RandomInterrupt Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) I love you to death, but you have no horse in this race and shouldn't be putting your nose and allegiances at risk to play the moral police. If FoA and \m/ resolved it. It is resolved. When the weak are being bullied then Polar does indeed have a horse in the race. Always have and I wouldn't bet on it changing. Welcome to Planet Bob. You should stop by and maybe get to know the New Polar Order. Hey guys remember what happened last time NpO took a big !@#$ all over their allies? Yeah me too. Fools like you tried to stop us and failed? Edited January 19, 2010 by RandomInterrupt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 When the weak are being bullied then Polar does indeed have a horse in the race. Always have and I wouldn't bet on it changing. Welcome to Planet Bob. You should stop by and maybe get to know the New Polar Order. I know and like you guys, but sometimes you don't need to use a sledgehammer when a pen would do the job just as well if not better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 *Had*, and it won't be the only ally you alienate if Grub continues his reckless delusions of grandeur. I think Grub knows what he is doing and doesn't really care about your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 When the weak are being bullied then Polar does indeed have a horse in the race Doing it, maybe. Don't try and act all high and mighty Random, we both know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Amazing how people are willing to move on from situations like this so quickly once it's their nations on the line. Your sins haven't been forgiven. Okay Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Hey guys remember what happened last time NpO took a big !@#$ all over their allies? Yeah me too.Hey guys remember what happened last time someone compared two completely different situations? Yeah me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Doing it, maybe. Don't try and act all high and mighty Random, we both know better. There are doers and there are talkers. We are doers and you never shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Okay Jesus.Perhaps you don't understand, Choader. Just because people want to flee the repercussions of attacking a defenseless alliance doesn't mean they get to. Maybe you believe they should be able to. We disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Perhaps you don't understand, Choader. Just because people want to flee the repercussions of attacking a defenseless alliance doesn't mean they get to. Maybe you believe they should be able to. We disagree. That's what I don't understand. what repercussions are there from attack a defenseless alliance? If there are repercussions then they were never defenseless in the first place, and if you're defending them then why are you in the business of signing secret treaties. Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0 It's called sovereignty, you might have heard of it sometime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Hey guys remember what happened last time NpO took a big !@#$ all over their allies? Yeah me too. They came back stronger than ever and are creeping up on 1st place? How's GOD doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 *Had*, and it won't be the only ally you alienate if Grub continues his reckless delusions of grandeur. Don't worry about Polaris' allies, only the loyal ones matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I know and like you guys, but sometimes you don't need to use a sledgehammer when a pen would do the job just as well if not better. Last time some one pulled this trick (Athens) Grub used the pen, the precedent was set. FOA's attackers understood our public stance on issues like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 It's called sovereignty, you might have heard of it sometime? Do what you please then, I hope the support you think you have materializes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 They came back stronger than ever and are creeping up on 1st place? How's GOD doing? Slow and steady wins the race Hizzy oh admin, now I'm using the smiley >_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 That's what I don't understand. what repercussions are there from attack a defenseless alliance? If there are repercussions then they were never defenseless in the first place, and if you're defending them then why are you in the business of signing secret treaties. Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0I must have missed the memo where you have to have a treaty with someone to defend them. You would have done well as an apologist for Q during the GPA war. Eh, not really done well, but beggars can't be choosers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Last time some one pulled this trick (Athens) Grub used the pen, the precedent was set. FOA's attackers understood our public stance on issues like this. Except this time they were your direct allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 That's what I don't understand. what repercussions are there from attack a defenseless alliance? If there are repercussions then they were never defenseless in the first place, and if you're defending them then why are you in the business of signing secret treaties. Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0 If alliances like yours don't need a CB for attack defenseless alliances why we need a treaty to defend them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Except this time they were your direct allies. I believe that makes the situation worse, to disregard our stance and claim to be "close" allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 That's what I don't understand. what repercussions are there from attack a defenseless alliance? If there are repercussions then they were never defenseless in the first place, and if you're defending them then why are you in the business of signing secret treaties. Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0 Treaties are meant to show that you are obligated to defend an alliance, not to be the only way to defend an alliance. We all need to learn a lesson from NSO, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 If alliances like yours don't need a CB for attack defenseless alliances why we need a treaty to defend them? See, this I can agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 That's what I don't understand. what repercussions are there from attack a defenseless alliance? If there are repercussions then they were never defenseless in the first place, and if you're defending them then why are you in the business of signing secret treaties. Oh, you don't have a treaty? I must have missed the CN-wide Revenge doctrine 2.0 Not to get all lawyery here, but there was this, something many here, at the time at least, agreed to be common sense on Planet Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I believe that makes the situation worse, to disregard our stance and claim to be "close" allies. So before canceling did you talk to them? Or was it a 1 strike and your out deal? Allies deserve more than one strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Do what you please then, I hope the support you think you have materializes. Aw, there's no need to get all mushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 So before canceling did you talk to them? Or was it a 1 strike and your out deal? Allies deserve more than one strike.Suffice it to say, this isn't the first strike, AirMe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts