Jump to content

An Echelon Announcement


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1264945125' post='2147468']
Dpn't alliances usually get attacked for this? I mean, I remember you being in support of rolling GATO for breaking a similar term, and LUE got pushed to disbandment after they threw off their surrender terms. If you didn't want the term, you shouldn't have signed it – particularly in exchange for some economic pain, which I believe was the deal.

I don't like the term and I would support diplomatic negotiations with the alliances you surrendered to to remove it. But you can't just say 'Well actually, we signed these terms but we don't believe in them any more'.
[/quote]
This largely sums up my feelings. You can't just negate your own surrender terms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='31 January 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1264951903' post='2147590']
If you have an issue with my alliance, the control of which I have absolutely no say in, please go talk the people in charge. They may actually give a !@#$ about your opinions, because I assure you, I do not.
[/quote]
I dont have an issue with "your alliance" (well this weeks alliance for you) and my posts arent an attempt to convince you of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Otherworld' date='31 January 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1264952084' post='2147594']
Wait.. how is it that we are cowards? Making the most of an opportunity.. on cybernations? How dare we.

But yes.. you're right, we're so cowardly.. I mean it's not like we got that term in the first place by declaring war on about 14 alliances in defence of an ally is it. No wait... it was.
[/quote]

So you're saying you're not cowards for this action, because an action you took months ago just so happens to have not been cowardly?

Nice logic there. The opportunity was right for you to do this now, therefore you're opportunistic. You're all cowards if you had wished to rid yourself of this term but did not do so until now, for fear of retribution. The timing is cowardly, the action is cowardly given the circumstance.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Otherworld' date='31 January 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1264952084' post='2147594']
Wait.. how is it that we are cowards? Making the most of an opportunity.. on cybernations? How dare we.

But yes.. you're right, we're so cowardly.. I mean it's not like we got that term in the first place by declaring war on about 14 alliances in defence of an ally is it. No wait... it was.
[/quote]
Yeah, you defended an ally, after you canceled a treaty with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see you soon. :awesome:

Am I serious or am I not serious, only time will tell. :v:

To be honest, I really don't give a !@#$. :smug:

Also, I'm only 1 member out of the entire government of Athens. So what I say may or may not be acted upon. :blush:

Edited by Jgoods45
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='31 January 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1264952299' post='2147598']
I dont have an issue with "your alliance" (well this weeks alliance for you) and my posts arent an attempt to convince you of anything.
[/quote]

Either your memory is shot to hell, or you're being deliberately dense, because your comment before this one showed me that you do have an issue with my alliance and the way they handle things. Again, since that is the case and you're outright lying to me right now, go talk to the people in charge, they may listen to what you have to say. And, in the meantime, I ask you to kindly refrain from directing any comments towards me that have anything at all to do with my alliance when you know very well I have nothing to do with their actions.

If you can't understand that, then I'll find one of the children of the will smith empire, and have them draw up a little diagram for you in crayon. Maybe you'll understand that.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]So you're saying you're not cowards for this action, because an action you took months ago just so happens to have not been cowardly?[/quote]

Nope, I said we aren't cowards in general, using the war as an example.

[quote]You're all cowards if you had wished to rid yourself of this term but did not do so until now, for fear of retribution. The timing is cowardly, the action is cowardly given the circumstance.[/quote]

[sarcasm]Yes, because GOD and all of the other alliances that imposed the term are being completely destroyed in the war and can't spare any nations to attack lil' old echelon.[/sarcasm]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='31 January 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1264952358' post='2147600']
So you're saying you're not cowards for this action, because an action you took months ago just so happens to have not been cowardly?

Nice logic there. The opportunity was right for you to do this now, therefore you're opportunistic. You're all cowards if you had wished to rid yourself of this term but did not do so until now, for fear of retribution. The timing is cowardly, the action is cowardly given the circumstance.

You're pathetic cowards.
[/quote]

Does opportunism make anybody who demands reparations from a down-trodden opponent 'cowards'? I'm no longer Echelon government (they kicked me out ^_^ ), but to me, this strikes more of a coincidence then anything. Besides, sometimes taking the opportunities you get to do what you want is purely reasonable and logical. Nothing cowardly about making moves at appropriate times. (but again, I still think this was all coincidental timing, this has been in the works for a while.)

Also, don't you have something more important to do then to be getting all up in a huff about being 'cowards'? I think its pretty obvious that we're comfortable with what we are, but if you'd like to continue to exhibit your "wonderful assets" with understanding logic and reason, by all means, continue. Your not hurting our feelings any.

Edited by memoryproblems
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='31 January 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1264952808' post='2147626']
Does opportunism make anybody who demands reparations from a down-trodden opponent 'cowards'? I'm no longer Echelon government (they kicked me out ^_^ ), but to me, this strikes more of a coincidence then anything. Besides, sometimes taking the opportunities you get to do what you want is purely reasonable and logical. Nothing cowardly about making moves at appropriate times. (but again, I still think this was all coincidental timing, this has been in the works for a while.)

