Valhalla Announcement

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1297237442' post='2626801']
However, what really amazes me is the fact that you took on such a challenge for - the traitor scum in blue - the very same alliance that stabbed us, you too btw. in the back during BiPolar. I'd rather sell off my infra and tech then use any of it to help them.[/quote]

VE's CB amounts to nothing more than a wilted fig leaf to cover an aggressive war and has been proven as such. Indeed, I'm surprised more alliances on VE's side of the treaty chain didn't stay home because of it and truth be told more than a couple of those who went to war did so in a way that minimized their participation on purpose. That said, I'll confirm that even amongst the rank and file at Valhalla there wasn't a whole lot of sympathy for NpO, specifically because of their actions during the Bipolar War.

[quote]Valhalla wrote non-chaining MDoAPs, and I am sure at least most governments of their allies read them when they agreed to them. As such, the idea of signing non-chaining MDoAPs with anyone is exactly what you don't like, ie not giving your ally a card-blanche for every BS they sign up for. If an alliance wants to give its allies such a card-blanche, they would sign MADPs.[/quote]

This situation was slightly different in that MCXA was obligated to come into the war by treaty, it didn't launch an aggressive war, got attacked by allies of the target alliance, and then wondered where Valhalla was. Still I agree that if MCXA wanted a treaty that meant Valhalla would come to their defense no matter the circumstance, then that's how the treaty should have been written and it wasn't.

[quote]And to be clear, the idea that you can whine Valhalla into ignoring their non-chaining clauses for [i]the Orders[/i] - it's so absurd it speaks of your desperation. [/quote]

I wouldn't blame them or any ally of Valhalla for asking informally if we would ride to their defense if they got pulled into the fight. But yeah, given the history of the relationship with NPO and NpO since 2009, the answer was pretty much a given.

[Solaris]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1297273461' post='2627094']
VE's CB amounts to nothing more than a wilted fig leaf to cover an aggressive war and has been proven as such.
[/quote]"proven"

If you understood what happened, you'd recognize that point to be up for debate, depending on definition of 'proven', and defition of a wilted fig leaf. If an enemy spy confesses, I admit that by some standards it might be dubious to offer a short period of sanctuary in exchange for more information, instead of ZI'ng and refusing all cooperation outright. This doesn't mean you can say that NpO's outright collusion with a spy to gather information from my alliance is not a legitimate reason for war.

Maybe you just swallowed the "oh, I was just playing along" explanation. Polaris emperors have never had problems lying to their associates and enemies, if they consider it serving "the greater good" under perceived prevailing conditions. I could maybe see penguin being enlightened enough to see the weakness of the deceitful modus operandi, but their alliance generally cultivates leaders that are snakes in the grass and opportunists in politics.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Amonra' timestamp='1297273363' post='2627093']
Go to war, dont go to war... either way I couldnt care less.
But I think I should point out after the dust settles there will be 1 of 2 scenarios:
1: It will be the guys who attacked your allies (and your allies' allies) using the CB "Cuase we want to" and Duckroll still standing
OR
2: It will be the Allies that you refused to help and Duckroll still standing.

Either way thats not exactly the greatest spot for Duckroll to be in.

Cheers.
[/quote]

If they attack Duckroll it will be OUR war not someone else's and if "we are next" I'd rather loose in a war we believe in than one we have absolutely no interest in. This idea that you should run down the barrel of the loaded gun because it may be pointed at you next is absolutely absurd. If the time comes where it is pointed at us we will have fun trying to dodge the bullets, jumping in the firing line for people you don't care about is stupid. Consider the fact that last time we did so the very same people we put ourselves in harms way for turned around and shot us in the back then this decision was quite clearly the best one available for Duckroll. Color me old fashioned but I have more respect for an opponent that at least has the stones to come for you front on.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297274052' post='2627101']
"proven"

If you understood what happened, you'd recognize that point to be up for debate, depending on definition of 'proven', and defition of a wilted fig leaf. If an enemy spy confesses, I admit that by some standards it might be dubious to offer a short period of sanctuary in exchange for more information, instead of ZI'ng and refusing all cooperation outright. This doesn't mean you can say that NpO's outright collusion with a spy to gather information from my alliance is not a legitimate reason for war.

Maybe you just swallowed the "oh, I was just playing along" explanation. Polaris emperors have never had problems lying to their associates and enemies, if they consider it serving "the greater good" under perceived prevailing conditions. I could maybe see penguin being enlightened enough to see the weakness of the deceitful modus operandi, but their alliance generally cultivates leaders that are snakes in the grass and opportunists in politics.
[/quote]

I have no doubt that NpO fell into a trap (whether it was Lennox's trap of his own construction or one you built for him now being mostly irrelevant except to historians), realized they fell into a trap, hoped to get out by going to you in private channels and resolving it and got the door slammed in their face because you had gotten what you wanted--their neck in your trap.

That in no way absolves Polaris totally of responsibility. However, the more context that gets added to the circumstances, the grayer the hats get. Indeed, there is no party here clearly in the wrong or right. But it's obvious that any sort of claims you wish to make about the damage caused by NpO's (actually Lennox's) spying are false.

Edited February 9, 2011 by ChairmanHal

[Solaris]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1297276413' post='2627125']
I have no doubt that NpO fell into a trap (whether it was Lennox's trap of his own construction or one you built for him now being mostly irrelevant except to historians), realized they fell into a trap, hoped to get out by going to you in private channels and resolving it and got the door slammed in their face because you had gotten what you wanted--their neck in your trap.

That in no way absolves Polaris totally of responsibility. However, the more context that gets added to the circumstances, the grayer the hats get. Indeed, there is no party here clearly in the wrong or right. But it's obvious that any sort of claims you wish to make about the damage caused by NpO's (actually Lennox's) spying are false.
[/quote]
Life can be hard. Can't always weasel your way out of situations by saying "I was just playing" or equivalent.

The situation required an acceptable explanation, and playing along was all they had. Saying that's not going to fly might constitute a slammed door by some accounts, but they had their opportunity to talk.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Solaris

[Amonra]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1297275236' post='2627116']
If they attack Duckroll it will be OUR war not someone else's and if "we are next" I'd rather loose in a war we believe in than one we have absolutely no interest in.[/quote]
Cant disagree with this

[quote] This idea that you should run down the barrel of the loaded gun because it may be pointed at you next is absolutely absurd.[/quote]
It depends on the "may" part. If it is only wild speculation then your right. If its highly likely based on previous behavior then thats a different story altogether.

[quote] If the time comes where it is pointed at us we will have fun trying to dodge the bullets, jumping in the firing line for people you don't care about is stupid. Consider the fact that last time we did so the very same people we put ourselves in harms way for turned around and shot us in the back then this decision was quite clearly the best one available for Duckroll.[/quote]
Whats the old saying" "keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."
Guess Duckroll needs to figure out which is which at this point.

[quote] Color me old fashioned but I have more respect for an opponent that at least has the stones to come for you front on.
[/quote]
Front on, or by systematically picking away everyone else?
They are not the same thing.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Amonra

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Amonra' timestamp='1297277820' post='2627138']
Front on, or by systematically picking away everyone else?
They are not the same thing.
[/quote]

War by attrition is far better then a knife in the back.

As for the picking away? I hope they repeatedly pick away the !@#$%^&* whom did it.

edit- I also wish my friends in this would get out of the way and let the butchery go unchecked. I understand why they dont, doesnt mean I agree, but I understand.

Edited February 9, 2011 by chefjoe

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1297191247' post='2625893']
Oh hop off it. We made a decision as a whole to not chain in to this ridiculous war. Allies were in the loop the entire time, and chose to chain in themselves. Good for them, but they knew Valhalla wasnt chaining in.
[/quote]

Notice I haven't brought TORN's name up into this? How many MDP+ treaties (chaining or non) have TORN not responded to? 0. (Only an ODP with Nebula-X, which is still a pretty new war and I wouldn't expect you to join in on that). You and a few others have legitimate reasons why you're not in this war, namely that you don't have many allies in (or in IRON's case conflicting treaties). Val doesn't share those reasons at all, TORN's not leaving 8 allies behind to burn, or exert its political pressure to stop 40k worth of reps onto one of its allies. I've got no problem with TORN, and I want BigWoodycare too

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1297237442' post='2626801']
What MCXA really needs is a revision of all their treaties since your lack of understanding of non-chaining clauses seems to be a general issue here. OTherwise you wouldn't come here and post as you do.

However, what really amazes me is the fact that you took on such a challenge for - the traitor scum in blue - the very same alliance that stabbed us, you too btw. in the back during BiPolar. I'd rather sell off my infra and tech then use any of it to help them.

Valhalla wrote non-chaining MDoAPs, and I am sure at least most governments of their allies read them when they agreed to them. As such, the idea of signing non-chaining MDoAPs with anyone is exactly what you don't like, ie not giving your ally a card-blanche for every BS they sign up for. If an alliance wants to give its allies such a card-blanche, they would sign MADPs.

And to be clear, the idea that you can whine Valhalla into ignoring their non-chaining clauses for [i]the Orders[/i] - it's so absurd it speaks of your desperation.
The Orders, of all alliances. Have you absolutely no clue about history and lost all sense of shame to beg Valhalla into fighting your wars?
[/quote]

Again, I have no issues with DAWN and I'm glad you remember that our Order got screwed over by Grub too, but of course we've moved on and forgiven the rest of the alliance for that. I do completely understand the resentment towards NpO among you guys even if we've managed to move on from that. But..

It's funny that you're blaming MCXA for having some expectation of their allies backing them up when possible. That's the point of treaties, and when you sign them you usually do so with the expectation that chain or no chain, that their allies have your back (at least MDP+) and will try to assist you if possible. If you noticed, most alliances in this war did not chain in via NPpO or VE/DH, they entered in to help out and protect their allies as best they could. Did that Sparta-MHA-AZTEC-TFD front have anything to do with NpO or VE? No, but they all came in to back up their allies (except, well, Sparta). But hey, I guess treaties are for "only when we need friends", amirite? Oh the naivity of MCXA to have the [i]audacity[/i] to request for assistance from one of their MDoAP buds.


And with NPO, I must admit that this has cracked me up. Aside from some bad history TORN, why would any of you guys hate NPO so much? It's especially funny with Valhalla, where after sucking off of their teets for 2 years and letting them go wild and roll other alliances including on purple, and then pushing NPO into war with OV before participating with the CoC, they're NOW crying about them? Why? Because when Valhalla was jumping on NPO's leg to ally them after terms, NPO said "hell no", and now Valhalla has been crying and whining about being 'spat on' ever since?

It's a sight to see.

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297274052' post='2627101']
"proven"

If you understood what happened, you'd recognize that point to be up for debate, depending on definition of 'proven', and defition of a wilted fig leaf. If an enemy spy confesses, I admit that by some standards it might be dubious to offer a short period of sanctuary in exchange for more information, instead of ZI'ng and refusing all cooperation outright. This doesn't mean you can say that NpO's outright collusion with a spy to gather information from my alliance is not a legitimate reason for war.

Maybe you just swallowed the "oh, I was just playing along" explanation. Polaris emperors have never had problems lying to their associates and enemies, if they consider it serving "the greater good" under perceived prevailing conditions. I could maybe see penguin being enlightened enough to see the weakness of the deceitful modus operandi, but their alliance generally cultivates leaders that are snakes in the grass and opportunists in politics.
[/quote]

Even more lolz here. VE still trying to defend its fabricated 'CB'. Sol, when your leader is caught setting up the entire spying situation, leaking 'treasured' information from the alliance, and sending it to someone with eyes and ears does not constitute any reason at all. The [i]only[/i] difference with your CB and Doomhouse's, is that your leader took some time to set up spying operations and dressed up those lies in legalese. No substantive difference, buddy boy.

[Solaris]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297281477' post='2627165']
* more lolz *[/quote]
Babble as you might, your output on the issue remains skewed. Not that I'd expect any better from a proud adherent of Sith Logic, and Master of Lies.

If our allies request confirmation of hostile intent, we're monsters (yeah) to provide it. This assesment must be absolutely correct, because a different opinion would work against your apparent interests.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Solaris

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297281477' post='2627165']...or exert its political pressure to stop 40k worth of reps onto one of its allies.[/quote] Yep, we're just stitting around the campfire and ignoring DT's situation, you caught us.

[quote]...then pushing NPO into war with OV before participating with the CoC, they're NOW crying about them? Why? Because when Valhalla was jumping on NPO's leg to ally them after terms, NPO said "hell no", and now Valhalla has been crying and whining about being 'spat on' ever since?[/quote]

You're off your rocker. If you're going to make stuff up, at least base it on reality.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Amonra' timestamp='1297277820' post='2627138']
It depends on the "may" part. If it is only wild speculation then your right. If its highly likely based on previous behavior then thats a different story altogether.
[/quote]

The “may” is irrelevant as is whether or not the assumption is based on a fallacy or credible information. Talking from an emotionally detached point of view jumping into a situation such as the one aforementioned creates a self perpetuating myth that you may as well fight because you will just get rolled later. This conclusion reeks of predestination; it assumes that no one has the ability, influence or power to change the status quo. This belief that your fate is already predetermined by matters outside of your own hands is highly damaging to this game, history proves that all majority opinions must first start off as a minority opinion. The only real matter worth consideration then is whether you have any belief in your ability to change the status quo, you don’t necessarily have to remove it, just change the way it operates so that it does in a way not detrimental to your own interests. The only alternative to an attitude of self-determination is to join the status quo (providing of course you will be accepted). Buying into the idea that you will have no control over your own destiny probably means you will have no control over your destiny. If you are one of these alliances buying into this heretic of politics, then wake up and do something about it. If you are not willing to do so, you will be undone not by your enemies but by your own lethargic lack of ambition, a crime for which there is truly no excuse.

[quote]Whats the old saying" "keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."
Guess Duckroll needs to figure out which is which at this point.[/quote]

We know who our friends are, but we will not jump to hasty conclusions as to who our enemies are for a rationale of why that is the case use the analogy above.


[quote]Front on, or by systematically picking away everyone else?
They are not the same thing.
[/quote]

Personally speaking either is better than the alternative, when the enemy in whatever form he takes coming picking on me or my own then my sword will strike true and clean. Whether we win or loose we will stand for our cause and we shall celebrate what a glorious battle it was. There is nothing in this war for us to celebrate other than Judos reaping exactly what he stitched together.

[Jgoods45]

You know, in my opinion, you generally don't talk !@#$ about the alliances or blocs you want to go into a war on your side.

Just sayin.

[Amonra]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1297284916' post='2627207']
You know, in my opinion, you generally don't talk !@#$ about the alliances or blocs you want to go into a war on your side.

Just sayin.
[/quote]
I agree, and altough I cant speeak for everyone in here but I am only discussing politics. No ill will from me towards Duckroll. I am personally a fan of those guys!

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297283244' post='2627188']
Babble as you might, your output on the issue remains skewed. Not that I'd expect any better from a proud adherent of Sith Logic, and Master of Lies.

If our allies request confirmation of hostile intent, we're monsters (yeah) to provide it. This assesment must be absolutely correct, because a different opinion would work against your apparent interests.
[/quote]

...yeah what's your point again? Do you even have one?

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1297284649' post='2627200']
Yep, we're just stitting around the campfire and ignoring DT's situation, you caught us.

You're off your rocker. If you're going to make stuff up, at least base it on reality.
[/quote]

Well at least you're not a complete failure to your allies, but i'll believe it when I see it in DT's peace thread

As for 'making stuff up', care to enlighten me of what I missed?

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1297284916' post='2627207']
You know, in my opinion, you generally don't talk !@#$ about the alliances or blocs you want to go into a war on your side.

Just sayin.
[/quote]

Oh don't get me wrong, I keep telling myself that I should [s]stop tro[/s] exit this thread, it's against our coalition's interests, etc... but the fail blows my mind. At this point the assumption is that Val will continue to be Bob's infrahuggers, so why bother keeping my lips sealed about the fail? For the rest of Val's bloc (aside from ML who is actually in war), their situations are actually understandable and reasonable.

But you're probably right, I'll [i]try[/i] to refrain... 'til the next Val thread

edit: took out a buds joke

Edited February 9, 2011 by KainIIIC

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297289126' post='2627269']
edit: took out a buds joke
[/quote]

fail.


..as for what you missed.

Val and NPO had hardly any communication post Karma. Some of that was their fault, and some of it was our fault. When NPO came out of their Karma terms they immediately inked several treaties that had the effect of signing Val by Proxy through chains. This irked us, as we were once, so we thought, close allies. It seemed a slap in our face after months of silence that we weren't even given a courtesy call in regards to them signing several AA's to which Valhalla was allied with at that time. In order to clear the air, a Q&A was arraigned to see if there was anything left of our old relationship. At no time was this an attempt to broker a treaty by either side. After a couple pages of going nowhere, and seeing signs of the old NPO arrogance that lead to our original split post Karma, Joe gave me permission to open fire and see if we got a reaction. I did. It worked. I got Cortath to actually post a substantive reply that showed us where we really stood in regards to each other. For all intents and purposes, the Q&A ended there.

