Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='22 May 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1274591874' post='2308839']
I believe it was mentioned in a Sir Paul piece a little while ago.
[/quote]

You guys actually believe that stuff?

[quote name='Lennox' date='22 May 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1274593021' post='2308858']
Remember when Athens and FoB attacked Knights of Ni! ?
[/quote]

I also remember Athens and FoB having a distinct advantage. Not to mention the fact that KoN had no (known) treaties.

And I'm sure you remember the outcome of that war.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 May 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1274595990' post='2308885']
You guys actually believe that stuff?
[/quote]
All good propaganda has a element of truth in it. But simply because it was in a Sir Paul piece does not mean it was propaganda. There are quotes floating around in this avenue from the Athens MoFA and the leader of GOD regarding attacking us. Unless of course we aren't supposed to believe what they say.

[dvdcchn]

This is glorious to see my friends, nothing in comparison but we will join you soon

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='22 May 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1274596297' post='2308887']
All good propaganda has a element of truth in it.
[/quote]

Keyword = element.

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='22 May 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1274596297' post='2308887']
But simply because it was in a Sir Paul piece does not mean it was propaganda. There are quotes floating around in this avenue from the Athens MoFA and the leader of GOD regarding attacking us. Unless of course we aren't supposed to believe what they say.
[/quote]

No you're not. I don't think you should believe the words of people who were either joking or talk with their egos.

Besides you have treaties; if those treaties chained they would start the next global war. An alliance will not start a global war a month after coming out of one.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 May 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1274596962' post='2308891']
Keyword = element.[/quote]
And? The thing you are talking about isn't propaganda, they said they planned to attack us. We are not making that up, it is fact.

[quote]No you're not. I don't think you should believe the words of people who were either joking or talk with their egos.

Besides you have treaties; if those treaties chained they would start the next global war. An alliance will not start a global war a month after coming out of one.
[/quote]
Disregarding the words of your enemies just makes it easier for them to catch you off guard.

We hold 6 MDP treaties. Both of those alliances by themselves probably has more than that they can bring in on aggressive clauses. Plus, C&G is a MADP, as is SF once a majority of the signatories vote to go to war. Besides, they won that last war, remember? They and that side massively outguns any defense we could muster. Besides which, the war only ended a month ago for those on the main front, which is more like two months ago now.

To add some perspective, GWIII started 2 months 5 days since the end of GWII

Edited May 23, 2010 by WorldConqueror

[Letum]

Look, if you guys favour following an alliance policy that doesn't constitute of you being prepared to meet even the worst of circumstances, that is your prerogative. After all, there is a pretty good chance that it won't backfire at you.

But we don't want to take chances.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='22 May 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1274597832' post='2308897']
And? The thing you are talking about isn't propaganda, they said they planned to attack us. We are not making that up, it is fact.


Disregarding the words of your enemies just makes it easier for them to catch you off guard.

We hold 6 MDP treaties. Both of those alliances by themselves probably has more than that they can bring in on aggressive clauses. Plus, C&G is a MADP, as is SF once a majority of the signatories vote to go to war. Besides, they won that last war, remember? They and that side massively outguns any defense we could muster. Besides which, the war only ended a month ago for those on the main front, which is more like two months ago now.

To add some perspective, GWIII started 2 months 5 days since the end of GWII
[/quote]

You act as if your six MDPs aren't going to chain.

Let me remind you SF/CnG are still getting reparations. Why would you flush that all down the toilet to fight a war that would probably start with a terrible CB and wouldn't be publicly supported?

And yes, GWIII did start two months five days after GWII. But that's two months. Do you plan on staying fully militarized for two months? Two months that could be spent rebuilding your tech stockpile.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Mary the Fantabulous' date='21 May 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1274420728' post='2306585']
It's a bit disconcerting if nothing else. I'd also feel a little bad about cutting it up and having people eat the pieces.
[/quote]
LJ Scott will cut it up for you! And slobber on it. And take pictures.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 May 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1274598859' post='2308907']
You act as if your six MDPs aren't going to chain.

Let me remind you SF/CnG are still getting reparations. Why would you flush that all down the toilet to fight a war that would probably start with a terrible CB and wouldn't be publicly supported?

And yes, GWIII did start two months five days after GWII. But that's two months. Do you plan on staying fully militarized for two months? Two months that could be spent rebuilding your tech stockpile.
[/quote]
Do you actually read past the first line of every paragraph? I said what would happen if all treaties chained. For reference "Both of those alliances by themselves probably has more than that they can bring in on aggressive clauses. Plus, C&G is a MADP, as is SF once a majority of the signatories vote to go to war. Besides, they won that last war, remember? They and that side massively outguns any defense we could muster." We both know that if the war was escalated to its logical conclusion the combined weight of C&G and SF and their attached allies would outweigh anything on our hypothetical side.

Why would they lose their reps? The alliances that held us in terms fought two or three wars while we were giving them reps, we even paid GOD while a war was going on. And do you really think renewed war against us [i]wouldn't[/i] be supported?

Yes, it was two months between GWII and GWIII. Guess what? In 12 days, it's two months since the Easter Sunday Accords. Besides which, I thought your point was that no alliance would start a global war so soon after the last one. GWII and GWIII seem to shut down that theory.

[Letum]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 May 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1274598859' post='2308907']
Let me remind you SF/CnG are still getting reparations. Why would you flush that all down the toilet to fight a war that would probably start with a terrible CB and wouldn't be publicly supported?
[/quote]

I don't think you understand one of the most basic tenets of CN leadership: Don't assume the other guy is going to be nice and rational.


