was bad luck and timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dramaus Katan Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) You heard it from their own mouth. All suspicious have been confirmed.They already admitted that. Have you ever considered joining the 57th? No. Not a big fan of pre-emptive myself. Maybe that's just the righteousness in me. So So what's the current argument by the wrong side? That pre-emptive strikes are immoral?Does that nonsense even warrant a response? If you know someone is gonna stab you in the back the moment you turn around, you knock them out first. Solid evidence, solid case, solid CB, take em down. So what if the information turns out to be wrong and that they decided to put the knife away? Which in this case, that's what happen. Edited January 3, 2010 by Dramaus Katan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyroman Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) The timing has nothing to do with any ebil plans on the 57th's part. I think it's obvious that the 57th had no clue the war was ending tonight. And why would they? Usually the night after 25 alliances DoW, !@#$ happens and the GRL goes alla way up. The 57th made a poor decision with the pre-emptive strike, and the fact that white peace was issued a minute before they did so just exacerbates the issue. Edited January 3, 2010 by Pyroman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 So what if the information turns out to be wrong and that they decided to put the knife away? Which in this case, that's what happen. They didn't put it away, they put it behind their back and whistled innocently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 God 57th, what did you really hope to accomplish by preemptively attacking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brother in arms Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 God 57th, what did you really hope to accomplish by preemptively attacking? One would assume the answer to be "assisted suicide" or victory. My guess is the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 God 57th, what did you really hope to accomplish by preemptively attacking? This was a righteous cause and I dare you to disagree. Back up your words for once, conebone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I would ask that any member of NSO that feels the need to post here please be mindful of their comments. The NSO is not involved in this conflict and while it does somewhat effect our trading sphere until such time as our actual treaty partners are involved we should hold our tongues as much as possible regarding the specifics of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 So first Browncoats try to take advantage of all the smoke on the battlefield to attack someone who they just dont like... now they get hit back, and Nemesis, who has $%&@-all to do with 57th or BC decide to attack the 57th as well?Welp, here's the tailspin. I know I'm waiting for it No. Browncoats was planning to enter the war via treaties. Everyone check the time stamps, for Christ's sake. We posted this *1 minute* after RoK announced the TPF war was over; we had our nations declaring even before then. So we couldn't stop attacking because the war was still on. It's just that by the time the topic was posted, RoK had announced peace in the TPF war for all combatants. I'm very sorry you weren't in the loop about white peace. Maybe you should have also spied on the CC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 so long as the treaties chain together properly, it doesnt matter if they like you or not. They clearly said their ability to do this depended on how the DoWs fell. The fact that they dont like you doesnt make it not justified, but it does make it a hell of a lot more fun to them. Had they planned to DoW you without treaty ties, I am certain the folks from BOTH sides would have put a stop to that...See MHA in Karma war. Well, the don't chain together properly. The 57th are a small alliance, are you saying whoever they attacked, plus LoSS, plus Nemesis, plus CoJ would have needed Browncoats to come in and save the day aggressively with an ODP? I'm not going to lie, 57th could have easliy ignored this and just waited for the next time they'd be outnumbered in a war that BC could take advantage of. But rather than waiting to be attacked they've pre-emptively granted BC what they wish they had the balls to do themselves and go for a war right now. Again, I fail to see the problem, maybe I need to attend the Athens school for cb's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) This was a righteous cause and I dare you to disagree. Back up your words for once, conebone. Yeah, well, I double dog dare you to dare me to back up my words... or something... ...I hate you. Edited January 3, 2010 by ConeBone69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Well, the don't chain together properly. The 57th are a small alliance, are you saying whoever they attacked, plus LoSS, plus Nemesis, plus CoJ would have needed Browncoats to come in and save the day aggressively with an ODP?I'm not going to lie, 57th could have easliy ignored this and just waited for the next time they'd be outnumbered in a war that BC could take advantage of. But rather than waiting to be attacked they've pre-emptively granted BC what they wish they had the balls to do themselves and go for a war right now. Again, I fail to see the problem, maybe I need to attend the Athens school for cb's. The issue is this, wars to end alliances are not cool. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I would ask that any member of NSO that feels the need to post here please be mindful of their comments.The NSO is not involved in this conflict and while it does somewhat effect our trading sphere until such time as our actual treaty partners are involved we should hold our tongues as much as possible regarding the specifics of the war. That is a great idea. I think I should say that it should go for everyone as well, though I know I'll be ignored. Well, the don't chain together properly. The 57th are a small alliance, are you saying whoever they attacked, plus LoSS, plus Nemesis, plus CoJ would have needed Browncoats to come in and save the day aggressively with an ODP?I'm not going to lie, 57th could have easliy ignored this and just waited for the next time they'd be outnumbered in a war that BC could take advantage of. But rather than waiting to be attacked they've pre-emptively granted BC what they wish they had the balls to do themselves and go for a war right now. Again, I fail to see the problem, maybe I need to attend the Athens school for cb's. Regarding the "Attacking aggressively via ODP" part: Look at CoJ's DoW topic, it states that we have an ODOAP with them, and we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 The issue is this, wars to end alliances are not cool. Ever. I would also like to agree with this. Browncoats never intended to "end" the 57th Overlanders. However, I hear that's what they want of us (insert Kodiak saying things here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yeah, well, I double dog dare you to dare me to back up my words... or something......I hate you. Once again an NSO member backs down from a fight. Let it be noted. It's a good thing you have Ivan to keep you guys in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 The issue is this, wars to end alliances are not cool. Ever. Agreed. However I'm pretty sure that was just a figure of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 All I want is for one war announcement that says something like:Just for once say what you mean people and do want you want because you want to. We here at Neo Keltica really don't like those mother $%&@ers over in Bourbon. That said, we're just gonna bomb the !@#$ out of them. What's our CB you ask? $%&@ you, that's our CB. better? <3 you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Agreed. However I'm pretty sure that was just a figure of speech. I can assure you, it wasn't a figure of speech. Edited January 3, 2010 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Once again an NSO member backs down from a fight. Let it be noted. It's a good thing you have Ivan to keep you guys in line. I haven't backed down yet, you better watch your back for the next 6 months, you never know when it might come. Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodiak Posted January 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) I would also like to agree with this. Browncoats never intended to "end" the 57th Overlanders. However, I hear that's what they want of us (insert Kodiak saying things here). Yeah, for what it's worth...that was the wrong choice of words on my part, and apologies for any confusion that went with that. I'm not going to make excuses, I'm not known for being a diplomat. What I had meant to say is we're looking for a surrender here, and we continue to look for a surrender. Edited January 3, 2010 by Kodiak 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.