The current relationship between Pacifica and Val is at it's best indifferent coexistence. We want nothing to do with them, and we're pretty sure it goes the same for them. We were tied to them once, and while it had it's moments, and we did profit from it, we have no wish to be their attack dogs again. That last bit pretty much covers ALL of Duckroll, not just Val.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Lord Levistus

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297281477' post='2627165']
Notice I haven't brought TORN's name up into this? How many MDP+ treaties (chaining or non) have TORN not responded to? 0. (Only an ODP with Nebula-X, which is still a pretty new war and I wouldn't expect you to join in on that). You and a few others have legitimate reasons why you're not in this war, namely that you don't have many allies in (or in IRON's case conflicting treaties). Val doesn't share those reasons at all, TORN's not leaving 8 allies behind to burn, or exert its political pressure to stop 40k worth of reps onto one of its allies. I've got no problem with TORN, and I want BigWoodycare too



Again, I have no issues with DAWN and I'm glad you remember that our Order got screwed over by Grub too, but of course we've moved on and forgiven the rest of the alliance for that. I do completely understand the resentment towards NpO among you guys even if we've managed to move on from that. But..

It's funny that you're blaming MCXA for having some expectation of their allies backing them up when possible. That's the point of treaties, and when you sign them you usually do so with the expectation that chain or no chain, that their allies have your back (at least MDP+) and will try to assist you if possible. If you noticed, most alliances in this war did not chain in via NPpO or VE/DH, they entered in to help out and protect their allies as best they could. Did that Sparta-MHA-AZTEC-TFD front have anything to do with NpO or VE? No, but they all came in to back up their allies (except, well, Sparta). But hey, I guess treaties are for "only when we need friends", amirite? Oh the naivity of MCXA to have the [i]audacity[/i] to request for assistance from one of their MDoAP buds.


And with NPO, I must admit that this has cracked me up. Aside from some bad history TORN, why would any of you guys hate NPO so much? It's especially funny with Valhalla, where after sucking off of their teets for 2 years and letting them go wild and roll other alliances including on purple, and then pushing NPO into war with OV before participating with the CoC, they're NOW crying about them? Why?[b] Because when Valhalla was jumping on NPO's leg to ally them after terms, NPO said "hell no", and now Valhalla has been crying and whining about being 'spat on' ever since? [/b]

It's a sight to see.



Even more lolz here. VE still trying to defend its fabricated 'CB'. Sol, when your leader is caught setting up the entire spying situation, leaking 'treasured' information from the alliance, and sending it to someone with eyes and ears does not constitute any reason at all. The [i]only[/i] difference with your CB and Doomhouse's, is that your leader took some time to set up spying operations and dressed up those lies in legalese. No substantive difference, buddy boy.
[/quote]

Awww dont erase the jokes im always up for a good laugh.

Levi was talking about the bolded portion above. Get your story straight we never went to NPO for a treaty after the war and honestly we were good not meeting with them at all. Due to some fine diplomacy from one of their members and one of ours they convinced both govs to have a sit down chat. Now at that sit down chat 2 prominent but not gov members started off by insulting us and even went so far as to ask us what VAL could offer NPO. That was followed shortly by a comment from the emporer that was truly enlightning as to their true feelings. So you are way off if you ever think we chased NPO for a treaty or even wanted one. So like Levi said if your going to spin a story at least have something factual in it.

####edit apparently levi types faster than i do but ill leave this up anyway###

Edited February 9, 2011 by Buds The Man

[KainIIIC]

A well-spun account of that as well (I'm not saying that I didn't spin mine either), largely confirming what I said except for the point about Valhalla wanting any kind of relations with Pacifica post-war. I definitely call shenanigans on that whole "we wanted nothing to do with them post-karma and just so happened to decide to have a Q&A post-term!" part, but you're definitely right about the whole cold-shoulder that they gave you .

