Quite the opposite: under Laskaris, Rome participated in the bloody suppression of Thessaloniki,
Andreas laskaris condemned the Platonic republic for not trying to bypass the militia... but then, if an entire
city rises up, how the hell do you capture it without them fighting to the last man?
nearly went to war with Greece over who had the larger codpiece
yeah... we regret that. we could have done it differently. either gone to war and annexed the Republic, never argued with them in the first place, as i already had all of turkey at that point, or a bunch of other ways.
and then led virtually its entire army to suicide on the beaches of Taiwan
Japan was a powerful Army, and its well known that Andreas forgot to order a bombardment of Japanese defenses, the diversionary strike was too small, and innumerable other mistakes.
we eventually determined, that even if a large scale bombardment was ordered, a smaller army was used, and invaded the island from the north and south, it still would have been a difficult fight, and probably resulted in its destruction anyway.
Under Komnenos, it was willing to alienate all its neighbour states in favour of an idiotic and unenforceable capitulation to the un-government of Imperial Japan,
we rescinded the embargo shortly after we realized that Japan cannot send a fleet there.
insisted Constantinople was still in control seconds after it was forced to release its periphery territories as independent states,
the biggest thing. you guys
completely and utterly ignored the fact that the release was
voluntary, the ministers of various component nations requested independence, so we gave it to them. if anything, it increased Roman power, because we no longer had to defend those territories, and we did it properly.
(but, we really should have made them vassals instead.)
here is the proof
please actually
read it. cause im real tired of that argument.
mused withdrawing from the United Nations because, and we quote: "no one even notices us anymore",
that part is true. however, we chose to remain so that our voice is still heard. even if its laughed at.
and then had the gall to declare a nuclear programme despite witnessing the attempted mass murder of Cairo.
we arent stupid, though. we knew targeting civilian centers would be useless in a war... it was meant for
tactical use only. and, we needed something fairly unique to defend ourselves with.
Who should apologize? Jerusalem, who has consistently honoured its international agreements, who has repeatedly worked within the global community to achieve positive change, and who has never deviated from its core principles even in the face of the most abhorrent atrocities in living memory? Or Constantinople, who will reverse course at a moment's notice, who will disavow the international community because it's the 'trendy' thing to do, who sees no hypocrisy in lusting after weapons of mass destruction at the exact same time it condemns their use, who cannot even properly read the terms of the treaties into which it enters, and who continues to waste collective world patience by insisting that its empty bluster be taken seriously?
well, obviously, its clear that we should apologize. but who do we apologize to? Rome has done no real obvious harm to anyone but themselves.
(OOC: and... that's just how i am. I'm rather indecisive and it painfully shows. improving it is slow work, since i had to contend with bad reputation. also, being a major power was obviously a bad choice.)
