Williambonney Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302252409' post='2686653'] Somehow you missed the ironic tone of my post. [/quote] Sometimes things go right over one's head. Or out of them. It happens. Sad but necessary etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302252664' post='2686655'] No, the damage you took was only because you failed to move enough people to peace mode in a timely manner. You did try though. [/quote] I thought we don't move people into peace mode? This constant slinky usage is really giving me a headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1302252678' post='2686656'] School is for fools. [/quote] I understand your angst, it is common at your age. Just make sure you remember the phrase "would you like fries with that?" It will be important for you in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302252831' post='2686659'] I thought we don't move people into peace mode? This constant slinky usage is really giving me a headache. [/quote] I am sorry if this comes off as an insult, but you're about the dumbest thing that happened to NPO PR machine and you probably should contact Alterego to see if he lets you join his club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302253158' post='2686662'] I am sorry if this comes off as an insult, but you're about the dumbest thing that happened to NPO PR machine and you probably should contact Alterego to see if he lets you join his club. [/quote] ahhh praise from Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1302222499' post='2686426'] I should save this post. [/quote] Kind of like all those posts of Umbrella members hailing NPO back in the day would be nice to bust out right about now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tn00b Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1302255265' post='2686674'] Kind of like all those posts of Umbrella members hailing NPO back in the day would be nice to bust out right about now? [/quote] Is it so hard to understand that feelings and opinions evolve and change over time? Whats true today maybe not apply tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='r00tn00b' timestamp='1302256542' post='2686681'] Is it so hard to understand that feelings and opinions evolve and change over time? Whats true today maybe not apply tomorrow. [/quote] Exactly my point, the Umbrella asshat was talking about saving a post to pull out in the future, I just pointed out that this is a double-edged sword. Umbrella 2008: Making war on GPA for doing nothing Umbrella 2011: Making war on NPO for doing nothing Some things don't change and evolve over time either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='r00tn00b' timestamp='1302256542' post='2686681'] Is it so hard to understand that feelings and opinions evolve and change over time? Whats true today maybe not apply tomorrow. [/quote] ...and yet you attacked NPO for things that happend in the past, disregarding the events of Karma... [right][IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/dop8ug.jpg[/IMG][/right] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1302256906' post='2686683'] ...and yet you attacked NPO for things that happend in the past, disregarding the events of Karma... [right][IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/dop8ug.jpg[/IMG][/right] [/quote] I see you've missed the memo It's okay if they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1302257431' post='2686684'] I see you've missed the memo It's okay if they do it. [/quote] No, I got it I must have just forgoten, my faulty memory. [right][IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/kdwexg.jpg[/IMG][/right] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1302256894' post='2686682'] Exactly my point, the Umbrella asshat was talking about saving a post to pull out in the future, I just pointed out that this is a double-edged sword. Umbrella 2008: Making war on GPA for doing nothing Umbrella 2011: Making war on NPO for doing nothing Some things don't change and evolve over time either. [/quote] Who was the main player in the former though? Wasn't NATO involved as well? Actually, NATO was a far more central player in it, being in the bloc that started the war as opposed to a peripheral alliance that probably declared maybe 10 wars at best and didn't demand reparations, whereas your alliance and the NPO demanded reparations for attacking an actual neutral alliance rather than one with treaty links that would put them on a particular side of the war. Given even NPO itself hasn't said it was neutral, the comparison is moot. Feel free to get some Umbrella posts hailing NPO since I don't remember them happening because #1 we weren't allied to NPO at any point and had an OWF ban until early 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302259354' post='2686689'] Who was the main player in the former though? [/quote] Different Sheppard’s same sheep. The one constant is Umbrella playing second fiddle and giving a beatdown for nothing. In 2 years will you make a similar comment about MK? -winning Edited April 8, 2011 by Alterego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302195574' post='2686209'] I don't see why not, you're from Invicta and you're even mentioning the subject [/quote] Uh, you brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302259960' post='2686693'] Uh, you brought it up. [/quote] Sure, but that doesn't excuse you to talk about military preparation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302260123' post='2686695'] Sure, but that doesn't excuse you to talk about military preparation [/quote] Yawn. You ever fight me? No? Shut the $%&@ up and get out of my face, loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302260123' post='2686695'] Sure, but that doesn't excuse you to talk about military preparation [/quote] Umbrella could learn a thing or two on FA from invicta. Militry strength alone, well look what happened to FAN. A million ns lost in one day despite being a military powerhouse. Im sure they joked about other alliances military strength too. -winning Edited April 8, 2011 by Alterego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302242334' post='2686587'] The definition you pulled from Wikipedia doesn't say anything about needing a [u][b]concrete[/b] reason. That's a completely subjective term that could mean one thing to someone and another to someone else. I could raise the point that NPO could have poised a threat to them in the future and I would consider that valid while I believe you would not. I'm not debating anyone based on their opinions. I don't care if they believe the CB was valid or not.