Guardian Military Action

[Gregory House]

!@#$ dude, do you even read before replying?

 

There was no misunderstanding.

 

Like I said to you before, I don't care about your opinion. I have merely highlighted the hypocrisy in your alliances actions.

 

Well then consider this conversation over because as I said I have no interest whatsoever in speaking for the alliance, only myself.

[Saru]

Well then consider this conversation over because as I said I have no interest whatsoever in speaking for the alliance, only myself.

 

Obviously. Afterall this discussion is about your alliance, not you.

[ELPINCHAZO]

justification for the war doesn't matter... what matters is that nobody cares enough to do anything about it

 

that doesn't, however, mean that there won't be repercussions. continued guardian/test military presence is costing exponentially greater political capital.

 

green eyes are watching...

No one else should care, if CU can't care enough to even contact us about why they are even at war OR that they might even like it to stop.

[Gregory House]

Obviously. Afterall this discussion is about your alliance, not you.

 

You say that like I didn't understand that going in. I was offering my personal opinion on the matter of the alliance, but not on behalf of the alliance.

[Saru]

You say that like I didn't understand that going in. I was offering my personal opinion on the matter of the alliance, but not on behalf of the alliance.

 

Why are you still posting? I thought the conversation was finished. Let's stick to discussing your alliance, and not you.

 

No one else should care, if CU can't care enough to even contact us about why they are even at war OR that they might even like it to stop.

 

 

I believe Grealind contacted Prefontaine already.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru

[Prefontaine]

Don't pretend that you can't see the extreme differences in your public statements now in comparison to the last two wars. We can all recognise political posturing and when people are acting to forward their agenda, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the views and rhetoric they pushed in the past.

 

Comparing the statements you are making about your actions in this situation and the criticism of us going in on EoS' behalf when there actually was a tangible threat against us all is one of the many examples.

 

If it's so obvious, and so extreme, it should be easy to find an example? Or are you still placing all your chips on me asking your alliance a question on if they considered something a stand-alone valid reason for war? I sure as hell never said my stance on it. You simply assume, and you know how that saying about assumptions goes.

[Gregory House]

 

Why are you still posting? I thought the conversation was finished.

 

 

Because of your insulting implication that I didn't understand what the !@#$ this topic was about.

[Saru]

 

Because of your insulting implication that I didn't understand what the !@#$ this topic was about.

 

 

Pretty clear that you are still clueless, as you continue to parrot on.

 

If it's so obvious, and so extreme, it should be easy to find an example? Or are you still placing all your chips on me asking your alliance a question on if they considered something a stand-alone valid reason for war? I sure as hell never said my stance on it. You simply assume, and you know how that saying about assumptions goes.

 

You can suggest something without directly expressing something. I am not assuming anything, merely thinking back to your implicit statements about us in the last two wars.

 

Let's take a trip down memory lane and look at your DoW on us from the last war:

 

 

When TC went to war with TAC over a month ago, it was made clear TC would be willing to go to war with anyone who remotely opposed them, or even had conversations about doing such. Thus, I committed to co founding a group to stand up to this tyranny. 

 

With EoS's disbandment our group faced an interesting problem, do we continue with our plan or seek other options? We could have deviated from our plan, but what if these logs reached TC months from now? It could have been the same case as the TAC war, that TC would use obsolete logs to fight an aggressive war against us and our allies.  And so we find ourselves, being proactive to eliminate a bloc who has made it clear by it's actions it will go to any lengths to attack any opposition.

 

Guardian hereby declares war on Dutch East India Company and United Purple Nations, to fulfill the promise we made over a month ago, to stand up to tyranny.

 

 

Let's compare the two situations. We honoured EoS' request and enterred on their behalf, on the grounds that TAC and others proactively plotted against us. You enterred on TEst's behalf, who merely attacked CU for the shits and giggles. Do you not see the irony?

 

"And so we find ourselves, being proactive to eliminate a bloc who has made it clear by it's actions it will go to any lengths to attack any opposition." -- Atleast we attacked our opposition. Not smashing smaller alliances and dictating how they should play the game in the process.

