Jump to content

Kiwi rage


Recommended Posts

The Flying Kiwis recognize a state of war with the Alpha Wolves. Kiwi rage! Flying Kiwi rage!  Here is a video which demonstrates what this looks like...

https://youtu.be/8x5d_lZtA0U

 

Please discuss. Woof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not really sure what you expected, first your member xR1 Fatal Instinct went rogue against the Imperium, and then you harbored multiple other rogue nations targeting multiple alliances. Some of these nations include Monster Mash coalition targets.

 

I did try to advise you about the instability of your situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Alpha Wolves are responding to members of the Flying Kiwis Alliance raiding nations in Apocalypse Meow.

 

Apocalypse Meow will handle any negotiations. Kiwis was asked to kick members raiding AM, nothing was done.

 

Al Bundy

Alpha Wolves

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did make it very clear that you pretty much had to kick those guys or some stuff was gonna go down. You read the last message and then did not reply. The obvious choice was war because diplomacy had failed and your AA seems to be full of rogues, at least 3 or 4 verified.

 

Let me remind you of our relationship before this incident:
 

 

Edited by Razgriz24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made it exceptionally clear to all of you that you were welcome to have at him/them,  any choices you made beyond that were solely up to you. I am happy with this outcome. I regret nothing. Although, I apologize if I didn't reply to all of you, I'm not very active anymore and I'm not sure who is from which AA anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wes the wise said:

I made it exceptionally clear to all of you that you were welcome to have at him/them,  any choices you made beyond that were solely up to you. I am happy with this outcome. I regret nothing. Although, I apologize if I didn't reply to all of you, I'm not very active anymore and I'm not sure who is from which AA anymore.

 

It's not hard to kick troublemakers, keeping them in your alliance tells me you support it.

 

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

I fail to see how this was an appropriate response, given that wes said you could hit the members, which you would have done if he did kick them out or not. It's in poor taste to attack the whole alliance if you were given the okay to hit the offenders. 

 

Going by historical precedent and the principle of alliance sovereignty, Alpha Wolves and everyone else attacked has a valid Casus Belli. The alliance sovereign is responsible for the regulation of the alliance affiliation; when another alliance is attacked from the AA negotiations should take place to reach a position of mutual agreement... most of the time, this means the rogues would be booted.

 

As negotiations failed, this means there is effectively state support for the rogue actors and therefore an act of aggression meriting recognized war between the sovereigns and their AAs.

 

As former CCC government Wes knows this, and simply doesnt care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree seems like he doesnt care either way...

 

Attacking their alliance was justified. Any alliance that would let their allies get attacked and do nothing is a crappy alliance. It would have taken 2 seconds to kick 3 rogue nations.

 

Al Bundy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Going by historical precedent and the principle of alliance sovereignty, Alpha Wolves and everyone else attacked has a valid Casus Belli. The alliance sovereign is responsible for the regulation of the alliance affiliation; when another alliance is attacked from the AA negotiations should take place to reach a position of mutual agreement... most of the time, this means the rogues would be booted.

 

As negotiations failed, this means there is effectively state support for the rogue actors and therefore an act of aggression meriting recognized war between the sovereigns and their AAs.

 

As former CCC government Wes knows this, and simply doesnt care. 

 

Historical precedent set by larger alliances, should be the addendum that you add. The negotiations did happen, and Wes did agree that they should retaliate against the nation in question; this would have happened if Wes did remove him from the alliance. So the point you bring up is moot, and a red herring. The main issue is that wes said yes, retaliate against the aggressor. The sovereign here did everything required of him, and his alliance; except respond to a private message.

 

The only cb here is the lack of the response, because negotiation was already agreed upon, except the kicking (which shouldn't matter anyways as retliation would occur with or without the kicking), because wes said it was alright to attack.

