XYZ-SOFT - Powered by Discuz! Board

标题: [娱乐] 通往星辰の勇士——王の记事本 [打印本页]

作者: 幻影之风 时间: 2008-11-22 14:44 标题: 通往星辰の勇士——王の记事本

秋季的日子硝烟四起，冬季的日子战火纷飞！红莲面临了来自末日の审判！我们不求以怒火滋生复仇的心，我们只求拥有自由的领土！侵略我们的家园必将受到死亡刀锋的制裁，哪怕这刀锋已经如此的铁锈斑斑！战争给与了掠夺者财富，而留给我们的却是灵魂的升华！我们不害怕末日圣战的到来，就像北欧众神在黄昏前的高傲一样，我们要以勇气为刃战斗到最后一刻！永远不要让恐惧吞噬我们的内心，我们心中的红莲永远绽放，就算我们战死，我们也将成为末日圣战的英雄，永远在星辰的闪耀中释放光芒！

[ 本帖最后由幻影之风于 2008-11-22 14:45 编辑 ]

作者: 幻影之风 时间: 2008-11-22 14:45

分类怎么会是录像！OTL

作者: 我人 时间: 2008-11-22 14:45

值得吐嘈的地方太多了...我都不知道从哪下嘴

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 14:45

No distinction between just and unjust war

In the 8th edition of Hall's International Law (1924), we find the following passages:
"As international law is destitute of any judicial or administrative machinery, it leaves states, which think themselves aggrieved, and which have exhausted all peaceable methods of obtaining satisfaction, to exact redress for themselves by force. It thus recognizes war as a permitted mode of giving effect to its decisions. Theoretically,….. as it (international law) professes to cover the whole field of the relations of states which can be brought within the scope of law, it ought to determine the causes for which war can be justly undertaken; ….. it might also not unreasonably go on to discourage the commission of wrongs by subjecting a wrongdoer to special disabilities.
The first of these ends it attains to a certain degree, though very imperfectly…. In most of the disputes which arise between states, the grounds of quarrel, though they might probably be always brought into connection with the wide fundamental principles of law, are too complex to be judged with any certainty by reference to them; sometimes again they have their origin in divergent notions, honestly entertained, as to what those principles consist in, and consequently as to the injunctions of secondary principles by which action is immediately governed; and sometimes they are caused by collisions of naked interest or sentiment, in which there is no question of right, but which are so violent as to render settlement impossible until a struggle has taken place. It is not, therefore, possible to frame general rules which will be of any practical value.
The second end international law does not even endeavor to attain. However able law might be to declare one of two combatants to have committed a wrong, it would be idle for it to affect to impart the character of a penalty to war when it is powerless to enforce its decisions.… International law has consequently no alternative but to accept war, independently of the justice of its origin, as a relation which the parties to it may set up if they choose, and to busy itself only in regulating the effects of the relation. Hence both parties to every war are regarded as being in an identical legal position, and consequently as being possessed of equal rights."

I need not stop here to express my view of the character of an international community or of international law. Both the expressions are used in specific senses in relation to international life as I would endeavor to show later. But even taking them in unqualified sense, no distinction was made between just and unjust war or between non-aggressive and aggressive war, and no difference in the legal character of a war was based on any such distinction.

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 14:46

The Pact of Paris was out of the category of a rule

On the question of self-defense, Mr. Kellogg declared that the right of self-defense was not limited to the defense of territory under the sovereignty of the state concerned, and that under the treaty, each state would have the prerogative of judging for itself, what action the right of self-defense covered and when it came into play, subject to the risk that this judgment might not be endorsed by the rest of the world. "The United States must judge…. and it is answerable to the public opinion of the world if it is not an honest defense; that is all." This is Mr. Kellogg's own statement.

This is how the Pact of Paris came into being and what it was intended to convey by its authors.
It indicates that the parties thereto intended to create by this Pact only a contractual obligation. Its originators did not design it for the entire Community of Nations. There were several reservations introduced by the several parties for their respective interests. This is compatible with contractual obligations, but not with law. No doubt it was a multilateral treaty or pact. But though a law can be created only by a multilateral treaty, every multilateral treaty does not create law. A rule of law, once created, must be binding on the states independently of their will, though the creation of the rule was dependent on its voluntary acceptance by them. The obligation of this Pact, however, always remains dependent on the will of the states, in as much as it is left to these states themselves to determine whether their action was or was not in violation of the obligation undertaken by the Pact.

