Ambition

[Walshington]

 

As I said, the reasons for the war you are alluding to is a subject of controversy. It certainly is not as black-and-white as you are implying. I cite as evidence to the contrary that we did not do what aggressive, conquering alliances do when the war ended. My conscience is clear on that matter and shall not argue the merits of a war that is long over with any further. 

 

 

 

Disorder began with a strong Casus Belli, unlike the current war which began with none. But let us not distract from the topic of this thread: ambition.

 

 

From a neutral point of view  (and if Schatt were tracking the coalition support system, I fought for Polar's side*), the "Disorder War" CB seemed as weak and arbitrary as those in "The Dave War", "The Grudge War", "NPO-DH War" and the current "Doom War". (I give EQ a pass).  That doesn't make you any worse than the instigators of those wars, but it doesn't make Polar any better, either. Maybe there was some back room reason that is so OPSEC it can't be stated, but the given CB for attacking NSO to my admittedly untrained eye was not something I could, as an uninvolved party, rally behind.  I'm sure it seems so to Polar, but then again I like all my CB's, too, and I'm sure there are other parties who found them less than convincing.  But to most of the peanut gallery, this admittedly bullshit war doesn't stink any more (or less) than those other ones. Polar is getting jobbed, as every big political player does from time to time.  Play in the sandbox long enough, you'll get dirty. Circle of life, not the moral high ground.

 

Then again, I've never been a backroom guy, so I could be way off -- I can only judge by what is stated in an official capacity.

 

 

 

* Don't be a fool, Schatt -- we fought for Kaskus   :smug: 

[SpacingOutMan]

The best part about this thread is not only are people trying to bring back faux outrage over the validity of certain CBs, but also completely misunderstanding what a CB is. "I don't like you, so therefore I declare war on you" is a valid CB folks. There is no international/interalliance convention defining "appropriate" causation for war, therefore practically everything under the sun qualifies as a valid CB.

[Walford]

changed my mind.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Walford

[WorldConqueror]

Sure there can.

Feel free, though it will be no less farcical than anyone else's attempts.

My goodness! I thought all I was saying was that we do not deserve what is happening to us. That is motivating our resistance, I promise you.

Unless Morgaine is an alterego of yours I didn't refer to anything you said at all. Deserve is such a subjective term though.

I shall do a poll of former NONE and Vox Populi and see if they care about you or even know who you are.

Oh no, the relevance card. If I was mounting an argument denying the acceptability of attacking Kashmir on the basis that it contains WorldConquerors you would have a point.

[Walshington]

The best part about this thread is not only are people trying to bring back faux outrage over the validity of certain CBs, but also completely misunderstanding what a CB is. "I don't like you, so therefore I declare war on you" is a valid CB folks. There is no international/interalliance convention defining "appropriate" causation for war, therefore practically everything under the sun qualifies as a valid CB.

 

Ultimately, that is the cold, hard truth. A CB need only be valid to the eye of the alliance using it.

 

However, CB's throughout history are judged by onlookers on merit -- wars of aggressive conquest are generally looked upon less favorably than those undertaken in response to some obvious transgression.  When attempting to take the moral high ground, it is somewhat incumbent to have the latter situation.  If one cares not for public opinion nor the moral high ground, a CB is not even necessary, though most often something is drummed up to apply lipstick to the pig at hand.

[The Zigur]

Casus Bellis (or lack of CB) has a definite impact on morale and how hard the average alliance members fight, so those thinking they are so cool by trashing the CB tradition only shoot themselves in the foot. The traditions of our world exist for a reason.

[Gh0s7]

Casus Bellis (or lack of CB) has a definite impact on morale and how hard the average alliance members fight, so those thinking they are so cool by trashing the CB tradition only shoot themselves in the foot. The traditions of our world exist for a reason.

I'm pretty sure we have no lack of morale or 'fighting spirit' given we're at a 900k damage gap.

[The Zigur]

I'm pretty sure we have no lack of morale or 'fighting spirit' given we're at a 900k damage gap.

 

That's because you have a collective philosophy based on aggression, exploitation and chaos. This is more of a product of the function you play as DBDC's enforcers than any special quality (although I do respect your capacity as fighters). I am speaking more in terms of the average producer alliance.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Tywin Lannister

[Walshington]

Casus Bellis (or lack of CB) has a definite impact on morale and how hard the average alliance members fight, so those thinking they are so cool by trashing the CB tradition only shoot themselves in the foot. The traditions of our world exist for a reason.

