A Statement from Doomhouse

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300757848' post='2672781']
I will be honest, the fact that they sat back and except the occasional thread on the forum, did absolutely nothing, generates a feeling that they have changed. Why? Simple. [b]If it were the old NPO, they would be out and about trying to gather and ally every friggin alliance that breathes in order to become the Hegemony once more and rule CN.[/b]

Apparently, they did not engage in such tactics which to me, shows that they had changed at least somewhat. Maybe not to the maximum liking of most, but to me at least, they had changed to an extent. Sometimes, change is slow in coming partially because many are simply unwilling to grant NPO a chance to show they have changed and others simply because they won't believe it period.
[/quote]

It's not so much the case of them not trying, it's more the case of most alliances not being willing to go on board with that.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300757809' post='2672780']Actually it's kind of interesting if you think of it (assuming it's within your capacities that is), because were it not for DH'a pre-emptive attack on NPO there would have been only two fronts. NpO-VE and AZTEC-Sparta. And in that case NPO would have been peripheral because they would have chained into fighting on the NpO front instead of having a battle front of their own. No doubt all of this was the same war. Reading comprehension for the win.
[/quote]
Actually, that is interesting, and you probably know the answer to this question: If Sparta had not attacked NV, would the rest of AZTEC and TFD have necessarily been involved on NpO's side of the war, given the distrust for NpO within TFD in particular?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300757848' post='2672781']
I will be honest, the fact that they sat back and except the occasional thread on the forum, did absolutely nothing, generates a feeling that they have changed. Why? Simple. If it were the old NPO, they would be out and about trying to gather and ally every friggin alliance that breathes in order to become the Hegemony once more and rule CN.

Apparently, they did not engage in such tactics which to me, shows that they had changed at least somewhat. Maybe not to the maximum liking of most, but to me at least, they had changed to an extent. Sometimes, change is slow in coming partially because many are simply unwilling to grant NPO a chance to show they have changed and others simply because they won't believe it period.
[/quote]

I assume NPO is smart enough to realize that if they were that obvious in trying to rebuild the Pacifican Hegemony, it wouldn't end well for them. What they haven't done is given anyone reason to believe they won't return to the way the were before the moment they're given the opportunity.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300758175' post='2672788']
Actually, that is interesting, and you probably know the answer to this question: If Sparta had not attacked NV, would the rest of AZTEC and TFD have necessarily been involved on NpO's side of the war, given the distrust for NpO within TFD in particular?
[/quote]

If NV had not been attacked there wouldn't have been a Sparta-AZTEC front. On the other hand NATO would have been called upon the pre-emptive strike on NPO and that would have mobilized TFD that front. How that would have worked out I don't really know since, while I was TFD government, there was a genuine distrust for that side's coalition based on the way TFD felt used in BiPolar.

[Monster]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300758175' post='2672788']
Actually, that is interesting, and you probably know the answer to this question: If Sparta had not attacked NV, would the rest of AZTEC and TFD have necessarily been involved on NpO's side of the war, given the distrust for NpO within TFD in particular?
[/quote]

NV had previously said they would attack Athens if they hit STA, so I think so. STA could not be sufficiently countered until the NV issue was out of the way.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300757069' post='2672771']
As a member of MK, is this your understanding of the rationale for the war, i.e. that NPO deliberately provoked and wanted to roll MK, so MK attacked NPO to neutralise it as a potential future threat?
[/quote]
No I wanted to attack and roll you period, I don't care about removing you as a potential future threat. War is an end in itself for me.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300758612' post='2672794']
If NV had not been attacked there wouldn't have been a Sparta-AZTEC front. On the other hand NATO would have been called upon the pre-emptive strike on NPO and that would have mobilized TFD that front. How that would have worked out I don't really know since, while I was TFD government, there was a genuine distrust for that side's coalition based on the way TFD felt used in BiPolar.
[/quote]
Thanks for your response

Here is an idea: Abstracting from the "preemptive strike", is it conceivable that NATO/TFD could have actually entered on the other side, and possible chained in NPO from, in the words of one of my colleagues, "no desire to help NpO (or VE), either from a dislike for NpO or extreme apathy towards their situation?"

It seems that PB (through its attack on Polar) and Doomhouse (through its "preemptive strike" on Pacifica) created a side that did not exist prior to the war, and which was based on no particular friendship between the alliances, and was only formed out of necessity entirely in response to the actions of your side.

Edit:

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300758869' post='2672798']
No I wanted to attack and roll you period, I don't care about removing you as a potential future threat. War is an end in itself for me.
[/quote]
I'm not in NPO. Does this mean that NATO is next in line for a "preemptive strike"?