Also, don't you have something more important to do then to be getting all up in a huff about being 'cowards'? I think its pretty obvious that we're comfortable with what we are, but if you'd like to continue to exhibit your "wonderful assets" in logic, by all means, continue.
[/quote]

Reparations are a standard part of war on planet bob. Abiding by the terms placed upon your alliance willingly is what honourable alliances do. Disregarding and throwing off the shackles of your peace terms, failing to abide by the terms of your reparations at a moment of weakness for those that are ensuring you comply with said terms is an act of cowardice.

If you're comfortable with being cowards, then good for you. You're still cowards for doing this now and not at an earlier date, when the alliances that were charged with ensuring you compliance weren't otherwise distracted by this pesky thing called war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tarikmo' date='31 January 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1264952538' post='2147610']
Yeah, you defended an ally, after you canceled a treaty with them.
[/quote]

Seems to me that we declared war on like 13 or 14 alliances just 3 or 4 hours after canceling the treaty. Many forget about the One Vision thing, even cancelling the bi-lateral, we were still obligated to defend them via One Vision, we always intended to, and we did so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='31 January 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1264952808' post='2147626']
Does opportunism make anybody who demands reparations from a down-trodden opponent 'cowards'? I'm no longer Echelon government (they kicked me out ^_^ ), but to me, this strikes more of a coincidence then anything. Besides, sometimes taking the opportunities you get to do what you want is purely reasonable and logical. Nothing cowardly about making moves at appropriate times. (but again, I still think this was all coincidental timing, this has been in the works for a while.)

Also, don't you have something more important to do then to be getting all up in a huff about being 'cowards'? I think its pretty obvious that we're comfortable with what we are, but if you'd like to continue to exhibit your "wonderful assets" with understanding logic and reason, by all means, continue. Your not hurting our feelings any.
[/quote]
Making moves at appropriate times? I look forward to GOD and all the alliances that got Echelon into terms, which by the way, [b]They agreed too[/b], I hope they attack Echelon for violation of terms next time Echelon is fighting a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='31 January 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1264953020' post='2147629']
Reparations are a standard part of war on planet bob. Abiding by the terms placed upon your alliance willingly is what honourable alliances do. Disregarding and throwing off the shackles of your peace terms, failing to abide by the terms of your reparations at a moment of weakness for those that are ensuring you comply with said terms is an act of cowardice.

If you're comfortable with being cowards, then good for you. You're still cowards for doing this now and not at an earlier date, when the alliances that were charged with ensuring you compliance weren't otherwise distracted by this pesky thing called war.
[/quote]

They completed their peace terms. The Karma alliances that got reparations from them is what they were truly after. This clause was added for what?
To just add more insult and punishment as the victors? Give me a break! Karma War is OVER.

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='31 January 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1264952557' post='2147613']
Either your memory is shot to hell, or you're being deliberately dense, because your comment before this one showed me that you do have an issue with my alliance and the way they handle things. Again, since that is the case and you're outright lying to me right now, go talk to the people in charge, they may listen to what you have to say. And, in the meantime, I ask you to kindly refrain from directing any comments towards me that have anything at all to do with my alliance when you know very well I have nothing to do with their actions.

If you can't understand that, then I'll find one of the children of the will smith empire, and have them draw up a little diagram for you in crayon. Maybe you'll understand that.
[/quote]

How can I refrain from directing comments towards you when you seem to think me replying to someone who is not you is directed at you? You are either a supporter of these eternal terms or you are not a supporter of these eternal terms. Your aggressive posts towards Echelon for this action tells me you are a very strong supporter of all eternal terms and also support the forced removal of people from one alliance by another. Feel free to confirm or deny this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='31 January 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1264953212' post='2147636']
They completed their peace terms. The Karma alliances that got reparations from them is what they were truly after. This clause was added for what?
To just add more insult and punishment as the victors? Give me a break! Karma War is OVER.
[/quote]
WoTC is a war long gone, but there was a peace term for MK, where they couldn't first strike nuke. I have not yet seen or heard of MK breaking this term. A war being over does not excuse breaking terms, no matter how long they take, if they agreed to it, then they must abide by it.

Edited by Tarikmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='x Tela x' date='31 January 2010 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1264941635' post='2147416']
Do you really think they didn't try to get some of the sillier terms removed? There's a reason Echelon was at war for so long.

We just got tired of having that hanging over our heads. It's a ridiculous term. If someone really wants to enforce it at this point, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't see the benefit.
[/quote]
I wholly support the fact that the Caffine clause should not have been added to the surrender terms.....