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297293127' post='2627342']
A well-spun account of that as well (I'm not saying that I didn't spin mine either), largely confirming what I said except for the point about Valhalla wanting any kind of relations with Pacifica post-war. I definitely call shenanigans on that whole "we wanted nothing to do with them post-karma and just so happened to decide to have a Q&A post-term!" part, but you're definitely right about the whole cold-shoulder that they gave you .
[/quote]

I don't know the inner workings of Valhalla or their mentality, however, it could because it was a historic friendship that they wanted to, at least, attempt to maintain it. When the realized where NPO stood they cut off that attempt. Idk, seemed logical to me.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297293127' post='2627342']
A well-spun account of that as well (I'm not saying that I didn't spin mine either), largely confirming what I said except for the point about Valhalla wanting any kind of relations with Pacifica post-war. I definitely call shenanigans on that whole "we wanted nothing to do with them post-karma and just so happened to decide to have a Q&A post-term!" part, but you're definitely right about the whole cold-shoulder that they gave you .
[/quote]

Right, because Everyone wants to be linked to the Orders.

Please show where Val has made any FA move in the last 2 years that would indicate us wanting a relationship with NPO?

The Q&A was the result of work by Waterana and Graphix. We've also had gov people try approaching STA to patch up differences. Even if the rest of us knew it was doomed to failure, we let them try. Valhalla gov has a fair amount of autonomy in regards to things they think will benefit the alliance. In this case Waterana and Graphix were hoping that Val and NPO could perhaps have a cordial relationship again. This wasn't a stance by Valhalla, it was something explored at the behest of Graphix and someone we consider a friend.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1297293411' post='2627348']
I don't know the inner workings of Valhalla or their mentality, however, it could because it was a historic friendship that they wanted to, at least, attempt to maintain it. When the realized where NPO stood they cut off that attempt. Idk, seemed logical to me.
[/quote]

My guess is that they saw the writing on the wall well in advance and, along with the rest of Duckroll post-BiPolar, took NPO off of their priority list around that period. So it's probably a stretch to say that they were seeking a treaty by the time NPO got off terms. But to suggest that Valhalla had no interest in pursuing relations with NPO, especially before BiPolar is... complete shenanigans.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjFKDrK1vY"]SHENANIGANS[/url]!

[isolde]

[quote]Please give a warm welcome to our new addition, Esthar! Be gentle, he's a total noob [/quote]


aw Esthar, you're playing with the BIG boys now congratz on your election and to those others of you, geesh we have to put up with you AGAIN

0/ valhalla a very strong line up there, nice to see

[Thrash]

The call-outs here are really getting ridiculous.

[Alterego]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1297275236' post='2627116']
If they attack Duckroll it will be OUR war not someone else's and if "we are next" I'd rather loose in a war we believe in than one we have absolutely no interest in. This idea that you should run down the barrel of the loaded gun because it may be pointed at you next is absolutely absurd.
[/quote]
Its even more absurd when you realise the people telling us DH/PB will hit us in the future they should be pre-emptively attacked now are the same people who are slating DH for thinking the same thing about NPO and pre-emptively attacking them.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Alterego

[Seipher Caim]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297294913' post='2627380']
My guess is that they saw the writing on the wall well in advance and, along with the rest of Duckroll post-BiPolar, took NPO off of their priority list around that period. So it's probably a stretch to say that they were seeking a treaty by the time NPO got off terms. But to suggest that Valhalla had no interest in pursuing relations with NPO, especially before BiPolar is... complete shenanigans.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjFKDrK1vY"]SHENANIGANS[/url]!
[/quote]

Please, I would really like to see proof of that cause I was Valhalla's MoFA for the entire period from Karma to 2 months ago and, I clearly remember a complete gov radio silence during that period.

[President S O]

KainIIIC, I do suggest you just stop. You really do have no idea and are making a fool of yourself. Olympus was in close talks with Pacifica and Valhalla post Karma. We have a MDoAP with Valhalla and signed one with the NPO around May of last year. We were aware of a somewhat hostile relationship between the two and it was extremely important that we keep in close contact with both alliances before the signing of that NPO treaty. At no time was it suggested or even a remote possibility that the two alliance would rekindle their former relationship. However, both are stand up alliances and did the right thing. They agreed somewhat to remain respectful or at least coexist peacefully due to mutual allies.

The fact that you think Valhalla is crazy like that ex-girlfriend that never wanted to let go is quite amusing.

Both Valhalla and Pacifica, you have my respect. Regardless of the vocal know-it-all's out there, you know what happened and that's all that matters. Its history now anyway.