Apart from any other consideration, the single fact that war in self-defense in international life is not only not prohibited, but that it is declared that each state retains "the prerogative of judging for itself what action the right of self-defense covered and when it came into play" is, in my opinion, sufficient to take the Pact out of the category of law. As declared by Mr. Kellogg, the right of self-defense was not limited to the defense of territory under the sovereignty of the state concerned.

Considerations relevant for the determination of the legal character of rules of conduct obtaining in society are:
1. That only through final ascertainment by agencies other than the parties to the dispute can the law be rendered certain; it is not rendered so by the ipse dixit of an interested party. Such certainty is of the essence of law.
2. That it is essential for the rule of law that there should exist agencies bearing evidence of or giving effect to the imperative nature of law.

The law's external nature may express itself either in the fact that it is a precept created independently of the will of the subject of the law, or that no matter how created, it continues to exist in respect of the subjects of the law independently of their will.
The pact of Paris as explained by Mr. Kellogg and as understood and accepted by the parties thereto would not stand these tests. The reservation of the right of self-defense and self-preservation in the form and to the extent explained by Mr. Kellogg would take the Pact out of the category of a rule of law.

The Pact of Paris was out of the category of a rule (Par II)

It must also be remembered that in the present state of the international life this reservation cannot be lightly dealt with. At the present stage of international community, if it can be called a community at all, this right of self-defense or self-preservation is even now a fundamental right and follows from the very nature of international relations. The whole of the duties of states are normally subordinate to this right.

Hall says: "Where law affords inadequate protection to the individual, he must be permitted, if his existence is in question, to protect himself by whatever means may be necessary, and it would be difficult to say that any act not inconsistent with the nature of a moral being is forbidden, so soon as it can be proved that by it, and it only, self-preservation can be secured. The right in this form works by suspending the obligation to act in obedience to other principles…. There are…circumstances falling short of occasions upon which existence is immediately in question, in which, through a sort of extension of the idea of self-preservation to include self-protection against serious hurt, states are allowed to disregard certain of the ordinary rules of law in the same manner as if their existence were involved…"

"When", River says, "a conflict arises between the right of self-preservation of a state and the duty of that state to respect the right of another, the right of self-preservation overrides the duty. Primum vivere. A man may be free to sacrifice himself. It is never permitted to a government to sacrifice the stated of which the destinies are confided to it. The government is then authorized, and even in certain circumstances bound, to violate the right of another country for the safety of its own. That is the excuse of necessity, an application of the reason of state. It is a legitimate excuse."

There are writers who support the view that there is nothing higher than the interest of each of the parties as judged by each party himself. If the other party is unwilling to give in, then only war can decide whose interest is legally stronger. This, according to them, is not the denial of law, but the only legal proof possible in international life.
Westlake, who takes a more restricted view of the right says: "What we take to be pointed out by justice as the true international right of self-preservation is merely that of self-defense. A state may defend itself by preventive means if, in its conscientious judgment necessary, against attack by another state, threat of attack, or preparations or other conduct from which an intention to attack may reasonably be apprehended. In so doing, it will be acting in a manner intrinsically defensive, even though externally aggressive. The conscientious judgment of the state acting on the right thus allowed must necessarily stand in the place of authoritative sanction, so long as the present imperfect organization of the world continues."

These different views of the right of self-defense are not of much consequence to us for our present purposes. What is necessary for us to notice is that the conception of aggression being only the complement of that of self-defense, so long as the question whether a particular war is or is not in self-defense remains unjusticiable, and is made to depend only upon the "conscientious judgment" of the party itself, the Pact fails to add anything to the existing law. It only serves to agitate the opinion of the world, and the risk involved in its violation lies only in rousing an unfavorable world opinion against the offending party. Nothing can be said to be "law" when its obligation is still for all practical purposes dependent on the mere will of the party.

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 14:47

No judge for the solution of international struggle

I have elsewhere given my view of the character of the so-called international community as it stood on the eve of the Second World War. It was simply a coordinated body of several independent sovereign units and certainly was not a body of which the order or security could be said to have been provided by law.
By saying this, I do not mean to suggest any absolute negation of international law. It is not my suggestion that the observance of the rules of international law, so far as these go, is not a matter of the obligation. These rules might have resulted from the calculation that their observance was not incompatible with the interest of the state. Yet, their observance need not be characterized as the result of such calculation. A state before being a willing party to a rule, might have willed thus on the basis of some such calculation, but after contribution of its "will", which is essential for the creation of the rule, it may not retain any right to withdraw from the obligation of the rule thus created. The rule thus exists independently of the will of the parties. It is of no consequence that in coming into existence it had to depend on such will. Yet, simply because the several states are thus subjected to certain obligatory rules, it does not follow that the states have formed a community under a reign of law. Its order or security is not yet provided by law. Peace in such a community is only a negative concept---it is simply a negation of war, or an assurance of the status quo. Even now each state is left to perform for itself the distributive function. The basis of international relations is still the competitive struggle of states, a struggle for the solution of which there is still no judge, no executor, no standard of decision. There are still dominated and enslaved nations, and there is no provision anywhere in the system for any peaceful readjustment without struggle. It is left to the nations themselves to see the readjustment.

作者: 幻影之风 时间: 2008-11-22 14:47

终于把分类改成娱乐啦！

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 14:49

Vengeance not of any ethical value

So long as the international organization continues at the stage where the trial and punishment for any crime remains available only against the vanquished in a lost war, the introduction of criminal responsibility cannot produce the deterrent and the preventive effects.
The risk of criminal responsibility incurred in planning an aggressive war does not in the least become graver than that involved in the possible defeat in the war planned.

In my opinion it is inappropriate to introduce criminal responsibility of the agents of a state in international life for the purpose of retribution. Retribution, in the proper sense of the term, means the bringing home to the criminal the legitimate consequences of his conduct legitimate from the ethical standpoint. This would involve the determination of the degree of his moral responsibility, a task that is an impossibility for any legal Tribunal even in national life. Conditions of knowledge, of training, of opportunities for moral development, of social environment generally and of motive fall to be searched out even in justifying criminal responsibility on this ground in national life. In international life many other factors would fall to be considered before one can justify criminal responsibility on this retributive theory.

The only justification that remains for the introduction of such a conception in international life is revenge, a justification which all those who are demanding this trial are disclaiming.
It may be contended that indignation at a wrong done is a righteous feeling and that that feeling itself justifies the criminal law.
It is perhaps right that we should feel a certain satisfaction and recognize a certain fitness in the suffering of one who has done an international wrong. It may even be morally obligatory upon us to feel indignant at a wrong done.
But it would be going too far to say that a demand for the gratification of this feeling of revenge alone would justify a criminal law. In national systems a criminal law, while satisfying this feeling of revenge, is calculated to do something more of real ethical value and that is the real justification of the law. Though vengeance might be the seed out of which criminal justice has grown, the paramount object of such is the prevention of offenses by the menace of law.

The mere feeling of vengeance is not of any ethical value. It is not right that we should which evil to the offender unless it has the possibility of yielding any good. Two wholly distinct feelings require consideration in this connection. The one is a feeling of moral revulsion and is directed against the crime. The other is a desire for vengeance and is directed against the criminal. To revenge oneself is, in truth, but to add another evil to that which has already been done, and the admission of it as a right is, in effect, a negation of all civil and social order, for thereby are justified acts of violence not regulated by nor exercised with reference to, the social good. There are few who in modern times assert the abstract rightfulness of a desire for vengeance.

作者: 琉璃云光 时间: 2008-11-22 15:15

召唤翻译

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 15:58

這大概是說,說到底DHL所謂的"末日圣战"只不過是一場戰爭而已.
而,什麼是正義的戰爭和不正義的戰爭,都沒有差別,因為各個國家都有自己的法律理據.
所有"自衛戰爭"的定義並沒有公論,自衛戰爭亦不限於保衛領土的主權,是按國家自行判斷.
DHL認為自己行使自衛權,因為是看到領土給侵略和首都給攻陷.
TTS RT認為自己行使自衛權,因為是看到DHL沒有外交和給認定是第四國的傀儡.
由於這些看法的分歧,國家才會利用戰爭去決定法律理據的高低.
所謂宣傳正義只是利用法律為國家去博取國際社會同情,或使國際社會認可.
然而,正義若真的套於國家的道德行為,是不適合的.
第四~八國亦只會按國家利益辦事,因為國家利益就是國家的道德行為.
因此,"最高正義"只可套於個人對個人,而不是個人對國家,國家對個人或國家對國家.
其他正義只是空話.
而,個人利用正義為國家去散佈仇恨,是沒有倫理價值的,貢獻不了真正的和平.

作者: Melanie 时间: 2008-11-22 18:39

遗书...........................................

作者: 我是狮子哦 时间: 2008-11-22 21:00

主编和咱见解咋这一致呢

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:37

TTS会为其愚蠢付出代价的。
这场战争TTS干的就是搬石头砸自己脚的事情。

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:38

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 15:58 发表
這大概是說,說到底DHL所謂的"末日圣战"只不過是一場戰爭而已.
而,什麼是正義的戰爭和不正義的戰爭,都沒有差別,因為各個國家都有自己的法律理據.
所有"自衛戰爭"的定義並沒有公論,自衛戰爭亦不限於保衛領土的主權,是 ...

刺刀之下才会有真正的和平。

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 23:40

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:37 发表
TTS会为其愚蠢付出代价的。
这场战争TTS干的就是搬石头砸自己脚的事情。

UID
60327
帖子
2

開主號出來噴過，跳樑戲服

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:41

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:40 发表

UID
60327
帖子
2

開主號出來噴過，跳樑戲服

我跟LZ无关系。如果你认为我是MJ，麻烦举证。
我看你倒挺跳梁了。

[ 本帖最后由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:43 编辑 ]

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 23:44

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:41 发表

我跟LZ无关系。
我看你倒挺跳梁了。

啊啊
你跟啥关系了，咱真想看誰無鎖好９屋

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:45

TTS愚蠢到会寄希望于RT。
呵呵，还来大谈国家利益。

[ 本帖最后由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:47 编辑 ]

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:47

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:44 发表

啊啊
你跟啥关系了，咱真想看誰無鎖好９屋

我跟谁啥关系跟我的发言啥关系？
别转移话题了，这不能显示你的高明。

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 23:49

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:45 发表
TTS愚蠢都会寄希望于RT。
呵呵，还来大谈国家利益。

你倒別挑撥離間，自作聰明
你註冊的時候咱打滾一年多
你臉皮真的很簿

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:49

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:49 发表

你倒別挑撥離間，自作聰明
你註冊的時候咱打滾一年多
你臉皮真的很簿

打滚多久不代表你有多高明，懂不？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-22 23:51

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:49 发表

打滚多久不代表你有多高明，懂不？

你很高明！戲服！我甘拜下風

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-22 23:55

挑拨离间？这个词真有趣
RT跟TTS什么关系？本来就是两个独立]国家，还要离间么？
上面不是谈国家利益么，谈谈TTS跟RT有什么共同利益嘛。

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 00:00

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:55 发表
挑拨离间？这个词真有趣
RT跟TTS什么关系？本来就是两个独立]国家，还要离间么？
上面不是谈国家利益么，谈谈TTS跟RT有什么共同利益嘛。

你這去問國際关系學者，你都可以翻翻我舊貼
建議學識廣闊的你幹DHL外交

我是大軟新人

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 00:04

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:00 发表

你這去問國際关系學者，你都可以翻翻我舊貼
建議學識廣闊的你幹DHL外交
我是大軟新人

不要回避，我就是问你TTS和RT的具体问题，不要拿教科书来敷衍我。

作者: Junichoon 时间: 2008-11-23 00:08

樓主太投入了..另外我覺得"的"比"の"好看.

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 00:09

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 00:04 发表

不要回避，我就是问你TTS和RT的具体问题，不要拿教科书来敷衍我。

咱就是拿教科书来敷衍你，
難道老人不可以教新人？
老吾老以及人之老，孝啊？
你有沒有家教啊？
novamc都學會了

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 00:11

引用:

原帖由 Junichoon 于 2008-11-23 00:08 发表
樓主太投入了..另外我覺得"的"比"の"好看.