 

Well, the real problem about the moral high ground and following the CB tradition, which exists (or used to), is that you can't ever vacate the position and then claim it later with a straight face.  Again, I'm the peanut gallery, but it seems like most of the CB's of late are engineered around global wars rather than the reverse -- that is to say the global war is planned and then hung on a convenient CB, rather than CB occurs and a global war grows out of it. Meanwhile, "player" alliances decry the crap CB until they need one, or defend the crap CB until they're faced with one. Maybe the problem is the rest of our political conventions are so well established (rouging, spying, forum spying, ZI lists, etc.) that most people avoid them, leaving only the crap. Stability, Tywin -- it's killing us!

 

I actually prefer the refreshing honesty of the "no CB" to the ginned up one, like the panhandler holding up a sign that says, "Need $$$ for pot."

[The Zigur]

I think you are getting very close to conspiracy theory status when you start thinking most of the time Casus Bellis are developed after the fact (aside from some leaders who brag about manufacturing CBs of course). Does every potential CB develop into a war? Of course not. But some Casus Bellis do fully flower into war as happened with Disorder.

Generally unless a Casus Belli is an outright lie (and those ones indeed aren't worth the paper they are written on because the folks are smart enough to tell), they are based on something concrete, regardless of your opinion on whether war should have been executed. A good Casus Belli isn't just a statement of war, it is a strong moral argument for war, and it convinces your membership that the Enemy must be utterly destroyed.

In trying to look edgy the initiators of the current war defeated their own chance of crippling Polaris by both giving her a reason to fight and giving her Enemies a reason not to fight. Our Enemy will claim well it was never their intention to destroy or cripple Polaris, but in the end it simply makes themselves look weaker... like a group of barbarians who cannot discipline their primitive urges but also cannot really win. And that will simply gravitate political power towards those who DO possess discipline, authority and moral integrity.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Tywin Lannister

[Walshington]

I think you are getting very close to conspiracy theory status when you start thinking most of the time Casus Bellis are developed after the fact (aside from some leaders who brag about manufacturing CBs of course). 

 

I think that is exactly what happens.  I think after a major war, alliances ally themselves strategically with other alliances to create the coalition for the next war in a giant chess game.  I think the next war is plotted for months -- and when conditions are right, the first available CB is found or generated ("Hey, Look! Crap is attacking Dave93!") and used.  Be interesting to hear Rush's take -- he was in some of those backrooms and is usually pretty frank about how they work.  I know I often "knew" about the next war weeks before it happened.  Generally, the victor in coalition warfare is known before it starts -- that takes planning.

 

Does every potential CB develop into a war? Of course not. But some Casus Bellis do fully flower into war as happened with Disorder.
 

 

See, I think a months-old abandoned plot to vaguely "Roll Polar" fits this closely (and "the plot" may in fact have been an example of the above in action).  Polar did nothing about it until they moved the chess pieces to their advantage ("Hello, TOP!") and then resurrected the months-old plot conveniently to attack NSO. Why? To weaken the rival coalition, same as all the other wars.  The war was extended, and while Polar claims "well, it was never their intention to destroy or cripple NPO", it sure looked that way from the outside.

 

This is not an anti-Polar rant -- the same is being done to you right now, was done to others in the past, and will be done again in the future.  It is just difficult to pity you for being the bug now when you were the windshield not too far back.

 

A good Casus Belli isn't just a statement of war, it is a strong moral argument for war, and it convinces your membership that the Enemy must be utterly destroyed.
 

 

I think you overrate the membership.  I think most fight hard (or not) when war comes out of alliance loyalty, not to keep barbarians at bay, especially on some 3rd tier counter a month in. Members may leave alliances because they don't agree with the direction, but when war comes, they click the buttons when the DoW gets posted. Hell, my first wars occurred before I even discovered the OWF -- had no idea why I was fighting or why my enemy was my enemy.  I just didn't want to let my comrades down.

[Max Power]

 

Ive been trying to tell people they are TRYING to be MK. Only the have not one personality or anyone charismatic enough to make it work.

You normally say things better founded than this.

 

Lifetime on your knees vs a day on your feet etc etc.

Also the line between DBDC, DS and DT is so blurred I don't see how that's even a valid point, DT could have just ghosted DBDC like everybody else did to hit us.  I'm sure once again we're on some list somewhere of people to wipe off the face of the earth, but when haven't we been on that list.

Let's all pity RIA now. Come on, people like you, just ditch the clinging to long-dead SF remnants like some CN version of Miss Hathaway and get out there in the world.

 

I shall add something to what walford said for clarity. The New polar Order that may have aggrieved those who are attacking us now includes NONE, the League of Free Nations and Vox Populi. We are here because the NpO of today shares the values of freedom of association, self-determination and abstaining from wars of conquest of those who are merely weaker. We are here to help each other in peace and defend each other in war. That is all of what we stand for since we have been in this alliance.

 

THAT is whom and what you are attacking today and we are in no humour to change in the face of violence, no matter how numerous and how strong our attackers are.

 

 

 

 

Since January of 2011, have we engaged in any offensive wars? Which ones?

Funny, because as someone who spent three years in an alliance founded by ex-NONE/LoFN, I recall participating on the TOP/IRON side in Grudge happily and my alliance making a point of rolling one of the alliances that was boisterously on the Polar side (GOD). I can't recall ever hearing a single pro-Polar viewpoint from the NONE/LoFN I dealt with in those three years. 

 

 

 

 

 

From a neutral point of view  (and if Schatt were tracking the coalition support system, I fought for Polar's side*), the "Disorder War" CB seemed as weak and arbitrary as those in "The Dave War", "The Grudge War", "NPO-DH War" and the current "Doom War". (I give EQ a pass).  That doesn't make you any worse than the instigators of those wars, but it doesn't make Polar any better, either. Maybe there was some back room reason that is so OPSEC it can't be stated, but the given CB for attacking NSO to my admittedly untrained eye was not something I could, as an uninvolved party, rally behind.  I'm sure it seems so to Polar, but then again I like all my CB's, too, and I'm sure there are other parties who found them less than convincing.  But to most of the peanut gallery, this admittedly !@#$%^&* war doesn't stink any more (or less) than those other ones. Polar is getting jobbed, as every big political player does from time to time.  Play in the sandbox long enough, you'll get dirty. Circle of life, not the moral high ground.

 

Then again, I've never been a backroom guy, so I could be way off -- I can only judge by what is stated in an official capacity.

 

 

 

* Don't be a fool, Schatt -- we fought for Kaskus   :smug: 

I thought you guys only fought in the Kas War.

[Starfox101]

inb4 NpO - DBDC MDAP

I think you'll see Sponge revive and treaty \m/ before that happens.

What's the fun in answering questions like these in a public forum?  Some things are better said in closed company and I think this qualifies supremely.  When polaris is my enemy I want them to die in a ball of fire, like I do all my enemies.  Post-war though, I have no problem calling it done and moving on to other battlegrounds without prejudice.  I would hope the rest of my membership feels similarly, though there have been some heated opinions and some individuals might not be as forgiving.

 
Regardless of whether or not some of your members hold a grudge against us, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. We are nowhere near the top 250 and won't be for a while. DBDC-Polar politics are over. What exactly would there even be to hold a grudge over, anyway? It isn't as if we came knocking on your door, or have wronged any parties in recent months. Nothing more than the imaginary Polar boogeyman.

Oh no RIA chased someone who was at war with them to another alliance.What monsters

And this coming from a group who makes a living off attacking people for no reason, and attempting to justify it.

Rich. Edited January 25, 2015 by Starfox101

[Neo Uruk]

Made me laugh again!
 
Also, new LPH wiki made -- good choice of protectors.

Thanks on all accounts, Walsh!

And this coming from a group who makes a living off attacking people for no reason, and attempting to justify it.

Rich.

Yeah, I feel that no matter the circumstance the fact that he was on the DBDC AA is reason enough for RIA to have a CB. There is a state of war, after all. Edited January 25, 2015 by Neo Uruk

[The Zigur]

Disagreeing with DBDC is an act of war.

[Starfox101]

Thanks on all accounts, Walsh!Yeah, I feel that no matter the circumstance the fact that he was on the DBDC AA is reason enough for RIA to have a CB. There is a state of war, after all.

Could also be argued that because DT-DBDC have a joint membership agreement, that he never left DBDC as well. Plenty of holes in their logic, but when you don't play politics and try to pretend you do later, that tends to happen.

[Neo Uruk]

Eh, I wouldn't say they don't play politics at all. It's more that they're trying to play an entirely different brand of politics. Eventually, barring the world turning to that specific brand of politics, support will run out.

Not that anyone is really on the same page regarding what a war is worth at this stage.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

The best part about this thread is not only are people trying to bring back faux outrage over the validity of certain CBs, but also completely misunderstanding what a CB is. "I don't like you, so therefore I declare war on you" is a valid CB folks. There is no international/interalliance convention defining "appropriate" causation for war, therefore practically everything under the sun qualifies as a valid CB.

 

The fundamental misunderstanding here is yours. A CB is a valid grievance that justifies war under what is known as just war theory.

 

You may not care about just war theory, and thus not care about CBs, and thus *to you* they may well seem equally valid/pointless, but that is on you.

 

For those that care about such things, no, 'I dont like you so I am going to kill you' is NOT and has never been a valid cause for war.

 

 

[SpacingOutMan]

The fundamental misunderstanding here is yours. A CB is a valid grievance that justifies war under what is known as just war theory.
 
You may not care about just war theory, and thus not care about CBs, and thus *to you* they may well seem equally valid/pointless, but that is on you.
 
For those that care about such things, no, 'I dont like you so I am going to kill you' is NOT and has never been a valid cause for war.

Sorry, but the misunderstanding here is yours. Just war theory requires CBs to meet a specific set of criteria to be considered justified by the international community. There has never been a convention or remote consensus on Bob on what does and does not constitute a "just" CB. Likewise, just war theory does not validate or invalidate the CB itself; in that respect, it is logically agnostic to validity since justification =/= validation. Thus, without going into the minutia of copy and pasting definitions, a CB can be valid so long as it is logically consistent. Moreover, you presume that just war theory has a monopoly on military ethics; it does not. Concepts such as consequentialism, realism, militarism, and pacifism all use the identical concept of CBs with different perspectives on justification. Again, all of these theories are agnostic to the logical validity of the CB; they are only interested in the justification of the CB, which widely varies dependent on your school of thought.

So while "I don't like you so I am going to kill you" may not be justified to you, it may be justified to others depending on their predilections. More importantly, however, is that regardless of your school of thought, the CB is valid because it is logically sound. It harkens back to the ancient concept of proschemata: fear, glory, and self-interest. There has been no convention or remote consensus on Bob delineating strict justifications of CBs either, so your argument is untenable to begin with. Edited January 25, 2015 by SpacingOutMan

[Lord Hitchcock]

Sorry, but the misunderstanding here is yours. Just war theory requires CBs to meet a specific set of criteria to be considered justified by the international community. There has never been a convention or remote consensus on Bob on what does and does not constitute a "just" CB. Likewise, just war theory does not validate or invalidate the CB itself; in that respect, it is logically agnostic to validity since justification =/= validation. Thus, without going into the minutia of copy and pasting definitions, a CB can be valid so long as it is logically consistent. Moreover, you presume that just war theory has a monopoly on military ethics; it does not. Concepts such as consequentialism, realism, militarism, and pacifism all use the identical concept of CBs with different perspectives on justification. Again, all of these theories are agnostic to the logical validity of the CB; they are only interested in the justification of the CB, which widely varies dependent on your school of thought.

So while "I don't like you so I am going to kill you" may not be justified to you, it may be justified to others depending on their predilections. More importantly, however, is that regardless of your school of thought, the CB is valid because it is logically sound. It harkens back to the ancient concept of proschemata: fear, glory, and self-interest. There has been no convention or remote consensus on Bob delineating strict justifications of CBs either, so your argument is untenable to begin with.

Valid CBs are determined ultimately by the winning side. "History is written by the winners" In the case of CN, most members are spineless band wagoners. "Who's winning?"-"Side A"- " I totally agree with side A, better side B than me"

[The Zigur]

Valid CBs are determined ultimately by the winning side. "History is written by the winners" In the case of CN, most members are spineless band wagoners. "Who's winning?"-"Side A"- " I totally agree with side A, better side B than me"

That may be more an effect of rampant individualism and weakness of leadership than any universal characteristic. There are many alliances who see beyond petty needs of the individual ego grasping for more infrastructure and base emotional satisfaction, and instead produce for the collective.

Nevertheless, there were "rules of war" during the time of Hegemony, and just because Moo trashed them doesnt mean they didn't exist. Edited January 25, 2015 by Tywin Lannister

[Walford]

I'm pretty sure we have no lack of morale or 'fighting spirit' given we're at a 900k damage gap.

 

Some of us judge success by other things than numbers.

You apparently judge success by things you take by force from others. That makes you a criminal and a thug in an alliance of criminals and thugs. It makes you a sociopath in an alliance of sociopaths. Nobody likes you, so you have fools around you serving as meat-shields who are bound by fear. That can only get you so far.

 

Your leaders have gathered toadies around you sacrificing millions in nation strength that will ultimately be for nothing. Once it no longer becomes profitable to fight alongside you, they will abandon you. Nobody in Polaris is asking for mercy. How many on your side are sniveling to your leaders about how much damage they are suffering as they are sent in to attack us and we will not quit?

 

How much have you spent in your war with me? Was it worth it? I am I supposed to feel beaten? I hope you and the other one attacking us spent a lot of money cutting your nation strength to less than half of what it was so you could down-declare on us. I have been beaten up by much better than you. Most of them are gone and I am still here. There will come a day when nobody remembers who you are and I will still be here unchanged.

 

And so will Polaris.

 

You and your empty-souled leaders can continue to send pawns our way to do your dirty work and in the end all it will garnish for you is more loathing.

 

You can lash out at those better than you and try to get some satisfaction by the damage you can cause, because you and your ilk cannot create anything. No matter how much damage you inflict, you cannot beat from Polaris that your host of nobodies lacks and always will lack: honor, courage, integrity, virtue.

 

We will still have that no matter what you do to us. All you will accomplish is to demonstrate how toxic your continued existence is to the rest of the world.

 

So by all means, keep on wasting resources on us and see what it gets you.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Walford

[Terminator]

 

Some of us judge success by other things than numbers.

You apparently judge success by things you take by force from others. That makes you a criminal and a thug in an alliance of criminals and thugs. It makes you a sociopath in an alliance of sociopaths. Nobody likes you, so you have fools around you serving as meat-shields who are bound by fear. That can only get you so far.

 

Your leaders have gathered toadies around you sacrificing millions in nation strength that will ultimately be for nothing. Once it no longer becomes profitable to fight alongside you, they will abandon you. Nobody in Polaris is asking for mercy. How many on your side are sniveling to your leaders about how much damage they are suffering as they are sent in to attack us and we will not quit?

 

How much have you spent in your war with me? Was it worth it? I am I supposed to feel beaten? I hope you and the other one attacking us spent a lot of money cutting your nation strength to less than half of what it was so you could down-declare on us. I have been beaten up by much better than you. Most of them are gone and I am still here. There will come a day when nobody remembers who you are and I will still be here unchanged.

 

And so will Polaris.

 

You and your empty-souled leaders can continue to send pawns our way to do your dirty work and in the end all it will garnish for you is more loathing.

 

You can lash out at those better than you and try to get some satisfaction by the damage you can cause, because you and your ilk cannot create anything. No matter how much damage you inflict, you cannot beat from Polaris that your host of nobodies lacks and always will lack: honor, courage, integrity, virtue.

 

We will still have that no matter what you do to us. All you will accomplish is to demonstrate how toxic your continued existence is to the rest of the world.

 

So by all means, keep on wasting resources on us and see what it gets you.

Its a game

 

we all play for different reasons and we all have to accept that

Edited January 25, 2015 by Terminator

[Sigrun Vapneir]

There has been no convention or remote consensus on Bob delineating strict justifications of CBs either, so your argument is untenable to begin with.

 

While conventions and consensus can be helpful, neither morality nor logic depends on them.

 

But I wouldnt expect a nihilist to understand that.
 

[Walford]

Its a game

 

we all play for different reasons and we all have to accept that

 

It is? Oh, never mind, then. :rolleyes: