Quote:
DrPraetorious said:
You *could* have ignored C'tis' calls for war, or fought a defensive engagement only in the unlikely event that he invaded you himself.
Instead, you proceeded to invade him - so I attacked you, duh, as indeed I said I would if I thought you were doing too well in that war.
What did you expect?
|
The mighty nation of Midgard will hear no more of MA Man's silly arguments, laced with non-truths and retardisms (a word freshly coined by Midgard's scribes to describe the empty headed notions of MA Man). What pungent, ineffective, backwards logic they have. That the land of Midgard should sit idly by while their neighbors declare all out war on them, calling for all nations to attack, and *hope* that their borders are not invaded. That defending one's self by bringing the battle to the enemy is a sign of weakness or poor strategy. This comes from the same MA Man that complained so whole heartedly about how Midgard would not meet them in battle. Apparently the idea of "tactics" and "strategy" is lost on the vultures of MA Man. And who lambasted their own ally for raiding Midgard's lands. A strategy which has proved quite effective.
Man should only be so lucky that they have a lackey in the form of EA C'Tis who will endure such abuse from a nation whom must be filled with commanders with no grasp on strategy.
And, to top it all off, Man actively pretends to have "warned" the mighty nation of Midgard that it would attack. As if Midgard defending itself agaisnt EA C'Tis has somehow brought the attack of C'Tis and Man down upon it.
The reality is that MA Man only offered vague excuses about an alliance with LA C'Tis when an NAP was asked about, while EA C'Tis gathered forces on our border. No where in that accord was "we'll attack you if you do too well against EA C'Tis" mentioned, but the people of Midgard are sure that Man would love to have the moral high ground. Anything, really, to make the notion of four nations against one seem more palatable.
Jazzepi