年轻人，容易上脑，热血一下也正常。

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 00:11

LSSS是RT皇帝，
臉皮厚去問問人家

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 00:17

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:09 发表

咱就是拿教科书来敷衍你，
難道老人不可以教新人？
老吾老以及人之老，孝啊？
你有沒有家教啊？
novamc都學會了

什么新人老人，注册早点就来摆谱了？
师者，传道授业解惑也。
别转移话题，拿点干货出来，让我看看你能不能给我传道授业解惑。

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 00:18

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:11 发表
LSSS是RT皇帝，
臉皮厚去問問人家

我问的就是你，别转移话题。

作者: 星辰之愿 时间: 2008-11-23 00:20

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 00:22

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 00:17 发表

什么新人老人，注册早点就来摆谱了？
师者，传道授业解惑也。
别转移话题，拿点干货出来，让我看看你能不能给我传道授业解惑。

你跟我挽鞋都不配
你找不到啥SSW海軍學院不要跟我指東劃西

作者: ffcc 时间: 2008-11-23 00:24

这是啥？要刻在墓志铭上的话么？

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 00:45

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:22 发表

你跟我挽鞋都不配
你找不到啥SSW海軍學院不要跟我指東劃西

现在是你在东拉西扯转移话题。
学院不解决我的问题，你给纲领条目的东西我顶用么？我就是要问你TTS是不是打算给RT挽鞋？
配不配，拿点具体的东西给我看看再说。

作者: 菜乃叶 时间: 2008-11-23 00:50

K看不懂的无知群众路过
要求剧情党讲解

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 01:01

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 00:45 发表

现在是你在东拉西扯转移话题。
学院不解决我的问题，你给纲领条目的东西我顶用么？我就是要问你TTS是不是打算给RT挽鞋？
配不配，拿点具体的东西给我看看再说。 ...

說到底你就是要我出洋相
我不怕告訴你，以你們宣傳的語言，我們就是瓜分你DHL
你們窮鄉僻壤沒外交官，就是肉
但是路是你們行出來的，與人無尤
TTS RT有邊界協定，又如何
你說挽鞋便是你說，公道昭昭
我也說你挽AT鞋了

作者: 何马不减肥 时间: 2008-11-23 01:15

这咋了？

看到狗被喷主人急了？

作者: 喧哗上等 时间: 2008-11-23 01:53

河马大叔我们爱你

河马大叔最近好活跃呀,要有大事发生了

作者: 万矣焉 时间: 2008-11-23 03:33

DHL很欢乐

作者: 星界奇迹 时间: 2008-11-23 10:59

路过..................DHL有些人自我感觉太好了,真那啥...(ONLY A GAME,PLAY FOR FUN)认真你就输了..

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 11:39

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 01:01 发表

說到底你就是要我出洋相
我不怕告訴你，以你們宣傳的語言，我們就是瓜分你DHL
你們窮鄉僻壤沒外交官，就是肉
但是路是你們行出來的，與人無尤
TTS RT有邊界協定，又如何
你說挽鞋便是你說，公道昭昭
我也說你挽AT鞋了 ...

DHL被灭的确与人无尤，小国家嘛，能怎样。
问题是TTS跟RT边界协定这个就够搞笑了，TTS在南边大战，RT在北边静坐战争，TTS在南边啃骨头挨雷劈，RT现在南下摘桃子了，TTS损兵折将打下来的开阳四现在就拱手就送给RT了，我说TTS这鞋可挽的真有水平，骨头TTS来啃，肉主人来吃啊。
大谈国家利益，这到底是谈TTS的国家利益还是RT的国家利益？

挽AT鞋又如何？小国天生就是要挽鞋的。问题是TTS要挽RT鞋，RT受么？
协议？关键时刻一打协议都比不过一艘巡洋舰嘛。

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 11:42

引用:

原帖由 星界奇迹 于 2008-11-23 10:59 发表
路过..................DHL有些人自我感觉太好了,真那啥...(ONLY A GAME,PLAY FOR FUN)认真你就输了..

调戏ZHUANGBILITY的人也是A GAME

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 11:49

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 11:39 发表

DHL被灭的确与人无尤，小国家嘛，能怎样。
问题是TTS跟RT边界协定这个就够搞笑了，TTS在南边大战，RT在北边静坐战争，TTS在南边啃骨头挨雷劈，RT现在南下摘桃子了，TTS损兵折将打下来的开阳四现在就拱手就送给RT了，我说TTS这鞋可 ...

你看你還不是挑拨离间??戰略家

作者: 菜乃叶 时间: 2008-11-23 11:52

一个愿打一个愿挨你管他们

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 11:53

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 11:49 发表

你看你還不是挑拨离间??戰略家

我陈述的就是事实。RT在北边拿了首都的科技点之后就是按兵不动看戏，RT现在就是南下把TTS辛苦打下来的开阳四周边地区占领了，这就是事实。
如果陈述事实就是挑拨离间，那说明TTS和RT之间根本就是离间的嘛，还用我挑拨么？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 11:56

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 11:53 发表

我陈述的就是事实。RT在北边拿了首都的科技点之后就是按兵不动看戏，RT现在就是南下把TTS辛苦打下来的开阳四周边地区占领了，这就是事实。
如果陈述事实就是挑拨离间，那说明TTS和RT之间根本就是离间的嘛，还用我挑拨么？ ...

