The Following Program has been rated G

[Chief Savage Man]

We are planning for a long war, not an eternal war. \m/ will be damaged but not destroyed.

[Alterego]

Standing by your ally is a good thing. Good luck

[Khyber]

Bob you are being obtuse. It is wise strategy to expect and plan for the worst. Why wouldn't they prep like it is going to be a long haul? All the cards are in NpO's hand and there is no indication that they have peace in mind.

Airme, follow my logic steps for a moment, and explain to me why you think Bob is wrong.

NpO has put down what the terms of peace are to \m/ and now carried them over to PC. Not exactly sure what they are, but I think some kind of apology or surrender or some such. Both \m/ and PC have not called on any other allies from my understanding. But PC and \m/ have two choices, deal out as much damage as they possibly can in as short of a time frame, then surrender, meaning those 0 nukes or bust can be done in lets say 1 week, or they can do more damage to NpO but at the cost of forcing this war to go to the point where your forceing your enemy to collect in nuclear anarchy, we are looking at 3 weeks of war or more to achieve that, and then surrendering.

Any nations fighting 3 to 1 odds for 3 weeks will be in the less then 1k infra mark. Most nations fighting for 2 weeks will be in the 1k infra mark or less. And those that fought for a week can generally expect to drop down 5k infra. This will leave most of your alliances in tatters, and perhaps 1/3 still strong. Warchests will be somewhat depleted depending on their standards for the first wave, but first and second wave would be able to build up to 6k infra if they packed a good chest. The tech damage and land damage however will be extensive.

In the end your accepting the surrender terms unless your hoping to turn public opinion on to your side in that time frame or get the NpO to lower their demands for peace, something I doubt. Lastly they could be trying to get their allies to put pressure on NpO. So yes maybe option 2 is viable if your hoping on those long shots, but I would have gone option 1 gone all out, and hoped that this would be a one week war and my allies or public opinion or something makes NpO back down. I however don't think it is the case, and since I believe they are in it for the long haul, I think their alliance will suffer some major destruction. All this is acceptable, and honestly it is something I respect, but saying the decision they are making will destroy their alliances, something they can rebuild from, is true.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Khyber

[AirMe]

Airme, follow my logic steps for a moment, and explain to me why you think Bob is wrong.

NpO has put down what the terms of peace are to \m/ and now carried them over to PC. Not exactly sure what they are, but I think some kind of apology or surrender or some such. Both \m/ and PC have not called on any other allies from my understanding. But PC and \m/ have two choices, deal out as much damage as they possibly can in as short of a time frame, then surrender, meaning those 0 nukes or bust can be done in lets say 1 week, or they can do more damage to NpO but at the cost of forcing this war to go to the point where your forceing your enemy to collect in nuclear anarchy, we are looking at 3 weeks of war or more to achieve that, and then surrendering.

Any nations fighting 3 to 1 odds for 3 weeks will be in the less then 1k infra mark. Most nations fighting for 2 weeks will be in the 1k infra mark or less. And those that fought for a week can generally expect to drop down 5k infra. This will leave most of your alliances in tatters, and perhaps 1/3 still strong. Warchests will be somewhat depleted depending on their standards for the first wave, but first and second wave would be able to build up to 6k infra if they packed a good chest. The tech damage and land damage however will be extensive.

In the end your accepting the surrender terms unless your hoping to turn public opinion on to your side in that time frame or get the NpO to lower their demands for peace, something I doubt. Lastly they could be trying to get their allies to put pressure on NpO. So yes maybe option 2 is viable if your hoping on those long shots, but I would have gone option 1 gone all out, and hoped that this would be a one week war and my allies or public opinion or something makes NpO back down. I however don't think it is the case, and since I believe they are in it for the long haul, I think their alliance will suffer some major destruction. All this is acceptable, and honestly it is something I respect, but saying the decision they are making will destroy their alliances, something they can rebuild from, is untrue.

I will only reply with expect the worst, hope for the best. It is just being short sighted not to plan for the worst. Those of us who have fought wars as the underdog know that.

[Trout]

Really no surprise here. Have fun, PC.

[Krunk the Great]

We are planning for an eternal war. \m/ will be destroyed.

I fixed this to reflect truth.

[Caliph]

Airme, follow my logic steps for a moment, and explain to me why you think Bob is wrong.

NpO has put down what the terms of peace are to \m/ and now carried them over to PC. Not exactly sure what they are, but I think some kind of apology or surrender or some such. Both \m/ and PC have not called on any other allies from my understanding. But PC and \m/ have two choices, deal out as much damage as they possibly can in as short of a time frame, then surrender, meaning those 0 nukes or bust can be done in lets say 1 week, or they can do more damage to NpO but at the cost of forcing this war to go to the point where your forceing your enemy to collect in nuclear anarchy, we are looking at 3 weeks of war or more to achieve that, and then surrendering.

