kriekfreak Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295355015' post='2581176'] Yeah, what they do best, pick and choose their battles to fight in wars they can win. o/ PC and picking and choosing battles, your honor, loyalty and integrity is an inspiration for us all. [/quote] Sure because neither PC or iFOK went into a losing battle before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1295355120' post='2581180'] Sure because neither PC or iFOK went into a losing battle before [/quote] Ancient history is ancient history, people have short memories, and its alot easier to tarnish a reputation then it is to build one. My statement might not be true in terms of all time, but it is certianly true in regards to recent history, that being the past year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295355387' post='2581184'] Ancient history is ancient history, people have short memories, and its alot easier to tarnish a reputation then it is to build one. My statement might not be true in terms of all time, but it is certianly true in regards to recent history, that being the past year or two. [/quote] In other words "I'm going to make a sweeping statement and if it turns out that it isn't true then the things that mean it isn't true aren't relevant to my statement". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295355387' post='2581184'] Ancient history is ancient history, people have short memories, and its alot easier to tarnish a reputation then it is to build one. My statement might not be true in terms of all time, but it is certianly true in regards to recent history, that being the past year or two. [/quote] Strictly speaking, BiPolar was within the last year. In the end that war ended up pretty good, but when we first went in it was far from decided. I think we were looking at a small disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1295355483' post='2581187'] In other words "I'm going to make a sweeping statement and if it turns out that it isn't true then the things that mean it isn't true aren't relevant to my statement". [/quote] With your terribly poor wording, I really can't understand what you're attempting to say, but I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. PC/iFOK have provided no reason over the past year or so to lead me to believe that my statement was factually incorrect, and they've provided evidence within the past month that supports my statement. Edited January 18, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295355662' post='2581190'] With your terribly poor wording, I really can't understand what you're attempting to say, but I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. PC/iFOK have provided no reason over the past year or so to lead me to believe that my statement was factually incorrect, and they've provided evidence within the past month that supports my statement. [/quote] You accidentally ignored my post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I am so envious of my allies in PC right now. Love you guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volatile Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1295356858' post='2581203'] You accidentally ignored my post? [/quote] I think so. The distance to his universe is probably so large some posts never 'make it'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1295356858' post='2581203'] You accidentally ignored my post? [/quote] Actually, I was writing my last response at the same time when you posted yours, and as a result didn't see it, and hadn't checked the thread since, it was never my intention to miss or ignore your post. As for your post, as I said earlier, its easier to tarnish a reputation then it is to build one, if I've learned anything over the past 4 and a half years, alliances and individuals can do man great things, but more often then not, a single mis-step or short-coming is going to dominate people's opinion of that alliance or individual. The Bi-Polar war doesn't do much for changing my opinion of PC or iFOK. I've been around for four and a half years, and through either bad luck or a lack of foresight, I have never participated in a winning side of a war. (I was with NAAC in Great Wars 2 and 3, FIST during the period when NpO beat them down, and was in Echelon for the Karma and Bi-Polar Wars). For the most part, these wars haven't been enter and see how they go, they've been entered knowing very well how it was about to transpire. Entering a war you *might* win is a completely different ball game then entering a war you know that your going to win, or a war that you know you are going to lose. It seems strange to me that PC/iFOK have managed to stay at the top all this time, according to the wiki neither one has lost a war during their existence, perhaps because, as the NEW situation proved, when presented with a challenge, they manage to find a way to stay out. Even stranger to me is how PC/iFOK e-lawyered themselves out of the NEW situation, choosing not to 'activate the oA' (which was a pretty flimsy defense, in my opinion), and yet here you are, entering a war on an oA clause. I'm sure you'll want to discuss the circumstances and the CB of the two wars, but I'm not buying it, I don't feel its a stretch to assume that had the NEW war looked more favorable to them, PC/iFOK would have been among the first to become involved on the oA, this war obviously demonstrates their willingness to war using an oA clause. Edited January 18, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295360741' post='2581265'] Even stranger to me is how PC/iFOK e-lawyered themselves out of the NEW situation, choosing not to 'activate the oA' (which was a pretty flimsy defense, in my opinion), and yet here you are, entering a war on an oA clause. I'm sure you'll want to discuss the circumstances and the CB of the two wars, but I'm not buying it, I don't feel its a stretch to assume that had the NEW war looked more favorable to them, PC/iFOK would have been among the first to become involved on the oA, this war obviously demonstrates their willingness to war using an oA clause. [/quote] I'll just respond to this part and call it a day. I'm sure you have a different opinion on the matter and that is fine I suppose, but I still want to give my opinion on the matter. The NEW war and the VE war differ in three important things. 1) NEW started an offensive act where VE did not (I know that some people will find what VE did an offensive act), thus 2) the "aggression" used on Polar can be seen as a defensive aggression (spy on my ally, spy on me) while the "defense" that would be used if we defended NEW would have been a defense against NEW's own aggression. So in VE's case it was defensive aggression while NEW's case would have been offensive defense. I think that is the key in here. And lastly, VE actually talked to us before their attack and asked us to help them, while in the NEW matter they didn't talk to us beforehand and after the initial response of FARK/INT/TPE they told us not to help out. [edit] forgot the word "not" Edited January 18, 2011 by kriekfreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Warlord Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Good luck guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1295366375' post='2581437'] I'll just respond to this part and call it a day. I'm sure you have a different opinion on the matter and that is fine I suppose, but I still want to give my opinion on the matter. The NEW war and the VE war differ in three important things. 