斷章取義
老子玩文字遊戲的時候你還沒出世

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 11:59

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 11:56 发表

斷章取義
老子玩文字遊戲的時候你還沒出世

你的文字游戏在事实面前果然是不堪一击。
事实就摆在那里，还用玩文字游戏么？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 12:01

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 11:59 发表

你的文字游戏在事实面前果然是不堪一击。
事实就摆在那里，还用玩文字游戏么？

政客喜歡用謊言覆蓋事實
藝術家喜歡用謊言陳述事實

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 12:06

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 12:01 发表

政客喜歡用謊言覆蓋事實
藝術家喜歡用謊言陳述事實

你玩再多花头也无用，事实就是开阳四周边地区在RT手里而不是TTS手里，而且RT还在继续南下，兵锋直指DHL西南，事实就是RT在DHL北边现在根本就没有主动战略进攻。

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 12:10

建議閣下去DHL北边定居

地球太危險，快回去火星吧

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 12:12

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 12:10 发表
建議閣下去DHL北边定居
地球太危險，快回去火星吧

开始转移话题了？给我回正题，你不是大谈国家利益么？现在形势符合了哪点TTS国家利益？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 12:13

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 12:12 发表

开始转移话题了？给我回正题，你不是大谈国家利益么？现在形势符合了哪点TTS国家利益？

地球太危險，快回去火星吧

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 12:14

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 12:13 发表

地球太危險，快回去火星吧

又开始胜利转进了？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 12:14

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 12:14 发表

又开始胜利转进了？

不要來太陽系了

作者: seacat 时间: 2008-11-23 12:17

引用:

原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 12:14 发表

不要來太陽系了

逃避没用的，你不是很牛B开什么学院么，那就给我老老实实分析一下现在的形势怎么就符合TTS的国家利益了？

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 12:21

引用:

原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 12:17 发表

逃避没用的，你不是很牛B开什么学院么，那就给我老老实实分析一下现在的形势怎么就符合TTS的国家利益了？

上輪我好像就是DHL鼎鼎大名的汪精衛啊

我不懂啥国家利益
国家利益可以吃嗎？？

作者: 我人 时间: 2008-11-23 14:07

暂时看戏，如果DHL的同学还有更多有趣的论点，考虑参战

作者: 你是攻我是受 时间: 2008-11-23 14:49

,其实DHL是RT的傀儡国，是为了让RT的指挥刷经验的存在阿，

作者: bellatrix 时间: 2008-11-23 15:05

引用:

原帖由 你是攻我是受 于 2008-11-23 14:49 发表
,其实DHL是RT的傀儡国，是为了让RT的指挥刷经验的存在阿，

我們tts豈不是阻了你們刷经验？？？

XSK

作者: 倒霉 时间: 2008-11-23 15:32

说实在的,打DHL还真没什么可讨论的,原因就是TTS和SOS是盟友,又打不过AT.大家又都想刷刷经验,
只好委屈DHL了.只不过DHL某些人在球上写的那些骂人的话还是比较让TTS愤怒的.TTS自己的地都没
种满呢,RT拿DHL的地关我们什么事,我们碎的船也纯数报废船,留着也没啥用,还不如换经验.

[ 本帖最后由倒霉于 2008-11-23 15:38 编辑 ]

作者: 御刀琉璃香 时间: 2008-11-23 17:36

說真的一句話里面有2個'の'真得很俗

現在不是上世紀90年代啊

還有那個末什麽什麽那個詞不覺得很那啥么

作者: 天草红狼 时间: 2008-11-23 17:44

论坛惊现YSL的狂热分子???-.-

作者: 喧哗上等 时间: 2008-11-23 18:08

不理解MS高1,甚至MS小黄瓜,不拿去吃经验还能干啥

作者: 万矣焉 时间: 2008-11-23 18:31

乃以为TTS没利益么

作者: 泉叶 时间: 2008-11-25 12:13

阳光明媚~~~灭了AT

欢迎光临 XYZ-SOFT (http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/)