Jump to content
Kevanovia

Dial Up War: Propaganda

Recommended Posts

You'll never see the truth since it's not in your interest to see it because anyone who does something that's against BK is good, but the undeniable truth is tS was done with NPO so there was no reason to continue to back tS's plays. We let them harbor people who went to Guardian/CoS, we didn't raise a fuss over Sanreizan since we believed they'd actually get dropped post-war, we didn't hit TEst right away and everyone in Coalition B was constantly walking on eggshells around tS's moves because they knew we'd defend them.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

You do realize that BK has been a hostile element to t$ since before knightfall, right? That never stopped, and there have been multiple escalations and near-wars to show for it. t$ played nice with your girlfriends for your sake for a very very long time.

 

But keep harping on about how this is really all our fault and you're saints.

You do realize BK is just super undiplomatic and acts the same way with everyone? They never had designs on tS. The flaws in their approach to dealing with raid snafus have been highlighted to them, but you decided to see it as them trying to get you specifically and made it into a real one-sided grudge.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You do realize BK is just super undiplomatic and acts the same way with everyone? They never had designs on tS. The flaws in their approach to dealing with raid snafus have been highlighted to them, but you decided to see it as them trying to get you specifically and made it into a real one-sided grudge.

You do realize that BK being hostile to everyone means that they are indeed hostile to us, and as an ally of tS that should be problematic to you?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

You do realize that BK being hostile to everyone means that they are indeed hostile to us, and as an ally of tS that should be problematic to you?

Usually the usage of being hostile to someone in particular means they harbor a particular dislike. As an ally of tS, we offered a significant deterrent to any potential aggression from them to you or others and you threw it away and had tS sought to retain NPO as an ally, treated us as equals, and tried to find common ground, we would have had your back in the situation of them gunning for you. BK's confrontational approach has been problematic, however.

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Are you kidding me?

Until this point, we had always privileged tS over anything else except our ability to impact the war. We severely restricted our FA to appease tS, we stayed out for several days which caused us severe damage and made it a worse uphill battle, we lost other allies, and we enabled their protection of hostile elements. We let reliable people get burned. We took patronizing rhetoric and outright taunts.

Bro. Bro. 
It was sarcasm. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Usually the usage of being hostile to someone in particular means they harbor a particular dislike. As an ally of tS, we offered a significant deterrent to any potential aggression from them to you or others and you threw it away and had tS sought to retain NPO as an ally, treated us as equals, and tried to find common ground, we would have had your back in the situation of them gunning for you. BK's confrontational approach has been problematic, however.

The problem here is that BK on multiple occasions showed willingness to follow through on that hostility with military action. The first sign on that was the knightfall flareup, which nearly compromised the entire war effort.

The problem with these flareups is that NPO has at no point been willing to openly back The $yndicate over BK. You remain mute and allow BK to leverage t$ out of political position because you fear the loss of your BK contacts and the security those provide. I have always been pragmatic about these things, and I understand that you are looking out for yourself and your alliance. 

But when it backfires as it did just now and shit hits the fan, pinning the degeneration of relations solely on t$ is disingenious at best, and malicious at worst.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pop said:

H1BNhsa.jpg

4 Months? Grossly understated. I guarantee this war will be brought up in 10 years if other nation sims have set a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spaceballs the comment

 

(Avoiding the number of comments it has. Bad number that is unlucky)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nobody tell him.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 5:29 AM, Prefonteen said:

The problem here is that BK on multiple occasions showed willingness to follow through on that hostility with military action. The first sign on that was the knightfall flareup, which nearly compromised the entire war effort.

The problem with these flareups is that NPO has at no point been willing to openly back The $yndicate over BK. You remain mute and allow BK to leverage t$ out of political position because you fear the loss of your BK contacts and the security those provide. I have always been pragmatic about these things, and I understand that you are looking out for yourself and your alliance. 

But when it backfires as it did just now and shit hits the fan, pinning the degeneration of relations solely on t$ is disingenious at best, and malicious at worst.

I never ever said they didn't respond poorly by flaring up those situations but they usually were willing to back down.

How did they leverage out tS in anything? If they had shown any indication of military action against tS in recent memory until you pushed the limits of what we could enable, then we would have backed you. I mean I don't really know where this power struggle took place since you make it seem like a cornerstone of tS thinking. I've always granted BK has been uncouth in many instances.

I wasn't pinning it solely on tS. It's just more you were never clear that your sole goal was to fight BK or ensure they had to get held down indefinitely. It's not the understanding we had of our post-war goals with you. In this case, you kept shielding people who were at war with your own ally with minimal consultation and just showed a lack of concern because you were done with us anyway because of one disagreement you weren't willing to let go. On the other hand, we were willing to let go the humiliation and condescension we took from you because we wanted to continue with the sphere and make it its own entity capable of standing alone.  

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

^ Nobody tell him.

 

I never ever said they didn't respond poorly by flaring up those situations but they usually were willing to back down.

How did they leverage out tS in anything? If they had shown any indication of military action against tS in recent memory until you pushed the limits of what we could enable, then we would have backed you. I mean I don't really know where this power struggle took place since you make it seem like a cornerstone of tS thinking. I've always granted BK has been uncouth in many instances.

I wasn't pinning it solely on tS. It's just more you were never clear that your sole goal was to fight BK or ensure they had to get held down indefinitely. It's not the understanding we had of our post-war goals with you. In this case, you kept shielding people who were at war with your own ally with minimal consultation and just showed a lack of concern because you were done with us anyway because of one disagreement you weren't willing to let go. On the other hand, we were willing to let go the humiliation and condescension we took from you because we wanted to continue with the sphere and make it its own entity capable of standing alone.  

Stop being yourself and post propaganda, there are other 50 threads where you can lie about your politics

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

^ Nobody tell him.

 

I never ever said they didn't respond poorly by flaring up those situations but they usually were willing to back down.

How did they leverage out tS in anything? If they had shown any indication of military action against tS in recent memory until you pushed the limits of what we could enable, then we would have backed you. I mean I don't really know where this power struggle took place since you make it seem like a cornerstone of tS thinking. I've always granted BK has been uncouth in many instances.

I wasn't pinning it solely on tS. It's just more you were never clear that your sole goal was to fight BK or ensure they had to get held down indefinitely. It's not the understanding we had of our post-war goals with you. In this case, you kept shielding people who were at war with your own ally with minimal consultation and just showed a lack of concern because you were done with us anyway because of one disagreement you weren't willing to let go. On the other hand, we were willing to let go the humiliation and condescension we took from you because we wanted to continue with the sphere and make it its own entity capable of standing alone.  

And this time they weren't willing to back down despite once again escalating poorly. And you opted to hit our protectorate while bk hit us. 

 

You effectively attacked us indirectly by taking out support lined up to assist tS while tS was being hit. 

 

Our goal wasn't to hit bk. Our goal was to protect our protectorate from bk and BK-affiliated aggression. 

In multiple instances. 

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.