[/quote] You're right, it doesn't say anything about concrete reason, I was just stating that there was no concrete justification for the acts of war against NPO and since you avoided the question I should think that you couldn't find any concrete reason. Let's move on: Following your point, will be attacked any alliance who in future [b]could allegedly[/b] become a threat to DH ? And wasn't this the Pacifica's [i]Modus operandi[/i] in the [i]pax[/i] pacifica days who are behind us and are so criticized for the DH who use them as one of the reasons to attack NPO? [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302242334' post='2686587'] I get my definition from [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casus%20belli"]Merriam-Webster[/url] who state "an event or action that justifies or [color="#FF0000"][b]allegedly[/b][/color] justifies a war or conflict." [/quote] From the same site: Definition of ALLEGE: [b]questionably true ; accused but not proven or convicted.[/b] Yeah [b]this[/b] type of [i]Casus Belli[/i] matches perfectly with DH reasons to attack NPO. Edited April 8, 2011 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 If you posit NPO as a random alliance, then what you say might check out. Ultimately, they were lining up to oppose us in a particular conflict and their treaty chains were being maneuveured in a strategic manner so they wouldn't have to enter until they were ready to do so. Have they denied their potential participation as of yet? No, because to say they were going to definitively stay out wouldn't be something they could say in good faith. Otherwise, they could have followed NATO's route in a different conflict with a declaration of non-aggression if they were worried about getting hit despite being avowedly neutral to the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302260492' post='2686697'] Yawn. You ever fight me? No? Shut the $%&@ up and get out of my face, loser. [/quote] Well, I did hear that your warchest is larger than Invicta's top 40 all together, but I guess that would be considering too much of Invicta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1302259704' post='2686691'] Different Sheppard’s same sheep. The one constant is Umbrella playing second fiddle and giving a beatdown for nothing. In 2 years will you make a similar comment about MK? -winning [/quote] To be honest, if I wanted it to play out that way, it could given most people on this forum are content to portray in that manner. Instead, I've been pretty forthright about this rather than pull a Pontius Pilate routine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302261964' post='2686701'] If you posit NPO as a random alliance, then what you say might check out. Ultimately, they were lining up to oppose us in a particular conflict and their treaty chains were being maneuveured in a strategic manner so they wouldn't have to enter until they were ready to do so. Have they denied their potential participation as of yet? No, because to say they were going to definitively stay out wouldn't be something they could say in good faith. Otherwise, they could have followed NATO's route in a different conflict with a declaration of non-aggression if they were worried about getting hit despite being avowedly neutral to the conflict. [/quote] See the part of my post about the definition of "alleged" word who cover your poor excuses. Your only line of defense is that NPO was going to join the conflict but you have no material proves to back up your allegations, all your paranoid illusions about NpO/STA protecting NPO were already proven false. Also regarding the fact that you think that they should followed NATO's route: I already said that doesn't matter how much power you have right now, you can't force an alliance to play under your rules if they doesn't want to, therefore you can't use the fact that NPO didn't declared neutrality like you wanted, as a reason to attack them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1302260786' post='2686698'] Umbrella could learn a thing or two on FA from invicta. [/quote] brb moving to aqua team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1302265674' post='2686714'] See the part of my post about the definition of "alleged" word who cover your poor excuses. Your only line of defense is that NPO was going to join the conflict but you have no material proves to back up your allegations, all your paranoid illusions about NpO/STA protecting NPO were already proven false. Also regarding the fact that you think that they should followed NATO's route: I already said that doesn't matter how much power you have right now, you can't force an alliance to play under your rules if they doesn't want to, therefore you can't use the fact that NPO didn't declared neutrality like you wanted, as a reason to attack them. [/quote] There was enough to go on and hurting the overall war strategically by allowing it to drag out longer was not in our interests. It wasn't really proven false in an actual sense. It was denied that it was being done for the benefit of NPO, but not that it was actually happening in some sense. The only solid argument I've seen against doing it hasn't amounted to "NPO wasn't going to enter," but rather "NPO's treaty links hadn't been activated, but they would enter in case of their allies involvement." The issue with the latter is when the alliances that can bring NPO in are being positioned in a manner where they do not enter early on means either we play along with that strategy or attack them. After six days of playing along, it made more sense to just go in. So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302195020' post='2686204'] Any alliance which has Chinese Democracy as a member forfeits the right to brag about the superior preparation of its nations. [/quote] You should know better than to pick the worst prepared nation of an alliance and use it as an insult considering you have a 10k infra member who got bill locked by peace mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts