Jump to content

Inquisitor Tolkien

Members
  • Posts

    6,143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Inquisitor Tolkien

  • Birthday 08/12/1992

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington DC
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Kingdom of Arda
  • Alliance Name
    None
  • Resource 1
    Water
  • Resource 2
    Silver

Recent Profile Visitors

703 profile views

Inquisitor Tolkien's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. If' you're still looking, I'm open. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=483969
  2. If the rest of you are still interested in forming this circle, contact me instead of Tarpuinius.
  3. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1324332813' post='2882099'] No, it doesn't, but it is relevant to whether or not your are pubescent [/quote] Which is still not relevant to...anything.
  4. [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1324199637' post='2881096'] Have you seen 'When Vikings Attack!' !? [/quote] And let's not forget that the Swiss were unholy terrors back in the Renaissance.
  5. Upon further consideration, it'll be a 3million/100 tech flat rate. Also, 2 slots left.
  6. I'm up for it too, as long as the wine is changed to uranium eventually. Would also like to know when dixie and richking will switch over to blue. Sent out the offers/PM.
  7. I would change teams/resources to do this, but waiting on a tech deal so I can buy the harbor.
  8. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1324178137' post='2880869'] Some would argue International Relations theorists give the real world too much credit too : P Case in point, in 2002 International Relations theorists took out a full page ad in the New York times warning that an invasion of Iraq would take years, cost billions of dollars, and weaken American power considerably. Of course, nobody listens to the elitist egg head naysayers, even when they are right. I would argue many of the people who lead our Alliances are as competent, if not more so, then politicians who ascend to control over the States in the real world. Furthermore, the considerations they make with their alliances are very similar to those real States have to make. There are also varying levels of competency, where Alliances like IRON or NPO could be equated with the United States and Germany, and AcTi (May god have mercy on their souls) with Gadaffi's Libya. [/quote] Well, the Bush administration adopted Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" as their primary approach to foreign policy. I'll just leave it at that. [quote name='Aloop' timestamp='1324180437' post='2880891'] I am incredibly jealous of you at this moment. Incredibly. [/quote] One of the benefits of a DC uni.
  9. [quote name='Vasuda' timestamp='1324154168' post='2880666'] My post wasn't even referring to you. It was aimed at the OP. The Scholar was a horrible trolling windbag who ended up getting banned. That you take being called his reroll as a compliment says a lot. I'm glad one single thread could help all the first year poli sci students and pseudo-intellectuals in CN come together. [/quote] Well, I feel like an moron now. In my defense, it has been two years, and my knowledge of former CN personalities is not up to snuff (I never had any personal interaction with him, additionally). Also, I'm not a first year.
  10. [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1324110019' post='2880437'] If those states existed in a world where global war was -- relatively -- common, and they comprised somewhere in the range of 15% of the world's total strength, they too would be eyed pretty warily, whether or not they took an aggressive political tack. In terms of what IR framework can be best applied to CN, while I think that offensive realism is a loathsome, near-suicidal doctrine in reality (well, post-1850 reality, at least), it does pretty much work here. Power maximization and the pursuit of the position of hegemon is the name of the game, cooperation is generally fleeting and the bonds easily broken as political units maneuver each other to best advantage, and it is very much a zero sum game in which the costs of successfully prosecuting a war are typically smaller than the gain in power experienced by the victor. [/quote] I disagree. One of the problems of seeking hegemony is that no one alliance can truly dominate a system. Even NPO at its height still had to rely on an extensive web of treaties and inter-alliance alliances in order to maintain the preponderance that they have. Hegemons in CN are formed by coalitions of alliances: diplomacy and the importance of cooperation are ever present in the formation of blocs and alliance structures. Moreover, hegemony is not always the goal of nations within the system, as an alliance's interests are may lie in fighting with their friends, having fun, etc. So in my opinion, offensive realism as postulated by Mearsheimer is not an effective framework. It can be applied to certain alliances at certain periods of time, but it's an overly simplistic model for something as subtly complex as CN. EDIT: Then again, I ascribe more to constructivism and the neo-isms.
  11. [img]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg[/img] I believe this is appropriate.
  12. Hello, my name is Tolkien. How are you? What's that? You want tech on a long term basis? What a coincidence! I can sell you that tech. I have 3 slots open for long term tech deals. I will initially sell tech at 3million/100, before switching to 3million/50 in subsequent deals. I would like to keep up the deals on a long-term basis and prefer if you didn't cut after getting the 100, but there's nothing I can really about it if you did, eh? This is my nation link. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=483969
  13. [quote name='Vasuda' timestamp='1324101013' post='2880357'] Oh hey, I didn't know The Scholar had come back to CN. [/quote] I was not The Scholar in my past life. Though I'll take it as a complement. I think.
  14. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1324095131' post='2880276'] I would agree that Realism is never the end all be all. Unfortunately as I stated in the opening I could not apply more Liberal interpretation due to a lack of information. Mainly, what goes on the private IRC interactions between the leaders of the various Alliances. With respect to Hegemonic stability theory, I disagree with that strongly, mainly due to the fact that people base this theory primarily around the United States. Which in my view is a poor example since the United States is a Liberal Democracy, and by its very nature tends (usually) to avoid war. Canada and Mexico have no fear of invasion for example. However, if we look at more regionally focused examples of Hegemony, like Rome in the Mediterranean as a good example, we see that Unipolarity does not necessarily translate into peace. If we look at the CN case study, the hegemonic period of the New Pacific Order could hardly be qualified as peaceful either. Indeed, their position as the single power lead to many wars and culminated in the hegemonic Karma War that people are still talking about to this day for its severity and game changing levels of conflict. [/quote] First, if you want to know more about the system, join government and work yourself a mid-high level position. It takes time, of course (varying depending on how your alliance is structured), but I will say that it is definitely worthwhile and rewarding (if at times exhausting: coordinating GR's war effort [without an adequate support/command structure] on the fly in the TOP-CnG War was what ultimately led me into retirement). The Karma war was the inevitable result of hegemonic decline. Since the end of GWIII and the ultimate defeat of the League, the power and unity of NPO's power bloc steadily grew weaker. Schisms with alliances once part of the NPO bloc like FAN or VE were responded to quickly and brutally, as NPO and its bloc zealously attempted to defend their hegemony against potential threats from defeated AEGIS/League members. Their repression of any opposition earned them enemies and lots of bad press, and disagreements over policy eventually lead to the NPO/NpO schism. Negative feelings and reactions to harsh NPO policies ultimately led to the Unjust War, which was probably the start of a coalescing of organized opposition to the NPO/The Continuum system (beyond simply lone blocs and alliances, at most). There were numerous problems with the Continuum's FP over the years, which we now see in hindsight. Especially the NPO's decision to declare war on OV in the manner they did, and with the casus belli they had (in the hostile diplomatic/public opinion environment they were in), but more broadly in their fairly arrogant behavior in their policies. Perceptions of the NPO/The Continuum had grown increasingly hostile during the long period of hegemony, and ultimately exacerbated by decisions such as the Viridicide, and policies such as Vice-royalty imposed upon defeated alliances. The decline of the NPO was in hindsight inevitable, as is the fate of all hegemons (though at the time, it seemed inconceivable). I never did say hegemony was peace. Only that it was stable. Rome was not stable, certainly. Its internal structures, economic defects, pseudo-autonomous military, and lack of clear political succession ultimately lead to the many civil wars that wracked it (esp. during the third century). Within the Med., however, stability was essentially present. Roman influence within Europe was not truly challenged until after its decline and fall, and Rome itself had equals in the form of the various incarnations of the Persian Empire. My counterpoint would be China and the relative stability of East Asian geopolitics up until really the First Opium War. [quote name='Aloop' timestamp='1324096509' post='2880288'] - As someone who studied under a Morgenthau fanantic, I'd certainly agree with Inquisitor T. Since you spent so much time discussing the power balance and effects of the creation of XX, your sources are a bit off-topic. - In regards to CN, a uni-polar state has seen many different approaches. Contrasting the period of WUT or 1V/Q surpremacy to the period of SuperGrievances dominance, we can see that the stability of a uni-polar system is greatly dependent on the main actors in the power structure. - Nye's theories on soft power works well for CN, especially when the game devolves into one of the mud-slinging contests that begins a number of months before the large majority of wars. While making alliances is important, goodwill and friendship in non-allied alliances have far-reaching benefits. - Insofar as Aeros' argument concerning survival, it is rather pointless to debate. Given that eliminating every single component of a state (which would obviously destroy the state in real life) has no effect on the existence of the state, the survival of an alliance is guaranteed so long as Planet Bob exists.[/quote] I'd like to elaborate on your elaborations (this feels so academic). 1) My professors tend to be quite liberal in their outlook. After all, I've listened in on Nye before when he stopped by for a lecture (The Future of Power), and I also have Robert Pastor as a prof. Good times, good times. 2) I didn't want to touch upon this because I've been out of touch in the past two years and thus cannot comment on how politics post TOP-C&G were like, but yes. How a hegemon conducts themselves is an [i]extremely[/i] important part of maintaining hegemony and stability, especially given the importance of soft power in CN diplomacy/politics. Moreover, hegemons have a great deal of leeway in creating international institutions, regimes, and norms (and moreover, once regimes, norms, and institutions are adopted, it becomes much more difficult to break out of them instead of remaining tied to them). 3) Indeed. While political realism emphasizes the importance of hard power, it is especially important to note that no alliance controls an overwhelming preponderance of power in basic power resources (not like the US at the end of WWII, for example). There are no great powers, per se, given the heavy reliance on a wide range of alliances and blocs to fight war. 4) Hmm. I'd definitely agree on this. While in CN you can destroy a state's hard power capabilities (their economy, military, etc.), but the state cannot be forcibly disbanded and conquered. See the incredibly long VietFAN.
×
×
  • Create New...