 

Would you willingly admit that you have turned into tyrants then?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru

[Grillick]

Obviously. Afterall this discussion is about your alliance, not you.

What?

 

A discussion that isn't about House?

 

Impossible!

[Oskar von Reuenthal]

If it's so obvious, and so extreme, it should be easy to find an example? Or are you still placing all your chips on me asking your alliance a question on if they considered something a stand-alone valid reason for war? I sure as hell never said my stance on it. You simply assume, and you know how that saying about assumptions goes.

 

You're assuming that Saru and the many are assuming an assuming role. You simply assume, and you know how that saying about assumptions goes.

[Gregory House]

Pretty clear that you are still clueless, as you continue to parrot on.

 

Clueless with regards to what, exactly?

 

I also see you edited your post to this:

 

 

Why are you still posting? I thought the conversation was finished. Let's stick to discussing your alliance, and not you.

 

Which was retarded, because I had literally just said,

 

I was offering my personal opinion on the matter of the alliance, but not on behalf of the alliance.

 

Unless you had meant to imply that I'm not supposed to offer my own opinions in threads like this, which is what you're doing by the way?

 

It's clear to everyone here that you have a vested interest in making Guardian out to look like a tyrant, anyway.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Gregory House

[Clarke]

I'm not sure if they're tyrants but they're circle jerkers. 

[Saru]

What I ment by my edited post is that you should stop with the continuous posts of your opinions, when we have already agreed that your opinions don't represent your alliance and aren't inline with your superiors in Guardian, and therefore your opinion is wholly irrelevant when discussing the actions of your alliance. Yet you still insist on doing so...

 

 

It's clear to everyone here that you have a vested interest in making Guardian out to look like a tyrant, anyway.

 

I am not sure if I am being trolled or not.

 

Making out to look like a tyrant? Your alliances actions are tyrannical by tautology.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru

[Donald Sterling]

House seems to have a thing for getting into arguments and making himself look like a complete fool. 

[Gregory House]

I am not sure if I am being trolled or not.

 

Making out to look like a tyrant? Your alliances actions are tyrannical by tautology.

 

You basically just said, "my belief is fact."

 

Of course you think your belief is fact, otherwise you wouldn't !@#$ing believe it.

 

What I'm saying is that you hold this belief because you're biased against Guardian.

[Saru]

You basically just said, "my belief is fact."

 

Of course you think your belief is fact, otherwise you wouldn't !@#$ believe it.

 

What I'm saying is that you hold this belief because you're biased against Guardian.

 

That's not what I said. I said that your actions have been objectively tyrannical -- by the definition of the word, and by your very own standards that you have set out. (even though admittedly it could of been a lot worse.)

Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru

[Prefontaine]

Let's compare the two situations. We honoured EoS' request and enterred on their behalf, on the grounds that TAC and others proactively plotted against us. You enterred on TEst's behalf, who merely attacked CU for the shits and giggles. Do you not see the irony?

 

"And so we find ourselves, being proactive to eliminate a bloc who has made it clear by it's actions it will go to any lengths to attack any opposition." -- Atleast we attacked our opposition. Not smashing smaller alliances and dictating how they should play the game in the process.

 

Would you willingly admit that you have turned into tyrants then?

 

If CU had been plotting against us, or had been in any way opposition to us, the perhaps your points would apply. But considering they're not, there is no contradiction and thus no double standard as you claim there to be a plethora of. So still, baseless claims of double standards without any double standards.

 

Look, you're obviously going to keep trying to spin this like we're some evil war mongers. I get it. You're clinging to a glimmer of hope. But when you look at the facts 7 wars begin declared (well 1 more for the guy who is fighting back agressively, kudos to him), no missiles being used, probably totals in infra loss that will be less than 1-1.5 wars using missiles, is hardly war mongering. This is a drill. We could have attacked anyone, for any reason and you would have tried to paint this boring picture. But the fact is I'm not what you're claiming otherwise there would be proof falling out of every orifice since you claim there to be so much. This is a minor military engagement to support an ally where our members will be doing less damage than would be caused by a single rogue. So by all means, keep peddling your bullshit, because that what it is, pure cow excrement. The fact that your harping on this so hard just reeks of desperation. 