 

You statement is flawed in accepting the decimation of the entire alliance, because there was no response. or kicking. This wouldn't have happened if Flying Kiwi's were larger, or better connected.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

Historical precedent set by larger alliances, should be the addendum that you add. The negotiations did happen, and Wes did agree that they should retaliate against the nation in question; this would have happened if Wes did remove him from the alliance. So the point you bring up is moot, and a red herring. The main issue is that wes said yes, retaliate against the aggressor. The sovereign here did everything required of him, and his alliance; except respond to a private message.

 

The only cb here is the lack of the response, because negotiation was already agreed upon, except the kicking (which shouldn't matter anyways as retliation would occur with or without the kicking), because wes said it was alright to attack.

 

You statement is flawed in accepting the decimation of the entire alliance, because there was no response. or kicking. This wouldn't have happened if Flying Kiwi's were larger, or better connected.  

 

The matter of scale is a military matter, not one of precedent and morality. If a larger alliance harbored rogues, it would be no less of an act of aggression against the defending alliance(s), the only difference is the necessity of putting together a larger coalition if that option exists for the defender. Unfortunately, with fading activity levels, the world has taken a slackened attitude towards rogues, which has lead to heightened instability which ironically affects smaller alliances to a greater extent (they are less able to defend themselves). 

 

Collective culpability has always been a philosophical foundation of alliance-to-alliance interaction because the sovereign alliance is founded on collective defense. To quote Vladimir's The Meaning of Freedom:

 

Quote

The sovereign thus becomes the centre that the rest of the alliance revolves around. It is a sovereign and only a sovereign that can have the strength and authority to provide stability in the face of the natural conflict that goes on all around it, both inside and outside of the alliance. An alliance stands and falls by the successes and failures of its sovereign. The weaker the sovereign institution, the closer to the state of nature the alliance becomes. For the member-nations of the alliance, the strength of the sovereign is a literal matter of life and death.

 

The weakness of the sovereign is well represented by the inability or unwillingness of the Kiwi's to cooperate with larger alliances in dealing with roguery. Your position is ironic because you believe it is not fair to hold the sovereign responsible for his actions; yet where is the outrage when xR1 Fatal Instinct and others launched rogue wars against peaceful nations?

 

The Imperium's sole offensive war, the November Third Offensive, was waged to also hold an alliance sovereign to account for his crimes against the Imperium as a member. The same principle of collective culpability was included in that Casus Belli as well. Most global wars, such as the Disorder War, involved Casus Belli's citing the actions of a relatively small number of alliance officials (in that case, it was conspiring to attack New Polar Order).

 

So with this knowledge in hand, we can return to the question: why attack an entire alliance for the actions of a few? There can be several reasons to do so:

 

  1. To not fully address grievances may appear weak to third parties, and potentially invite future aggression.
  2. It encourages the practice of supporting proxies, ghosts, spy attacks and other types of attacks under the guise of plausible deniability.
  3. Organized military action, with a casus belli in hand, provides an opportunity to promote military coordination and discipline in preparation for more serious wars.

 

This doesn't mean that war should be a knee-jerk reaction, but it is sometimes an appropriate response, and this is one of those times.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After talking with our allies (AM), due to the deletion of the rogue nations in the Flying Kiwis alliance, no new wars on the alliance will take place from the Alpha Wolves.

Wars will continue until they expire or if both nations agree to just peace out.

Been fun, I suggest changing your alliance from Open to Approval.

 

Al Bundy

Co-Leader of the Alpha Wolves

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

The matter of scale is a military matter, not one of precedent and morality. If a larger alliance harbored rogues, it would be no less of an act of aggression against the defending alliance(s), the only difference is the necessity of putting together a larger coalition if that option exists for the defender. Unfortunately, with fading activity levels, the world has taken a slackened attitude towards rogues, which has lead to heightened instability which ironically affects smaller alliances to a greater extent (they are less able to defend themselves). 

 

Collective culpability has always been a philosophical foundation of alliance-to-alliance interaction because the sovereign alliance is founded on collective defense. To quote Vladimir's The Meaning of Freedom:

 

 

The weakness of the sovereign is well represented by the inability or unwillingness of the Kiwi's to cooperate with larger alliances in dealing with roguery. Your position is ironic because you believe it is not fair to hold the sovereign responsible for his actions; yet where is the outrage when xR1 Fatal Instinct and others launched rogue wars against peaceful nations?

 

The Imperium's sole offensive war, the November Third Offensive, was waged to also hold an alliance sovereign to account for his crimes against the Imperium as a member. The same principle of collective culpability was included in that Casus Belli as well. Most global wars, such as the Disorder War, involved Casus Belli's citing the actions of a relatively small number of alliance officials (in that case, it was conspiring to attack New Polar Order).

 

So with this knowledge in hand, we can return to the question: why attack an entire alliance for the actions of a few? There can be several reasons to do so:

 

  1. To not fully address grievances may appear weak to third parties, and potentially invite future aggression.
  2. It encourages the practice of supporting proxies, ghosts, spy attacks and other types of attacks under the guise of plausible deniability.
  3. Organized military action, with a casus belli in hand, provides an opportunity to promote military coordination and discipline in preparation for more serious wars.

 

This doesn't mean that war should be a knee-jerk reaction, but it is sometimes an appropriate response, and this is one of those times.

 

Your thesis is wrong, even if the alliance was larger, you're still missing the part where the sovereign said it was perfectly fine to retaliate towards those who were responsible. 

 

Your quote is disingenuous to non-fascist/dictator alliances, so I will not go into detail about how nature, and personal liberties are already striped from nations following that style of leadership. I will though, say again, that there was no weakness on Wes's part, as the sovereign, because there was cooperation between the two alliances, the coming together to deal with the rogues. The offended were allowed to attacked the offending. The two alliances have confirmed that yes indeed there was cooperation, so unless you are intentionally trying to fool yourself in believing that there was not cooperation, your thesis is wrong, again. 

 

There is no outrage because simply, because there is a certain aspect of liberty given to nations, which you should understand being apart of the LPCN, that they have control over their nations, and any form of control exerted over the free movement, and actions of said military are fascist in general. I feel bad for the nation being attacked, but there will be no outrage for a nation doing what is paramount to being free.

 

The outrage comes when the offender was able to have retribution exacted from them, yet the offended decided to attack every single one on the alliance. So, my position is not ironic as you pose, but is written in philosophy of nations being free. Note, that nations joining an alliance lose their freedoms in most aspects.

 

Let me ask you about your sole offensive actions. Did the alliance in question, that you attack, actually say you could attack the offenders? If not, there is no correlation, and can not be brought up to discuss this war. Or any other war you bring up, if the nation being attacked said yes, have the offending nations, you'd have a point. 

 

Over at the Protectorate, we had nations who raided affiliations, and we had responses asking to kick our members so they could attack, and we had 24 hours to remove them. I told them no, there will be no military action on my member until he has read my message (no responded), and has not sent peace. You will then be able to attack the offender, but I will not kick them from the affiliation. Same situation with an alliance twice s big as the Protectorate.

 

So there was no need for the larger alliance, in this situation, when given the opportunity to attack the offenders, to attack the whole alliance. There was no need to attack the few when they were given the possibility of attacking the offenders. 

 

 

Your three points are invalid as your original thesis' were wrong, because you are missing the fact that the offenders were offered up to have their pound of flesh taken. 

 

1. The grievance was addressed. 

2. It doesn't because the offenders were offered up to be retaliated against. 

3. I wont dispute this point, but this is the only point that can possibly be the main point, as your others are easily dismissed. 

 

A knee-jerk response should never be an appropriate response. 

 

 

8 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

After talking with our allies (AM), due to the deletion of the rogue nations in the Flying Kiwis alliance, no new wars on the alliance will take place from the Alpha Wolves.

Wars will continue until they expire or if both nations agree to just peace out.

Been fun, I suggest changing your alliance from Open to Approval.

 

Al Bundy

Co-Leader of the Alpha Wolves

 

 

 

 

 

 

All this post shows is that it didn't matter if the offending nations were kicked out, you wanted to attack, so you guys did. If CB actually mattered, you'd give white peace, as the offenders are taken care of, and not in the alliance anymore. Do the right thing, and grant white peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

All this post shows is that it didn't matter if the offending nations were kicked out, you wanted to attack, so you guys did. If CB actually mattered, you'd give white peace, as the offenders are taken care of, and not in the alliance anymore. Do the right thing, and grant white peace.


It sounds like he is giving white peace. He said "Wars will continue until they expire or both nations agree to peace. It's been fun. No new wars will take place."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

You talk way to much, who has that much time to read the books your write?

 

Al

 

It is also deeply offensive and ignorant to refer to other alliances as "fascist" and a slap in the face to not just the Imperium and Alpha Wolves but also the Orders of Ivan Moldavi who established these precedents.

 

"Fascism" is not an ideological concept that applies to this world, because the material conditions of this world are inherently different. Civilized alliances use bias-neutral terms such as Producerism, Francoism, Moralism, or Martenism to refer to ideological constructs in this world. Using the term "fascism" reeks of uneducated demagoguery.

 

I will reply to his points in more detail in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm alright with it being a slap in the face, and would love to discuss in a different thread (here or on our embassy) about how the ideals of fascism are alive, and well here. I also look forward to your replies. 

 

Also, don't expect me to give credence to ancient philosophies that are right-ist in nature when discussing my philosophical view. It's not ignorance, education or, demagoguery that I use the term instead of the right-ist critiques you think I should use instead. 

 

 

 

Also; Al. I'm sorry my text based communication was too long for you. Let me shorten it for you. Though critique Junka, as well, for his books, so you don't look silly for only attacking someone not defending you, verse someone ho is defending you. I know, I know, that's how things work, and you're just feable enough to go along with the status quo. So let me shorten my books down for you. 

 

You. Wrong. You. Dumb. - Hopefully that is more comprehensible for you. 

 

 

Canik. It's not white peace, it's a continuation of a botched CB, for the sake of continuing to attack members. The offenders are not there, thus every attack should end, which would be white peace. Just because they've agreed not to keep engaging without discussing it with the alliance they attacked, doesn't make it white peace, because it's a unilateral declaration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your position is absurd in the extreme and not connected to the reality of CN governance. I challenge you to follow this policy if one or more of your members raid the New Pacific Order or any other Oculus alliance. Any ally you have should be extremely concerned with your position, which not only endangers your own alliance, but your allies as well, and this is something I intend to inform them of for the good of global stability.

 

Your position is not a "Socialist" one, it is a nationalist one, and one that ignores the purpose of a (civilized) alliance. According to you, Nations should be free to do as they please as alliance members, without their actions reflecting on the alliance.

 

By your logic, if I decide to raid your non-nuclear lower-tier nations, all I have to state is that it is my own action and not that of my alliance, and you would be a hypocrite to attack anyone other than myself. Of course, I would not claim such a nonsensical position; the nation is a cell in the alliance body and must abide by the alliance contract to maintain full membership.

 

As to your accusation that I am a "dictator," I will refer directly to The Sage and the Student:

 

Quote

Autocratic Democracy is a principle that formed during the August Revolution itself. As simply as possible, it is the democratic will of the people being channeled through an autocratic institution. While there is no electoral vote the voices of Pacificans and Polars are nevertheless heard and acted on -- and in a far more efficient and effective way than in an electoral democracy.

This is why, for example, Comrade Franco put down the claim that he was a dictator when called one in an interview, since such would imply that he stands above the people rather than as an integral part of them -- as the medium through which they act.

 

It seems clear to me that your rhetoric is based on your desire to be some kind of rival to the Imperium on the brown team, and your anger that we salvaged the LPCN from what you thought would be certain destruction. You never supported us in the sanction war after we ensured your senator's election. You should not be surprised that we choose to work with the LPCN and, despite it's history, give it a fresh chance to work with the Imperium and to be more reliable partners.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...