Edited March 22, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300757982' post='2672783']
It's not so much the case of them not trying, it's more the case of most alliances not being willing to go on board with that.
[/quote]

This could be true as well. Which though still disproves ya'lls claim that NPO was any serious threat.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1300758526' post='2672793']
I assume NPO is smart enough to realize that if they were that obvious in trying to rebuild the Pacifican Hegemony, it wouldn't end well for them. What they haven't done is given anyone reason to believe they won't return to the way the were before the moment they're given the opportunity.
[/quote]

From what I have seen, they have not really done anything at all. They have not given any reason to believe they would return either.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300759244' post='2672805']
I'm not in NPO. Does this mean that NATO is next in line for a "preemptive strike"?
[/quote]
Pshh, it's possible that at some point in the future NATO may become powerful and might declare war on MK for some unknown reason. I don't see how he could justify [i]not[/i] attacking you.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Shodemofi

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300759244' post='2672805']
Thanks for your response

Here is an idea: Abstracting from the "preemptive strike", is it conceivable that NATO/TFD could have actually entered on the other side, and possible chained in NPO from, in the words of one of my colleagues, "no desire to help NpO (or VE), either from a dislike for NpO or extreme apathy towards their situation?"

It seems that PB (through its attack on Polar) and Doomhouse (through its "preemptive strike" on Pacifica) created a side that did not exist prior to the war, and which was based on no particular friendship between the alliances, and was only formed out of necessity entirely in response to the actions of your side.

Edit: I'm not in NPO. Does this mean that NATO is next in line for a "preemptive strike"?
[/quote]

You mean, is it possible that if NV had fought for VE or NATO decided to support LSF that TFD/NATO would have fought on the other side and then chained in NPO on VE's side? Well, before the details on the CB came out the first option was a real possibility. As far as I know the second was never possible. Ever.

First due to the fact that NPO would be fighting on the side that would eliminate most of their closest allies that were "locked in" the situation such as Legion and NSO. That would have been, at the very least, counter-productive to NPO and would earn them no sympathy. Overall result would have been that the dislike for NPO would remain on DH's part, eventually a new conflict would be generated and NPO then would have no allies to come for them. Second, NATO and NPO's treaty is a non-chaining MDP. If NATO was fighting on the other side it is not all that likely they would be countered and even if they were I doubt NPO would, once again, chain to fight their own allied sphere.

Or I may have misunderstood your question.

[Monster]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300759244' post='2672805']
Thanks for your response

Here is an idea: Abstracting from the "preemptive strike", is it conceivable that NATO/TFD could have actually entered on the other side, and possible chained in NPO from, in the words of one of my colleagues, "no desire to help NpO (or VE), either from a dislike for NpO or extreme apathy towards their situation?"[/quote]

No, if NPO wanted to roll against Polar, they had an avenue for doing that regardless: Hydra. There was zero chance of NPO helping PB in any capacity given their treaties and the fact that they were going to be further entrenched in Polar's sphere if they were able to upgrade TIO, which was a foreign policy objective for them. I mean, the spheres were becoming more meshed by the month. I already pointed this out before. NPO tried the hardest to improve relations with NpO allies and had no affinity for VE. If it comes to down to Polar and VE being the options, it's obvious who they dislike more. The TPF-STA and NpO-Legion treaties along with NPO's own FA efforts cannot be discounted.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300760000' post='2672817']
No, if NPO wanted to roll against Polar, they had an avenue for doing that regardless: Hydra. There was zero chance of NPO helping PB in any capacity given their treaties and the fact that they were going to be further entrenched in Polar's sphere if they were able to upgrade TIO, which was a foreign policy objective for them. I mean, the spheres were becoming more meshed by the month. I already pointed this out before. NPO tried the hardest to improve relations with NpO allies and had no affinity for VE. If it comes to down to Polar and VE being the options, it's obvious who they dislike more.
[/quote]
I'll reply to this, but Lusi answered the question also.

It seems that your side predetermined that NPO would enter the conflict, and there was no way that it could have avoided the conflict (as shown by your "preemptive strike"), with the possible exception of posting a DoN. This is why your justification for the preemptive strike is so difficult to understand: You attacked NPO for not doing something (posting a DoN), rather than for anything it intended to do, because it was already predetermined that NPO would be entering.

The conspiracy theorists among us might argue that PB's attack on NpO was actually intended to provide the justification for an attack by Doomhouse on NPO, and address a few other grudges and hold off other alliances along the way. It is telling that Doomhouse's public justification for the war has changed now that NpO has exited.

[Monster]

It was predetermined NPO would enter because of the treaties and the fact that it would be completely dumb of them not to enter. It was going to be their only opportunity to put up any resistance. Not entering was nonsensical when you take the treaties and FA direction along with that factor into perspective. The options were pretty clear: NPO enters and gets rolled with Polar and NPO doesn't enter and gets rolled alone given they'd be the main target after the Polar war.

The justification hasn't really changed. Bottom line: even if NPO had entered conventionally and Polar peaced out, they would still be at war. It wouldn't be any different unless say Polar insisted on not peacing without NPO getting peace. It was always going to be the case given the PM strategy which would have made even more sense to employ in a conventional entry.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300759244' post='2672805']
I'm not in NPO. Does this mean that NATO is next in line for a "preemptive strike"?
[/quote]
Forgot you weren't NPO, I meant NPO.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300760000' post='2672817']
No, if NPO wanted to roll against Polar, they had an avenue for doing that regardless: Hydra. There was zero chance of NPO helping PB in any capacity given their treaties and the fact that they were going to be further entrenched in Polar's sphere if they were able to upgrade TIO, which was a foreign policy objective for them. I mean, the spheres were becoming more meshed by the month. I already pointed this out before. NPO tried the hardest to improve relations with NpO allies and had no affinity for VE. If it comes to down to Polar and VE being the options, it's obvious who they dislike more. The TPF-STA and NpO-Legion treaties along with NPO's own FA efforts cannot be discounted.
[/quote]
This just in: Pacifica isn't allowed to have allies, attacked for trying to be friendly with others. But they're still evil and haven't changed their ways. So they were attacked for two contradicting reasons. Good job, Roq.

[Monster]

How does trying to ally specific groups for political gain entail changing?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300761322' post='2672829']
This just in: Pacifica isn't allowed to have allies, attacked for trying to be friendly with others. But they're still evil and haven't changed their ways. So they were attacked for two contradicting reasons. Good job, Roq.
[/quote]

You're starting to sound a bit desperate by now.

[Jaiar]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300761398' post='2672830']
How does trying to ally specific groups for political gain entail changing?
[/quote]
Wow, no matter what we will always be your bogey man. You lust for us. Your survival depends on us. How sad it must be not to have anything else to live for.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1300762015' post='2672836']
Wow, no matter what we will always be your bogey man. You lust for us. Your survival depends on us. How sad it must be not to have anything else to live for.
[/quote]
Well if your allies weren't all just so incomparably awful we might could shoot for them instead, but oh well...

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1300762015' post='2672836']
Wow, no matter what we will always be your bogey man. You lust for us. Your survival depends on us. How sad it must be not to have anything else to live for.
[/quote]
This "we don't like you and want to roll you and you are lined up against us = our survival depends on you" style of "reasoning" is really stupid and gets really old. Just because we like fighting with you doesn't mean that we don't have anything else to do. Our last major war had nothing to do with you.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Azaghul

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300762758' post='2672848']
This "we don't like you and want to roll you and you are lined up against us = our survival depends on you" style of "reasoning" is really stupid and gets really old. Just because we like fighting with you doesn't mean that we don't have anything else to do. Our last major war had nothing to do with you.
[/quote]
Only because they were still under terms at the time. Otherwise you would have pre-empted them then.

[Jaiar]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300762758' post='2672848']
This "we don't like you and want to roll you and you are lined up against us = our survival depends on you" style of "reasoning" is really stupid and gets really old. Just because we like fighting with you doesn't mean that we don't have anything else to do. Our last major war had nothing to do with you.
[/quote]
No, No. I am right and you are wrong. We dominate you by simply existing. All your thoughts and all your actions are dictated by our existence. We are just that awesome.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Jaiar

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300762890' post='2672853']
Only because they were still under terms at the time. Otherwise you would have pre-empted them then.
[/quote]
Dang, and I thought we were the ones who were paranoid.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1300763126' post='2672856']
No, No. I am right and you are wrong. We dominate you by simply existing. All your thoughts and all your actions are dictated by our existence. We are just that awesome.
[/quote]
Sure you are, champ.

Now let's all go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300763399' post='2672859']
Dang, and I thought we were the ones who were paranoid.
[/quote]
It's not paranoia when it's rooted in hard facts. The hard facts are that you lot have been looking for an excuse to roll Pacifica ever since they got out of terms from Karma. I can't count the thinly veiled attempts to drag them into war. When the last one failed like the rest, you just outright declared on them, citing all sorts of paranoid things, about how you had to deal with the boogeyman before he came for you in your sleep.