D34th Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300344359' post='2667364'] No, wars should be fought, not opted out of. If NPO decides to not fight, and there's a resultant "eternal war," they have only themselves to blame. They have avenues out of the war but choose not to take them. [/quote] Ask FAN about how it ended for NPO when they tried this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge X Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Feuersturm' timestamp='1300344559' post='2667371'] Let me get this straight. You attack us to prevent us from [u]potentially[/u] committing our forces with NpO. Now with that war concluded, you are worried about our upper tiers not having been attacked. So the war was to keep up out of the war with NpO, but instead drew us in anyway. NpO has peaced, therefore meaning the war to keep us out should not be needed anymore. With their objective complete, why is there no white peace? I mean, you don't have to worry about us attacking you guys 6 months after the war! Of course, this war was never really meant to keep us out, their goal since we left terms was to pull us in one way or the other. When we didn't bite, they got frustrated, and decided 'Wait - why don't we just attack them.'. No CB required. Then there is this part I hear about...'Well NPO did it 3 or 4 years ago, so we can do it too'. I like to think the community has evolved since then. You know this war, KARMA, that was supposed to turn the world around? Then again, I look at Doomhouse and realize that a good number of people have not. [/quote] Oh, please stop with all your Sane rationalizations. They will get you nowhere... o/ Moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1300344896' post='2667384'] Maybe I missed it, but why not one on one? [/quote] That is rather obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 What peace? FAN and Nor aren't mentioned in this so it doesn't apply to them. After you and your buddies have finished beating down our top tier for 4 weeks those two, and whoever they bring in to assist, will be free to keep killing for however long they see fit. I will be beyond disappointed if our govt even considers taking your 'offer'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1300344660' post='2667378'] Because you're giving an ultimatum to NPO. "Accept our demands or face eternal war". How can you not see the hypocrisy in this? You knowingly went into this war. There are no refunds. Deal with it. [/quote] When have you seen otherwise? Are ultimatums not the whole point of surrender terms in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scipio Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1300344931' post='2667385'] Ask FAN about how it ended for NPO when they tried this... [/quote] The difference is FAN was not offered terms. NPO has been. This is a stupid argument and you are stupid for using it. Edited March 17, 2011 by General Scipio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300344359' post='2667364'] If they choose to stay in peace mode and not fight, I don't know why it could be pinned on our side as the badguys. Unless you believe that people should be rewarded for not fighting in, like, wars. And that future conflicts should be decided by who slips into peace first and forces a white peace. No, wars should be fought, not opted out of. If NPO decides to not fight, and there's a resultant "eternal war," they have only themselves to blame. They have avenues out of the war but choose not to take them. [/quote] Yes, it is up to the defending side to end a war. It is not in Doom House's power to end a war they started. NPO chose to fight this war because they exist and haven't paid their dues. Karma's a !@#$%*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1300343521' post='2667333'] We're asking an alliance to pen a work about the alliances that have triumphed over theirs. It's just as valid to want to hear a saga detailing my glorious exploits and be done with it instead of taking forever to organise payment. [/quote] No, it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1300344969' post='2667387'] That is rather obvious. [/quote] Mr. Stuart, I'm not one to ask a question I know the meaning to, maybe I don't understand the historical rhetoric, please explain my good sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1300344896' post='2667384'] Maybe I missed it, but why not one on one? [/quote] Because calling for a one-on-one fight was a PR attack of desperation when I did it back in GCW and it is no less so now. Nobody does such things and anybody who agreed to do so would be an idiot. Besides, history shows what happens when the Kingdom and the Order fight in different circumstances. The Kingdom thrashed the Order, along with the Entente and Echelon, in NoCB despite being tremendously outnumbered. We of course surrendered by virtue of the same realities visible here--we were outnumbered and could not have possibly won in any formal sense--but the results are helpful for considering the outcome of a hypothetical. MK would win. But that is neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1300344561' post='2667372'] Has anyone pointed out that NPO coming out of Peace mode won't suddenly make them incapable of fighting? They'll still be able to put out the same amount of damage they take. 1 month of war won't significantly cripple banking nations, if they have the billions they should. [/quote] The issue is not the damage that is to be taken. The issue is the lack of guarantee of peace at the end of that month. At the end of the month, only then will peace discussions begin (as I understand it). By that logic, why the hell bring out the upper tier on the enemy's terms, when peace is not even guaranteed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Waterana' timestamp='1300345022' post='2667388'] What peace? FAN and Nor aren't mentioned in this so it doesn't apply to them. After you and your buddies have finished beating down our top tier for 4 weeks those two, and whoever they bring in to assist, will be free to keep killing for however long they see fit. I will be beyond disappointed if our govt even considers taking your 'offer'. [/quote] You are incorrect. Both the Federation and Nordreich attended and agreed to the offer in the formal meeting with your leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300344376' post='2667366'] How so? I genuinely believe that Pacifican leadership will ultimately reach the same conclusion that I have: that this is fair conclusion to war. If anything is to be negotiated, it is not their terms, but rather the terms of their myriad allies. If they refuse it will be to buy time to settle those matters before emerging to finish the fight themselves. Pacifica will earn its peace and in the wake be more proud of itself than it could ever be from submitting to some term of reparation or humiliation. It is in their interest to meet this demand. [/quote] I don't believe you'll garner much respect from an alliance you people treat as a punching bag, notwithstanding the temperance of your demands. Regardless, I am interested to see why you think extorting reparations from our allies makes us more accommodating to your demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1300345219' post='2667397'] The issue is not the damage that is to be taken. The issue is the lack of guarantee of peace at the end of that month. At the end of the month, only then will peace discussions begin (as I understand it). By that logic, why the hell bring out the upper tier on the enemy's terms, when peace is not even guaranteed? [/quote] Incorrect, as I've stated repeatedly in this thread. [b]After one month of war NPO can take peace whenever it wants it. It will be given, no further demands made.