1) NEW started an offensive act where VE did not (I know that some people will find what VE did an offensive act), thus 2) the "aggression" used on Polar can be seen as a defensive aggression (spy on my ally, spy on me) while the "defense" that would be used if we defended NEW would have been a defense against NEW's own aggression. So in VE's case it was defensive aggression while NEW's case would have been offensive defense. I think that is the key in here. And lastly, VE actually talked to us before their attack and asked us to help them, while in the NEW matter they didn't talk to us beforehand and after the initial response of FARK/INT/TPE they told us not to help out. [edit] forgot the word "not" [/quote] Thats an interesting thought, but I have to ask, under what circumstances would you honor a defensive treaty? I mean, I've gathered the following conclusions [list] [*]You believe that anybody who is attacked as a result of giving somebody a legitimate reason has commuted an act of aggression and forfeits any right to activate their defense treaties. [*]From the past, iFOK has stated that they believe in non-chaining treaties [*]iFOK doesn't hold any MADPs [/list] So my question for you is this, under what circumstances do [u]you[/u] feel that iFOK would be [u]obligated[/u] to honor one if its treaties? I think you and I hold very different views on what aggressive and offensive is, as well as on treaties. For what its worth, if I decided to sign an MDoAP treaty with somebody, you can bet your ass that I would defend them if they got attacked, regardless of why they get attacked. When you sign an obligatory defense treaty with somebody, its signifying that you trust them, and your assuming the risk that they might get into a compromising situation, and the other alliance is assuming the risk that you might get into a compromising situation. Treaties have their advantages, but they potentially have their disadvantages as well. If I had an MDoAP treaty with somebody, I would defend them if they got attacked, regardless of the reason, because if I had a treaty of that level with them, that means something, it means that I have respect, confidence in them, and loyalty to them, and that their friendship means more then nation strength to me. If an alliance holds treaties that they would only honor under very certain circumstances, it would be my opinion that that alliance is too liberal with their treaties and that they hold those treaties for the wrong reasons. Treaties used to mean something and were more then just strategical tokens, and to some alliances, they still do, but evidently not to yours. Edited January 18, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Guys, it is obvious the only reason PC and FOK's vassal state didn't go to war for NEW is because this little ploy was in the works, and it would have messed up their plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1295370736' post='2581530'] Guys, it is obvious the only reason PC and FOK's vassal state didn't go to war for NEW is because this little ploy was in the works, and it would have messed up their plans. [/quote] wow i cant believe nobody saw this until now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Actually most of PC wanted to go to war to help NEW, but the guys decided that they didn't want to escalate the war. Hence why various members decided to leave, join NEW for War, then went on to Form Deja Vu! They followed the mantra PC holds - Friends > Infra and now we are all fighting alongside our Allies in the Box. We've got guys who've not fully rebuilt after NEW responding to our treaties with VE. Friends > Infra PC > NpO Victory is Ours! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295360741' post='2581265'] Even stranger to me is how PC/iFOK e-lawyered themselves out of the NEW situation, choosing not to 'activate the oA' (which was a pretty flimsy defense, in my opinion), and yet here you are, entering a war on an oA clause. I'm sure you'll want to discuss the circumstances and the CB of the two wars, but I'm not buying it, I don't feel its a stretch to assume that had the NEW war looked more favorable to them, PC/iFOK would have been among the first to become involved on the oA, this war obviously demonstrates their willingness to war using an oA clause. [/quote] It's called optional for a reason. IF you want to use it, you can, but you don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1295374538' post='2581621'] It's called optional for a reason. IF you want to use it, you can, but you don't have to. [/quote] But of course, only use it when your going to win though, because naturally you should value the friends who help you win more then the friends who don't. Although I never really bought into the oA defense in the NEW situation though, it takes alot of word-twisting and ignoring logic to swallow that line. Edited January 18, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke81 Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Have fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 You're such lapdogs PC. Shame on you for attacking NpO (who escaped punishment for gunning for you and attacking your ally one year ago today!!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex the Great1 Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Yuss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 You guys have seemed eager for a war after getting embarrassed when PB had you guys ignore it when NEW got declared on, although I guess I can't blame you guys for wanting a chance to try redeeming yourselves. Although these VE lapdog comments don't seem inaccurate when you go to war on an oA when they tell you to, but ignore outside treaties when you don't have their support. Have fun with the war, although with VE having pulled in so many allies I hope to see NpO pull in a good amount so we don't just get to watch another boring curbstomp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sanders Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 [quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1295316307' post='2579339'] band wagon in? [/quote] You know that your little Bi-Polar stunt is what caused everyone to hate Polar right? A marionette has now come to smack you in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan100 Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Have fun and good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1295371321' post='2581549'] Actually most of PC wanted to go to war to help NEW, but the guys decided that they didn't want to escalate the war. Hence why various members decided to leave, join NEW for War, then went on to Form Deja Vu! [/quote] And then why they stamped the big CANCEL on the treaty. You can bend involvement all you want, but you still never helped. Next time you'll have to beg VE harder to let you off your chain. 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.