Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 How can you be neutral and be protected? Hence the confusion... hence the need for this thread. We are a protected neutral alliance. Our neutrality stems from the fact that we will not entangle ourselves in the political affairs of other alliances - even our protectors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jebbie Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 No one has queried us to find out if we will be neutral in this possible coming war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 No one has queried us to find out if we will be neutral in this possible coming war Since you mentioned it. In the up coming war will you remain neutral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 yawn....anybody seen my baseball??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Hey there GOP ! So, like alot of people are upset with the G.O.P. for not taking a stronger conservative stance in Washington D.C. nowadays and I was kind of wondering, well, with rumors of a possible big war looming all over Planet Bob, where exactly does GOP stand. I mean, what if your protectors get involved in the war, will GOP go riding into battle ?Was just wondering (didn't really have time to read the OP, but I did glance at your GOP emblem that, looks really sharp !) 0/ GOP Bolakian Oh Bolak. How I love thee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 We are a protected neutral alliance. Our neutrality stems from the fact that we will not entangle ourselves in the political affairs of other alliances - even our protectors. Aren't you by definition entangled in the affairs of your protectors, however? If your protectors get rolled the security of your alliance obviously will be degraded, thus creating a clear interest for you in seeing that your protectors do not get rolled. Even if you don't do anything to protect them, your choice in protector seems to represent a preference of some sort among the various alliances. Or at least an assessment of relative strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Don't confuse him with logic, heggo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord GVChamp Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Aren't you by definition entangled in the affairs of your protectors, however? If your protectors get rolled the security of your alliance obviously will be degraded, thus creating a clear interest for you in seeing that your protectors do not get rolled. Even if you don't do anything to protect them, your choice in protector seems to represent a preference of some sort among the various alliances. Or at least an assessment of relative strengths. Everyone's interests are somewhat entangled with everyone else's interests. An interest does not automatically imply an action, though. Some of my trade partners were members of the New Polar Order. Should I have cancelled the trade simply because VE and NpO were on opposite sides of the political web in the summer? GOP does not believe that getting involved in these affairs are worth the costs. Therefore, they will stay out of it. Don't confuse him with logic, heggo. Your logic is constructed on faulty premises. Edited April 20, 2009 by Lord GVChamp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Everyone's interests are somewhat entangled with everyone else's interests. An interest does not automatically imply an action, though. Some of my trade partners were members of the New Polar Order. Should I have cancelled the trade simply because VE and NpO were on opposite sides of the political web in the summer?GOP does not believe that getting involved in these affairs are worth the costs. Therefore, they will stay out of it. While there may be some truth to this, I think your analogy is rather faulty. The value of GOP's deterrent is directly and formally tied to the well being of their protectors. They have a massive and direct security interest in seeing them do well. I don't really see how something so obviously trivial as an ingame trade can possibly be comparable to that. After all: 1. The trade is not formal and binding as a treaty, and does not operate on the scale of whole alliances. 2. The military benefit given to NpO from the trade is very small and is only an indirect effect of the economic benefit to one nation. 3. Individual trades are fairly easy to replace, making any harm you could do to them through canceling very temporary. 4. I know that you know that your analogy was absurd, so why don't you just knock it off? 5. No competitive advantage was given to either side, as you were obviously benefiting from the trade as well. Edit: I'll break it down for ya': 1. GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored. 2. The political affairs of their protectors have a direct impact on the ability of their protectors to honor their agreement. (If they are at war, they probably won't have troops to spare toward protecting GOP.) If GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored, then, by extension, they have an interest in the affairs of their protectors. Edited April 20, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord GVChamp Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 1. GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored.2. The political affairs of their protectors have a direct impact on the ability of their protectors to honor their agreement. (If they are at war, they probably won't have troops to spare toward protecting GOP.) If GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored, then, by extension, they have an interest in the affairs of their protectors. I am not denying this, but an interest does not automatically imply an action. You are attempting to suggest, however, that it does, and try to maintain this argument by showing how cancelling on my trade partner is not really in my interest. Which I agree with, because when you take a look at the whole picture, I am damaging myself rather greatly for superficial harm on the opposing alliance. But in this situation, you aren't looking at the whole view as GOP sees it. You're seeing things through one specific point of view. I might as well cancel my trade with my Polar partners if I am going to ignore the other merits of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Although under normal circumstances one wouldn’t expect a small micro-alliance (GOP) to come to the defense of a sanctioned alliance (VE), in the unusual circumstance that a protecting alliance found itself hard-pressed, it’s not unreasonable to expect that some type of assistance would be offered by the protected alliance. A logical consideration of mutual self-interest would seem to demand this, if not a more intuitive appreciation of fair play, in order to avoid the appearance of parasitism. Now consider that the GOP, while roughly half the size of OV, would be able to offer a comparable level of support in any war. GOP (25 members, 10 at 27K ns or above, avg strength 20,038, nukes 95) OV (57 members, 12 at 30K ns or above, avg strength 15,842, nukes 173). But while the OV has a MADP with the VE, the GOP merely holds a protectorate. Now if the VE is comfortable with this “relationship” then who am I to criticize? However, it just strikes me as more than a little crass that the GOP can’t even wait for war to break out before reaffirming that it intends to leave its protector hanging high and dry in the event of any hostilities. Edited April 20, 2009 by Azhrarn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekh127 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 OV is also our protector as well as GGA, I think we'd find it hard to even find a way into the war that wouldn't be working against one of our protectors, even if we wanted too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 OV is also our protector as well as GGA, I think we'd find it hard to even find a way into the war that wouldn't be working against one of our protectors, even if we wanted too I'll give you that. Everyone has been wearing a mask for so long. It will be interesting to see what happens when more of the masks come off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 GOP is protected by the UJA as a whole – which means both sides of the coming war. It is expected that they will remain neutral because of that and their pre-existing position as a neutral alliance. I'm surprised people were asking you about it because I would have thought that was obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Who am I to criticize? Good question. However, it just strikes me as more than a little crass that the GOP can’t even wait for war to break out before reaffirming that it intends to leave its protector hanging high and dry in the event of any hostilities. It really doesn't matter how it seems. Our allies knew, before they agreed to protect us, that we would not assist them in their wars or aggressive actions. Their protection of us is economically motivated: to get more nations in the green sphere, and that's the extent of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) While there may be some truth to this, I think your analogy is rather faulty. The value of GOP's deterrent is directly and formally tied to the well being of their protectors. They have a massive and direct security interest in seeing them do well. I don't really see how something so obviously trivial as an ingame trade can possibly be comparable to that. After all: 1. The trade is not formal and binding as a treaty, and does not operate on the scale of whole alliances. 2. The military benefit given to NpO from the trade is very small and is only an indirect effect of the economic benefit to one nation. 3. Individual trades are fairly easy to replace, making any harm you could do to them through canceling very temporary. 4. I know that you know that your analogy was absurd, so why don't you just knock it off? 5. No competitive advantage was given to either side, as you were obviously benefiting from the trade as well. Edit: I'll break it down for ya': 1. GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored. 2. The political affairs of their protectors have a direct impact on the ability of their protectors to honor their agreement. (If they are at war, they probably won't have troops to spare toward protecting GOP.) If GOP has an interest in seeing their protectorate agreement honored, then, by extension, they have an interest in the affairs of their protectors. We're not going to deny that we have friends in OV, VE and the GGA. We're also not going to deny that we wish them all the best of luck in everything that they do. We're also not going to deny that their preservation is better for us because they are, for all intents and purposes, our security net. That said, we also have friends in the CCC, GPA, GR, TPD, The Old Guard and many other alliances. As human beings, we're going to have friends and we're going to wish them well. But as an alliance, we will not assist any of them because, since our founding, we have chosen the path of neutrality. Our protectors knew this was the deal before making us a team protectorate and they support our neutrality. As I've said before, their protection of us is economically motivated - to attract more nations to the green sphere. And while it may be in our best interest for VE, GGA and OV to not get destroyed, we are obligated not to interfere with their endeavors in any way. All the people involved in this relationship knew that going in and still supports the relationship now. The fact that I have to outline this here and in the other thread is proof that we had to clarify our stance. Even amongst people who pretend we were ill-advised to post a reiteration of our neutrality, there is confusion as to how we can be neutral. This should be proof enough that an announcement from us was needed to clear up the confusion. As I've repeated over and over, it's not that we were sitting around and thought that everyone wanted to know what the GOP would do if a GW came around. It's that several people have asked us what our protected status would mean to us should a GW break out. Having protectors who appear to be in the thick of mounting tension, we felt it was necessary to make it clear that should any or even all of them be engaged, we would remain neutral. There were questions, we answered them. It's within our right to do so, and we're not sorry for making what we feel was a very simple but necessary announcement. It's kind of mind boggling that the same people who are peeved that an insignificant alliance posted a reiteration of its neutrality, are the same ones who keep bumping this thread and raising questions about our neutrality... Let it go people. We felt we needed to make our stance clear, so we did. It was our prerogative. Edited April 20, 2009 by Rooman33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jebbie Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 So in this upcoming war you will be on the side of NPO? just clarifying here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I'm glad to see GOP is taking the pro-active stance here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You trying to be the new )): neutral menace )): ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 So in this upcoming war you will be on the side of NPO? just clarifying here They'll be as neutral as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) It really doesn't matter how it seems. I decided to be polite to Rekh127 since he actually brought up the valid point of having possibly conflicting protectors; however, as Bob Janova states, that same point only highlights the completely unnecessary nature of your "Reiteration of GOP Neutrality." I too am surprised to hear that you were receiving a large number of queries concerning your stance, but I thank you for setting everyone's mind at ease. I have to say I'm a little disappointed though. Having just re-read your resignation speech from the VE, I somehow expected more than to find you once again leading a neutral alliance. Edited April 20, 2009 by Azhrarn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSnipezxX Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." - JFK not saying your bad, but just thought i would send you guys a quote... just to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekh127 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The battles of CN have nothing to do with morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The battles of CN have nothing to do with morals. Depends on which battle, who you are talking to, and why the individual fights, regardless of what the CB states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I am not denying this, but an interest does not automatically imply an action. So GOP is neutral even to their own affairs then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.