Any nations fighting 3 to 1 odds for 3 weeks will be in the less then 1k infra mark. Most nations fighting for 2 weeks will be in the 1k infra mark or less. And those that fought for a week can generally expect to drop down 5k infra. This will leave most of your alliances in tatters, and perhaps 1/3 still strong. Warchests will be somewhat depleted depending on their standards for the first wave, but first and second wave would be able to build up to 6k infra if they packed a good chest. The tech damage and land damage however will be extensive.

In the end your accepting the surrender terms unless your hoping to turn public opinion on to your side in that time frame or get the NpO to lower their demands for peace, something I doubt. Lastly they could be trying to get their allies to put pressure on NpO. So yes maybe option 2 is viable if your hoping on those long shots, but I would have gone option 1 gone all out, and hoped that this would be a one week war and my allies or public opinion or something makes NpO back down. I however don't think it is the case, and since I believe they are in it for the long haul, I think their alliance will suffer some major destruction. All this is acceptable, and honestly it is something I respect, but saying the decision they are making will destroy their alliances, something they can rebuild from, is untrue.

This war was started by Polar, and Polar has the option of giving us peace, or not. We will not surrender because we have done nothing wrong that we have not already worked out with all the involved parties, nor have we done anything wrong that we have not apologized for publicly.

Really this is just an excuse for Polar to flex their military muscles and claim some moral jihad against the evil \m/. Honstly I think its flattering that Polar is so threatened that they have to attack us. I mean Polar knew that when they hit us there was a possibility of them taking damage.

We'll see how well all of us do in this war, because frankly unless some big alliances jump to our side we will be the underdog this entire war.

Criticizing us for deploying the way we have shows that you have no concept of military strategy. We have no intention on making this easy on Polar. Criticizing us for that is akin to NPO and allies crying "FAN jump out of Peace mode so we can attack you", and will get the same response.

[Merrie Melodies]

I fixed this to reflect truth.

Once NSO follows through with public threats made by its members you might be able to make a statement like this with conviction.

[Lord Brendan]

Once NSO follows through with public threats made by its members you might be able to make a statement like this with conviction.

Forget their members, they don't even follow through on threats made by their second-in-command.

[Krunk the Great]

Once NSO follows through with public threats made by its members you might be able to make a statement like this with conviction.

Once \m/ learns basic diplomacy and crowd control, you might be able to try and preach to NSO about our posting habits.

[iamthey]

Good to see PC defending its allies.

Rok?

[Chinatownbus]

Hi CTB, I'm fine, how are you?

....also, welcome back.

Sup JB. You know it's the truth.

[Caliph]

Once \m/ learns basic diplomacy and crowd control, you might be able to try and preach to NSO about our posting habits.

Once we all learn to accept that \m/ diplomacy is not the cause for this war the better off we all will be.

[Khyber]

This war was started by Polar, and Polar has the option of giving us peace, or not. We will not surrender because we have done nothing wrong that we have not already worked out with all the involved parties, nor have we done anything wrong that we have not apologized for publicly.

Really this is just an excuse for Polar to flex their military muscles and claim some moral jihad against the evil \m/. Honstly I think its flattering that Polar is so threatened that they have to attack us. I mean Polar knew that when they hit us there was a possibility of them taking damage.

We'll see how well all of us do in this war, because frankly unless some big alliances jump to our side we will be the underdog this entire war.

Criticizing us for deploying the way we have shows that you have no concept of military strategy. We have no intention on making this easy on Polar. Criticizing us for that is akin to NPO and allies crying "FAN jump out of Peace mode so we can attack you", and will get the same response.

You also have the option of seeking peace if you capitulate to the NpO's demands. Wrong or not, sometimes it may not be worth it to continue the war. While I understand this is all retoric right now, someone will have to give in at some point, wiether it be you or the NpO.

You are right about being the underdog in this war.

Also I was not criticizing you. I deployed as you did against GOONS. We were planning for a longer war until we were told to get out of it by the people we were defending. And I was in FAN when NPO was crying about how we were using peace mode to bill lock their nations in nuclear anarchy. Two stratigies serve different purposes. Yours does more damage in the long run, but less in the short run to your enemy. The other is more short term damage but less in the long run. Both viable stratigies, both work well to do their chosen task. I was simply argueing Airme's critic of Bob.

Airme: Hope for the best, plan for the worst is not the best stratigy. Analysing and being able to predict things will serve you better in most cases. Predict wrong and your up chocolate river without a lolly pop sure, but if your good at it, it will seperate you from the others. If this war ended in a week, their stratigy would have been the wrong way to go, but since they have a great deal of control over when it ends, much like NpO has, this is likely going to be a 3 week affair.