Certainly, I do not [i]expect[/i] to be suddenly dogpiled by a bunch of alliances. I agree that it would be fairly damaging to their PR, and that we aren't enough of a threat to merit that. But I am quite certain CnG did not expect to be "pre-emptively" attacked by TOP. People don't act the way you expect them to, and sitting around with your rear end exposed is not a good plan.

[Mathias]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='23 May 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1274599321' post='2308912']
And do you really think renewed war against us [i]wouldn't[/i] be supported?
[/quote]

You could be nicer.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Mathias' date='23 May 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1274601974' post='2308923']
You could be nicer.
[/quote]
To who?

[Deadshot]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 May 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1274596962' post='2308891']
Keyword = element.



No you're not. I don't think you should believe the words of people who were either joking or talk with their egos.

Besides you have treaties; if those treaties chained they would start the next global war. An alliance will not start a global war a month after coming out of one.
[/quote]

Your camp needs to make up its mind. Would you like us to believe we are almighty and powerful and not worry about anyone because we are untouchable, or should we learn from our mistakes and make sure we are prepared for the worst? Personally, I like to be ready for anything that comes my way.

[Cortath]

*chuckles heartily*

The New Pacific Order prepares for war and she prepares for peace. Only a fool would think that we should do otherwise.

[potato]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='23 May 2010 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1274596297' post='2308887']
All good propaganda has a element of truth in it.
[/quote]

So, what you're saying is that Sir Paul's bit isn't good?

[LokiLockpicker]

I also like that MHA has about 5 times as many nukes, I would say the extra soldiers and tanks don't come anywhere near making up for the missing nukes, in either bills or war preparedness.

[Speer]

o/ Pacifica

Free at last.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='LokiLockpicker' date='23 May 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1274619773' post='2309015']
I also like that MHA has about 5 times as many nukes, I would say the extra soldiers and tanks don't come anywhere near making up for the missing nukes, in either bills or war preparedness.
[/quote]

Wait 22 days or so, we'll see who has more nukes

Edited May 23, 2010 by silentkiller

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='potato' date='24 May 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1274619597' post='2309012']
So, what you're saying is that Sir Paul's bit isn't good?
[/quote]
It's pretty hard to deny what they said, since the quotes are there for all to read. I can't say what their intentions were in saying it.

[quote name='LokiLockpicker' date='24 May 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1274619773' post='2309015']
I also like that MHA has about 5 times as many nukes, I would say the extra soldiers and tanks don't come anywhere near making up for the missing nukes, in either bills or war preparedness.
[/quote]
You can only buy 1 nuke per day, 2 if you have a WRC. Come back in 21 days.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Wentworth the Brave' date='23 May 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1274613465' post='2308989']
Would you like us to believe we are almighty and powerful and not worry about anyone because we are untouchable, or should we learn from our mistakes and make sure we are prepared for the worst? [/quote]

If you think your mistake was not being sufficiently militarised and paranoid... you really dont get it.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='23 May 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1274627830' post='2309084']
If you think your mistake was not being sufficiently militarised and paranoid... you really dont get it.
[/quote]

If that's what you got from his post.... you really don't get it.

[Vladimir]

I agree with the irrational anti-Pacificans -- preparation is clearly for the weak and the stupid. Nothing unexpected ever happens, and certainly nothing that goes against one's personal strategic desires.

When people kept telling us that we needed to 'change', I wasn't aware that they meant we needed to become incompetent. Really, you need to be more specific with your demands.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='23 May 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1274591874' post='2308839']
I'm surprised you don't know, considering one is in your bloc. Athens and GOD IIRC, I believe it was mentioned in a Sir Paul piece a little while ago. Funny I know, but then our nations haven't had 10 months of receiving tech from theirs, or the ability to buy military wonders, putting us at a disadvantage on a nation by nation basis. I know some will counter with 'OMG, look at the difference in number of members'. Yes, we have more members than them, but even 3 nations with little tech against one with a lot and a WRC/MP are going to take a lot of damage.
[/quote]

Care to link me to the one you're referring to? The most recent one just has a quote from Chickenzilla, which is a pretty silly thing to base your fear on.

[quote name='Cortath' date='23 May 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1274618930' post='2309007']
*chuckles heartily*

The New Pacific Order prepares for war and she prepares for peace. Only a fool would think that we should do otherwise.
[/quote]

How long do you intend to maintain full militarization?

Ironic fact: the extra bills you are paying because of the unnecessary tanks will, after a year, add up to 12 billion. You've found a way to extend your terms without us even doing anything.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='23 May 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1274629685' post='2309106']
Care to link me to the one you're referring to? The most recent one just has a quote from Chickenzilla, which is a pretty silly thing to base your fear on.



How long do you intend to maintain full militarization?

Ironic fact: the extra bills you are paying because of the unnecessary tanks will, after a year, add up to 12 billion. You've found a way to extend your terms without us even doing anything.
[/quote]

The terms are made harsh due to the limited slots, If we had unlimited slots, I doubt 10 bil would have been a lot to pay.

Also I doubt the militarisation will last for a year.

Edited May 23, 2010 by silentkiller

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='23 May 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1274630044' post='2309109']
The terms are made harsh due to the limited slots, If we had unlimited slots, I doubt 10 bil would have been a lot to pay.
[/quote]

So are you acknowledging that 10 billion is a paltry sum for an alliance of your size?

edit: I don't think it will last for a year either, I was just comparing it your terms (which actually only lasted 9 months, but I used a year because you all keep calling it a year).

Edited May 23, 2010 by Lord Brendan