All i am asking is, did it take Echelon govt so long to figure out that this clause was infringing on their sovereignty ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tarikmo' date='31 January 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1264953350' post='2147643']
WoTC is a war long gone, but there was a peace term for MK, where they couldn't first strike nuke. I have not yet seen or heard of MK breaking this term. A war being over does not excuse breaking terms, no matter how long they take, if they agreed to it, then they must abide by it.
[/quote]
Archon (Karma leader) said no draconian terms and went on to impose or allow the imposition of [u]some[/u] of the most draconian terms ever.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JackSkellington' date='31 January 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1264951688' post='2147580']
Echelon agreed to the terms. Forced? No. I'm sure GOD and friends put the pressure on Echelon to agree to the terms with that term included. But as for forced...They had the choice to say no or say yes. They chose to agree to these terms. I was one of the people who disagreed with the term entirely. Don't mistake that fact.
[/quote]

You can play the "not really forced" card to pretty much every situation expect mind control. A person can have a gun to your head, you can certainly still say no, but the consequences of that are quite obvious.

If I was given the choice between getting rid of a short term hassle or a longer term hassle, I would choose the latter and then later go back and rectify the former. GOD-Echelon talks were not panning out well for over a month or two, it'd take an idiot to exacerbate the situation by fighting over something such as banning a single gov from government that the other party hates so intensely.

[quote]
Reparations are a standard part of war on planet bob. Abiding by the terms placed upon your alliance willingly is what honourable alliances do. Disregarding and throwing off the shackles of your peace terms, failing to abide by the terms of your reparations at a moment of weakness for those that are ensuring you comply with said terms is an act of cowardice.[/quote]

Cool Story Bro. Glad to know you define standards for all of CN. Funny, I seem to remember a war being fought over the exact same concept.... hmmmm

Edited by FreddieMercury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='31 January 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1264953564' post='2147651']
Archon (Karma leader) said no draconian terms and went on to impose or allow the imposition of [u]some[/u] of the most draconian terms ever.
[/quote]
Can you provide some examples where the Mushroom Kingdom did this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='31 January 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1264953240' post='2147637']
How can I refrain from directing comments towards you when you seem to think me replying to someone who is not you is directed at you? You are either a supporter of these eternal terms or you are not a supporter of these eternal terms. Your aggressive posts towards Echelon for this action tells me you are a very strong supporter of all eternal terms and also support the forced removal of people from one alliance by another. Feel free to confirm or deny this.
[/quote]

Your assumptions are funny, I'm going to be contacting the very brightest 6 year olds in the will smith empire, because you need someone who is an equal to help you understand what I've actually said, instead of jumping to these wild assumptions of yours. I'd do it myself, but you're beneath me, in every way a person can be beneath another, but the 6 year olds of the will smith empire should be able to help you out.

I'll send a few of them over.

Oh, but one thing I can say I am in support of, is seeing your nation burn to the ground in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tarikmo' date='31 January 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1264953350' post='2147643']
WoTC is a war long gone, but there was a peace term for MK, where they couldn't first strike nuke. I have not yet seen or heard of MK breaking this term. A war being over does not excuse breaking terms, no matter how long they take, if they agreed to it, then they must abide by it.
[/quote]

Then you already know what I think MK should do. Repeal that term.

I can understand paying reparations. But still having that term in where a no first nuke policy can seriously jeopardize the security of the alliance is ridiculous. MK should repeal it as well.

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='31 January 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1264953782' post='2147663']
Then you already know what I think MK should do. Repeal that term.

I can understand paying reparations. But still having that term in where a no first nuke policy can seriously jeopardize the security of the alliance ridiculous. MK should repeal it as well.
[/quote]

If it were MK's job to repeal such a term, you certainly did not give them time to do it, IF it were their job. And IF it were their job, and if you had bothered to ask, it possibly would have been done by now.

Instead, echelon chose the coward's way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='31 January 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1264953713' post='2147658']
Your assumptions are funny, I'm going to be contacting the very brightest 6 year olds in the will smith empire, because you need someone who is an equal to help you understand what I've actually said, instead of jumping to these wild assumptions of yours. I'd do it myself, but you're beneath me, in every way a person can be beneath another, but the 6 year olds of the will smith empire should be able to help you out.

I'll send a few of them over.

Oh, but one thing I can say I am in support of, is seeing your nation burn to the ground in the future.
[/quote]

I still dont hear a denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='31 January 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1264953917' post='2147671']
I still dont hear a denial.
[/quote]

I'm just not going to interact with you further at this point. You're not worth my time.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='31 January 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1264953782' post='2147663']
Then you already know what I think MK should do. Repeal that term.

I can understand paying reparations. But still having that term in where a no first nuke policy can seriously jeopardize the security of the alliance is ridiculous. MK should repeal it as well.
[/quote]

NPO willingly and graciously lifted the term from MK before the Karma war.

Edited by AirMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='31 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1264953782' post='2147663']
Then you already know what I think MK should do. Repeal that term.

I can understand paying reparations. But still having that term in where a no first nuke policy can seriously jeopardize the security of the alliance is ridiculous. MK should repeal it as well.
[/quote]
They agreed to a permanent term, I don't see the reason why you should agree to a permanent term, just to repeal it later. That is dishonorable by my standards.

If all parties that imposed terms agree to take off the term, then it's fine.
edit: Saw the post above me

Edited by Tarikmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...