[Krunk the Great]

Once we all learn to accept that \m/ diplomacy is not the cause for this war the better off we all will be.

Of course, it is all about \m/ not understanding the concept of controlling what their members say in public so as not to get the alliance and her allies rolled.

[IronMan17]

Once NSO follows through with public threats made by its members you might be able to make a statement like this with conviction.

Forget their members, they don't even follow through on threats made by their second-in-command.

NSO is a bunch of babies. They give threats and back off the second someone comes to them. They are infra-whores and sadly still suck as an alliance.

This war makes me bored, needs more warr!!!!!

[Krunk the Great]

They give threats and back off the second someone comes to them.

Because, RIA voting to !@#$% out was our fault.

[Caliph]

You also have the option of seeking peace if you capitulate to the NpO's demands. Wrong or not, sometimes it may not be worth it to continue the war. While I understand this is all retoric right now, someone will have to give in at some point, wiether it be you or the NpO.

You are right about being the underdog in this war.

Also I was not criticizing you. I deployed as you did against GOONS. We were planning for a longer war until we were told to get out of it by the people we were defending. And I was in FAN when NPO was crying about how we were using peace mode to bill lock their nations in nuclear anarchy. Two stratigies serve different purposes. Yours does more damage in the long run, but less in the short run to your enemy. The other is more short term damage but less in the long run. Both viable stratigies, both work well to do their chosen task. I was simply argueing Airme's critic of Bob.

Bob was speaking against our commitment to make this a "real" war, to defend our basic alliance rights as specified in our charter.

It seems Bob would have preferred if we all stayed in war mode and let Polar hit us 3 on 1 in the first week.

We have principles, we have our own moral code and our own beliefs in right and wrong. We do nto see Polar being in the right here, and remember it was Polar who decided that war was the only option.

It seems like you understand the strategies involved. Now only if we could fast forward a week to see if its the right thing for this war

[Merrie Melodies]

Forget their members, they don't even follow through on threats made by their second-in-command.

Well I said member since Ivan stated else where that only he has any official say, so I just assumed NSO's second in command was nothing more than a member where the OWF was concerned.

[Krunk the Great]

it was Polar who decided that war was the only option.

And your Unapologetic Announcement concerning IRC activities did nothing to help it of course.

\m/ wins again

[Lennox]

NSO is a bunch of babies. They give threats and back off the second someone comes to them. They are infra-whores and sadly still suck as an alliance.

This war makes me bored, needs more warr!!!!!

Ah yes. Pot...Kettle.

[Caliph]

Of course, it is all about \m/ not understanding the concept of controlling what their members say in public so as not to get the alliance and her allies rolled.

Stop drinking the coolaid

This is all about Polar trying to force their moral code on \m/ because \m/ believes certain thing are ok and Polar doesn't.

If \m/ diplomacy had been "better" you would simply see a differently worded OP here by Grub. Believing anything else is simply false.

Polar wanted this war. Now we are in war. Just because \m/ didn't back down when Polar threatened us.

But please, if it makes you feel any better, continue to think this war is about \m/ diplomacy. The rest of us know what is really going on here.

[Merrie Melodies]

Of course, it is all about \m/ not understanding the concept of controlling what their members say in public so as not to get the alliance and her allies rolled.

I regret that those comments were made in the manner they were, if they hadn't we could have gave Grub the diplomatic answer we had prepared "Pack Sand"

[Caliph]

And your Unapologetic Announcement concerning IRC activities did nothing to help it of course.

\m/ wins again

Our "unapologetic" announcement was saying we were sorry Grub was so offended by our conduct in our own public IRC chan.

My personal views are that \m/ gov could have handled it differently, but what also must be understood is that \m/ doesn't back down when another alliance threatens us to change our ways "or else".

We can act how we like in our IRC rooms, just as you act how you like in yours. You would appreciate another alliance coming in and threatening you to either change how you act in IRC or face war, so why is it acceptable for Polar to do that to \m/?

[Krunk the Great]

Stop drinking the coolaid

This is all about Polar trying to force their moral code on \m/ because \m/ believes certain thing are ok and Polar doesn't.

If \m/ diplomacy had been "better" you would simply see a differently worded OP here by Grub. Believing anything else is simply false.

Polar wanted this war. Now we are in war. Just because \m/ didn't back down when Polar threatened us.

But please, if it makes you feel any better, continue to think this war is about \m/ diplomacy. The rest of us know what is really going on here.

This is about \m/ pissing off a much larger alliance and trying to twist it into a sick PR stunt.

Try again.