 

I wonder how many more times I'll have to repeat myself in this thread. By all means Saru, carry on with your BS. If you make any modicum of a point, maybe I'll respond, but until that happens I'm done indulging your baseless claims. 

[Kim Jong-Il]

How can we believe you while you worship satan?

 

 

[Ogaden]

>claim I'm some tyrant

 

nobody here did this

 

>for sanctioning the first alliance attacks since the marionette war

 

you didn't do this, either

 

We warned about the arrghpocalypse but noone would listen

[Saru]

If CU had been plotting against us, or had been in any way opposition to us, the perhaps your points would apply. But considering they're not, there is no contradiction and thus no double standard as you claim there to be a plethora of. So still, baseless claims of double standards without any double standards.

 

The two scenarios aren't the same for sure. We actually had reason to attack based on something our opponents had actually done. Not because we wanted to carry out a military drill, act as the world police/tell people how they should be playing this game and generally wave our dick.

 

You declared war on us, and were insistent on branding us as tyrants -- for responding to a threat. Yet your recent actions prove that you are way worse, by your own standards that you set out.

 

If you can hit CU, when they have done nothing. Then you will do so again to the others I am sure. And given the magnitude of your current strength advantage, you will face little repercussions of this. Any alliance that isn't your immediate ally, and has people with brains would be worried. Furthermore I still doubt your claim that this is ultimately good for the community at large. All I see is a midsized alliance getting set back and experiencing a lot of damages. It's detrimental in the long run for the long term viability of this community. (even though it has provided us with a short term spike in activity in interest.)

Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru

[Kim Jong-Il]

We warned about the arrghpocalypse but noone would listen

 

Time to pursuit the booty

[Prefontaine]

How can we believe you while you worship satan?

 

 

 

The two scenarios aren't the same for sure. We actually had reason to attack based on something our opponents had actually done. Not because we wanted to carry out a military drill, and act as the world police/tell people how they should be playing this game.

 

You declared war on us, and were insistent on branding us as tyrants -- for responding to a threat. Yet your recent actions prove that you are way worse, by your own standards that you set out.

 

We have a reason too. We're supporting allies. We're not telling them how to play the game, but simply to play the game. But by all means, continue being completely wrong. 

 

EDIT: "Responding to a threat" From over a month previous that never got off the ground. Keep trying though. It's funny your devotion to being incorrect.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Saru]

 

 

We have a reason too. We're supporting allies. We're not telling them how to play the game, but simply to play the game. But by all means, continue being completely wrong. 

 

EDIT: "Responding to a threat" From over a month previous that never got off the ground. Keep trying though. It's funny your devotion to being incorrect.

 

I didn't claim you don't have a reason -- all actions obviously have a reason behind them. I said that we had a reason, based on something the other party had done. Whereas in this case, CU have done nothing to you or TEst to warrant this.

[Phiney]

I didn't claim you don't have a reason -- all actions obviously have a reason behind them. I said that we had a reason, based on something the other party had done. Whereas in this case, CU have done nothing to you or TEst to warrant this.

CU exists, this makes them a worthy target for the bloodgod, that is all that is needed.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Phiney

[Oskar von Reuenthal]

 

We have a reason too. We're supporting allies. We're not telling them how to play the game, but simply to play the game. But by all means, continue being completely wrong. 

 

EDIT: "Responding to a threat" From over a month previous that never got off the ground. Keep trying though. It's funny your devotion to being incorrect.

 

I enjoy your petty comments at the end of your posts, since the majority of your posts are juxtaposed in an artistic manner that attempts to present itself as true. For most of the thread, you have been missing the point and attacking Saru, not the argument that he presents. If anybody has shown the most bias and immaturity in their arguments, it has been you. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by Oskar von Reuenthal