Decree of the Sith

[Goldie]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282007095' post='2418455']
Your post kind of devolved into a lot of "Rah Rah YAY VE!" fluff but it sounds like you think we were correct in accepting and aiding sedrick?
[/quote]

I was saying if you're going to accept someone embroiled in a dispute, just be ready to fight for it. No one can tell you if it is right or wrong to want to protect a member, but to protect a member and then assume threats of war are invalid go completely contradictory to each other. That is my issue with the outcries against this war. NSO stuck their neck out to accept a member, then is outraged that it led to war. Were I in the same situation and had the same conversation with Hoo, I would have immediately readied myself and my allies for war. NSO (and you in particular) messed up here because you forgot that 'protection' actually implies willing to go to war over someone, whereas you ended up being shocked when protecting a member embroiled in wars ended up pulling your alliance in.

If I thought the war was unwinnable even with my allies at my side, I would have sought to negotiate Sedrick's release [u]before[/u] offering him protection/aiding him.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282048296' post='2419486']
I was saying if you're going to accept someone embroiled in a dispute, just be ready to fight for it. No one can tell you if it is right or wrong to want to protect a member, but to protect a member and then assume threats of war are invalid go completely contradictory to each other. That is my issue with the outcries against this war. NSO stuck their neck out to accept a member, then is outraged that it led to war. [b]Were I in the same situation and had the same conversation with Hoo, I would have immediately readied myself and my allies for war.[/b] NSO (and you in particular) messed up here because you forgot that 'protection' actually implies willing to go to war over someone, whereas you ended up being shocked when protecting a member embroiled in wars ended up pulling your alliance in.

If I thought the war was unwinnable even with my allies at my side, I would have sought to negotiate Sedrick's release [u]before[/u] offering him protection/aiding him.
[/quote]

You have readied yourself because all you think is 'war war war' - you would have readied your allies cause you're too [b]weak[/b] to handle anything alone. "oh bawww that's wut treaties are for .. why sign em if ewe can't use em" right?

[Goldie]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1282051694' post='2419531']
You have readied yourself because all you think is 'war war war' - you would have readied your allies cause you're too [b]weak[/b] to handle anything alone. "oh bawww that's wut treaties are for .. why sign em if ewe can't use em" right?
[/quote]

Good ole Rayvon. Present him with a rational argument and he comes right back with an irrational one.

You're right though, if I felt we were going to get attacked by a stronger force because we took a stand about a member we felt strongly enough about to accept during crisis, I shouldn't prepare my alliance for the calamity that may ensue, I shouldn't notify my allies because let's face it, it isn't the smart thing to do.

Wait, you're actually completely wrong, misguided, and incapable of rationally responding to the statement I posted above. If it were anyone else I'd feel offended, but its you Ray, and it isn't fair to go off on people like you.

[Valtamdraugr]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1282016068' post='2418607']
There are reasons other than fear that one would not attack. There are reasons other than bravery that one would.
[/quote]
I was responding to the allusion that if it were an "untouchable" alliance(whatever that was intended to mean), that we would have responded differently.

This had little to do with either fear, or bravery... it is what it is.

Bravery does not exist without fear. A man without fear, cannot act out of a sense of bravery... he can only do what he feels he must.

[TypoNinja]

I know none of these actually deserve a responce, but its how I get my entertainment so here goes.

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1282051694' post='2419531']
You have readied yourself because all you think is 'war war war'
[/quote]

Hes supposed to, hes the Secretary of Defense.

[quote]
you would have readied your allies cause you're too [b]weak[/b] to handle anything alone.
[/quote]

Check VE's treaty list again, we are the larger party in every treaty we hold.

[quote]
"oh bawww that's wut treaties are for .. why sign em if ewe can't use em" right?
[/quote]

Well you certainly aren't making any use of yours so I can see how you might be a bit bitter about the difference in participation levels.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1281312084' post='2405285']
Your sweat, RoK's missiles; your blood, GOD's Sword.
[/quote]

edit: I'm going to play nice.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Lennox

[Heft]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282048296' post='2419486']
I was saying if you're going to accept someone embroiled in a dispute, just be ready to fight for it. No one can tell you if it is right or wrong to want to protect a member, but to protect a member and then assume threats of war are invalid go completely contradictory to each other. That is my issue with the outcries against this war. NSO stuck their neck out to accept a member, then is outraged that it led to war. Were I in the same situation and had the same conversation with Hoo, I would have immediately readied myself and my allies for war. NSO (and you in particular) messed up here because you forgot that 'protection' actually implies willing to go to war over someone, whereas you ended up being shocked when protecting a member embroiled in wars ended up pulling your alliance in.

If I thought the war was unwinnable even with my allies at my side, I would have sought to negotiate Sedrick's release [u]before[/u] offering him protection/aiding him.
[/quote]
Where have we been "outraged?" We haven't.

It is, however, outrageous to act as if 6M in aid over a mishandled diplomatic incident should be expected to lead to war in 18 all hours, with all further attempts at dialogue shut off and dodged.

People can go around and talk about how colossal a mistake this was, but it wasn't. The entire thing was a relatively small matter that only became so blown up because RoK [i]chose[/i] to immediately go to war over it and actively shut off all other possible routes to resolution. That was not, and never would have been, expected or normal. There are very few alliances that would even consider such a harsh response. NSO might be one (though even this is beyond anything we've done), and apparently RoK is. The irony of your and Typo's tough-guy rhetoric is that I know if I had done that to VE instead of RoK, the response would have quite different.

[quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1282067544' post='2419934']
I was responding to the allusion that if it were an "untouchable" alliance(whatever that was intended to mean), that we would have responded differently.

This had little to do with either fear, or bravery... it is what it is.

Bravery does not exist without fear. A man without fear, cannot act out of a sense of bravery... he can only do what he feels he must.
[/quote]
I think the idea is more that if it was an alliance that wasn't us, then you would have responded differently.

I don't know if that's true or not, but considering the strangeness of the response it is to be expected that people would start looking for reasons why this was different than all the other minor kerfluffles that occur on a regular basis.

I've come to believe over the course of the war that, for whatever reason, RoK really is only interested in responding to the aid incident. But it's very easy to look at this war and think "surely there is something else going on here, because wtf?"

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282099038' post='2420973']

It is, however, outrageous to act as if 6M in aid over a mishandled diplomatic incident should be expected to lead to war in 18 all hours, with all further attempts at dialogue shut off and dodged.

[/quote]

This has been covered at length and is simple and easy to follow, even non important peanut gallery members like me can understand. You chose to send the aid when we told you it would be an act of war. You had 100% control of the situation at that point and discussions could have gone on for weeks if you wanted, had you just not made that one decision. You can spin it anyway you want but it isnt going to change the facts heft. You made a choice, no one asked you to send the aid and commit the act of war, we didnt even prod you into it with banter you did that all on your own.

Hoo made it clear we considered this guy a rogue, you disagree which is fine but had you honestly wanted diplomacy to go on you wouldnt have sent the aid. Just admit it already, chron is pulling the strings isnt he? lol

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282099038' post='2420973']
I've come to believe over the course of the war that, for whatever reason, RoK really is only interested in responding to the aid incident. But it's very easy to look at this war and think "surely there is something else going on here, because wtf?"
[/quote]

If chrons around ask him if he has any spare logs hanging around from, i dunno, from duckroll maybe?

After all the sith had 100% control over the situation and did the one thing that could lead to war, why would you make that choice? hhhmmmmm?

[Heft]

I don't know did you read my post or.....?