[/b] If the war continues beyond one month it would be by Pacifica's choice, not our own. That is the "give or take a few days". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scipio Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1300345219' post='2667397'] The issue is not the damage that is to be taken. The issue is the lack of guarantee of peace at the end of that month. At the end of the month, only then will peace discussions begin (as I understand it). By that logic, why the hell bring out the upper tier on the enemy's terms, when peace is not even guaranteed? [/quote] Read the thread. Ardus has said that before this goes on they will dicuss together a timetable for peace. If NPO accepts they will almost certainly know the exact day they will get peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300345204' post='2667395'] Because calling for a one-on-one fight was a PR attack of desperation when I did it back in GCW and it is no less so now. Nobody does such things and anybody who agreed to do so would be an idiot. Besides, history shows what happens when the Kingdom and the Order fight in different circumstances. The Kingdom thrashed the Order, along with the Entente and Echelon, in NoCB despite being tremendously outnumbered. We of course surrendered by virtue of the same realities visible here--we were outnumbered and could not have possibly won in any formal sense--but the results are helpful for considering the outcome of a hypothetical. MK would win. But that is neither here nor there. [/quote] So you are basically saying that you're completely confidant in your victory, but refuse to consider the idea despite said confidence. Yeah. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1300345036' post='2667390'] The difference is FAN was not offered terms. NPO has been. This is a stupid argument and you are stupid for using it. [/quote] You attack his intelligence simply because he brings up a very good point? I am in favor of this, but what is to stop you from continuing the attack even after the agreed period of time? Your word? That means nothing when being compared to the destruction of their whole alliance. His concerns are valid, and if you could hold your weight in an intellectual conversation you would have ignored the comment, or been able to answer it with more than the fallacy of attacking him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300345204' post='2667395'] Because calling for a one-on-one fight was a PR attack of desperation when I did it back in GCW and it is no less so now. Nobody does such things and anybody who agreed to do so would be an idiot. Besides, history shows what happens when the Kingdom and the Order fight in different circumstances. The Kingdom thrashed the Order, along with the Entente and Echelon, in NoCB despite being tremendously outnumbered. We of course surrendered by virtue of the same realities visible here--we were outnumbered and could not have possibly won in any formal sense--but the results are helpful for considering the outcome of a hypothetical. MK would win. But that is neither here nor there. [/quote] Using the word "trashing" to describe is loss is pretty ironic. Also if you're not concerned about losing and you want to have war I don't see why a one on one could possibly be unfavorable. In fact NPO may actually want to fight if you could skew the odds to make it more even. After all, this is about just fighting right? Edited March 17, 2011 by Earogema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1300343962' post='2667349'] Looking at the posts Pacificans have made here, they won't accept this. I guess that means eternal war until they accept the offer? [/quote] Hmm this sounds vaguely familiar. Gramlins: "accept our proposal of unconditional surrender or face eternal war." [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1300344166' post='2667358'] Just a nobody's opinion, but since you have no illusions that you would be their target, how about NPO Vs. MK. No outside aid, not allies, just one on one. Have the fight you have been destine to have, besides I think it would be amazing to watch Honestly though, my money is on Pacifica in that case. [/quote] I agree. If you are so anxious to have this war, do it right, 1 on 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300344132' post='2667356'] Don't you have a baby to filet? [/quote] If he doesn't, I sure do... and I'm lookin at his post! I still think Fluttershy is cuter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300344359' post='2667364'] If they choose to stay in peace mode and not fight, I don't know why it could be pinned on our side as the badguys. Unless you believe that people should be rewarded for not fighting in, like, wars. And that future conflicts should be decided by who slips into peace first and forces a white peace. No, wars should be fought, not opted out of. If NPO decides to not fight, and there's a resultant "eternal war," they have only themselves to blame. They have avenues out of the war but choose not to take them. [/quote] Heh. You're the bad guys because you started an unprovoked war. You're to blame because you started an unprovoked war. If you wanted a real fight you should have put some effort into finding a "real" reason like VE did instead of declaring an unprovoked war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1300345082' post='2667392'] No, it isn't. [/quote] Care to...explain why those two are different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1300345295' post='2667401'] I don't believe you'll garner much respect from an alliance you people treat as a punching bag, notwithstanding the temperance of your demands. Regardless, I am interested to see why you think extorting reparations from our allies makes us more accommodating to your demands. [/quote] I don't. I said I could see you setting aside our offer until acceptable terms could be secured for your allies. As in, you refuse the offer because you think our demands of others are too high or incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scipio Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1300345407' post='2667407'] You attack his intelligence simply because he brings up a very good point? I am in favor of this, but what is to stop you from continuing the attack even after the agreed period of time? Your word? That means nothing when being compared to the destruction of their whole alliance. His concerns are valid, and if you could hold your weight in an intellectual conversation you would have ignored the comment, or been able to answer it with more than the fallacy of attacking him. [/quote] No, I'm calling him stupid because it's stupid to compare something to nothing. NPO has terms, FAN never did. You cannot compare the situations. This isn't even comparing apples and oranges, this is comparing apples to literally nothing and thinking the comparison is vaild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1300345486' post='2667411'] Heh. You're the bad guys because you started an unprovoked war. You're to blame because you started an unprovoked war. If you wanted a real fight you should have put some effort into finding a "real" reason like VE did instead of declaring an unprovoked war. [/quote] The fight has been no less real than the Polar-VE fight. Ask NPO and the Hopeless Coalition if this fight has been 'real' for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts