Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 At the point there is a truly decisive victor, one could begin to talk about dictating terms, perhaps. Even then, we know that extended warfare can sap the will and cohesion of any large coalition, even a winning one. So anyone reasonable and experienced recognizes that the calculations involved are more complicated than merely comparing damage scores and ratios, important though they are. Questions of morale, strategic planning, preparedness for extended warfare and so on become part of what the parties bring to the negotiating table. Only in the case of the most crushing and absolute victory will all the cards be on one side of that table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 At the point there is a truly decisive victor, one could begin to talk about dictating terms, perhaps. Even then, we know that extended warfare can sap the will and cohesion of any large coalition, even a winning one. So anyone reasonable and experienced recognizes that the calculations involved are more complicated than merely comparing damage scores and ratios, important though they are. Questions of morale, strategic planning, preparedness for extended warfare and so on become part of what the parties bring to the negotiating table. Only in the case of the most crushing and absolute victory will all the cards be on one side of that table. you will either submit to my terms or your alliances will be turned into dust, morale is not an issue when a coalition has me on their side, I am the victor of every war I fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) At the point there is a truly decisive victor, one could begin to talk about dictating terms, perhaps. Even then, we know that extended warfare can sap the will and cohesion of any large coalition, even a winning one. So anyone reasonable and experienced recognizes that the calculations involved are more complicated than merely comparing damage scores and ratios, important though they are. Questions of morale, strategic planning, preparedness for extended warfare and so on become part of what the parties bring to the negotiating table. Only in the case of the most crushing and absolute victory will all the cards be on one side of that table. Â Â It's almost like you think people want this war to end. Â Certainly getting that from at least one group of people, and they don't really seem to be in that group you would call "the winning coalition." Â Makes you think. Edited December 21, 2013 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 It's almost like you think people want this war to end. Â Certainly getting that from at least one group of people, and they don't really seem to be in that group you would call "the winning coalition." Â Makes you think. I have no opinion or information on whether anyone wants this to end, in the aggressor coalition or my own. I was simply responding to the inanity of your comment above and Dochartaigh's affirmation of it, and then to Tela. It doesn't take comments in this venue to make me think. I think often, without the need of any such prompting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Oh boy. Perhaps you can write me another paragraph on what sarcasm means to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 To a point. The winner dictates the terms, while it's on the loser to accept or refuse them. If the winner doesn't want to peace out... then the loser better be ready to bend over backwards if they want peace. Seems we have a ways to go. Â Counter point: you sir are a teapot. Â Am I doing it right Gibs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Â Counter point: you sir are a teapot. Â Am I doing it right Gibs? Â This would be valid if you joined MI6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Does anyone really think that anyone on either side of this war expected anything less than war to the knife considering the way the last war ended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 I have no opinion or information on whether anyone wants this to end, in the aggressor coalition or my own. I was simply responding to the inanity of your comment above and Dochartaigh's affirmation of it, and then to Tela. It doesn't take comments in this venue to make me think. I think often, without the need of any such prompting.  My comment and Myth's were tongue in cheek in regards to loser's dictating terms. Winners are the ones who dictate terms and you even affirmed this. So how are our comments inane and yours is not?  Sorry we were not as eloquent as you but sometimes common sense does not need eloquence just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Such childishness. No-one gets to dictate anything to anyone, unless the outcome of the war is very clearly massively lopsided and one party has no stamina to continue. Otherwise, peace is a negotiation. If more of the long-suffering inhabitants of Bob need to perish so that people learn that, then so be it. But one would have thought it unnecessary by this point in the planet's history. So, Â nobody gets to dictate anything to anyone, unless one side wants to quit and the other doesn't. Â NPO seeks peace. NPO turned down for peace. Â Kind of sounds like the situation that we are in, the one that you are arguing against. Peace terms will come but it will not be in NPO's favor. You are entitled to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 NPO: Let's discuss peace for everyone? Â Polar/TOP coalition: lets do it many small peace talks instead of one large one. Â ... Â NPO: They want eternal war against us!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 My comment and Myth's were tongue in cheek in regards to loser's dictating terms. Winners are the ones who dictate terms and you even affirmed this. So how are our comments inane and yours is not?  Sorry we were not as eloquent as you but sometimes common sense does not need eloquence just common sense. I did not affirm it, is the point. Terms are negotiated. Only if one side is utterly powerless does the other get to dictate terms. We are a long way from that, and indeed could remain a long way from that for some time. Simplistic reduction of peace negotiations to binary win/lose, dictate/accept ignores a whole lot of the actual complexity that makes war and politics interesting. Given the apparent distance between what is acceptable to either side at this point, the struggle will continue on the battle field. War is a continuation of politics by other means, after all, so what happens on the battle field is mostly about determining the relative power of the peace negotiators. At some point your coalition will make an offer consonant with the actual balance of power & will, and the war will end. Only if that point comes when our coalition has no more capability or will to fight at all and so would accept anything at all could that be called dictating terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Well I'm going to pretend that your previous paragraph is an explanation on why you can't understand sarcasm. Edited December 21, 2013 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 I understand perfectly well what you were trying to do with your original comment. It was still utterly fatuous, for reasons I have now explained at ample length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 fatuous What'd you call me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 I understand perfectly well what you were trying to do with your original comment. It was still utterly fatuous, for reasons I have now explained at ample length. you don't ever lighten up do ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 In the right company and venue, I am a riot, I assure you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Lord of Funk Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 In the right company and venue, I am a riot, I assure you. Â We talking "Occupy Wall Street" riot or "South Korean Let's Go Toe To Toe With The Police" riot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 We talking "Occupy Wall Street" riot or "South Korean Let's Go Toe To Toe With The Police" riot? Mostly like this: http://youtu.be/kgDUWFh5lnk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) To a point. The winner dictates the terms, while it's on the loser to accept or refuse them. If the winner doesn't want to peace out... then the loser better be ready to bend over backwards if they want peace. Seems we have a ways to go. Very true, except you haven't even offered terms to refuse or accept for some of us. If you want us to keep lobbing nukes at you while we take much less dmg than we inflict, be my guest. You want to keep us in perma-war because you can't figure out what to do with NPO? Then come out and say it.  May the Ramirius be with you.  On that note, it's funny that TOPsphere continues to take damage (at least the minority not in peace mode) while IRON can grow stronger as well as Aztec and other outside alliances that aren't big fans of TOPsphere. Edited December 22, 2013 by Steve Buscemi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 I did not affirm it, is the point. Terms are negotiated. Only if one side is utterly powerless does the other get to dictate terms. We are a long way from that, and indeed could remain a long way from that for some time. Simplistic reduction of peace negotiations to binary win/lose, dictate/accept ignores a whole lot of the actual complexity that makes war and politics interesting. Given the apparent distance between what is acceptable to either side at this point, the struggle will continue on the battle field. War is a continuation of politics by other means, after all, so what happens on the battle field is mostly about determining the relative power of the peace negotiators. At some point your coalition will make an offer consonant with the actual balance of power & will, and the war will end. Only if that point comes when our coalition has no more capability or will to fight at all and so would accept anything at all could that be called dictating terms.  As Myth said, you apparently do not understand sarcasm.  I understand perfectly well what you were trying to do with your original comment. It was still utterly fatuous, for reasons I have now explained at ample length.  I like you Pingu but you are kind of trying way too hard here. MI6 was one of the first to grant peace in case you forgot.  Very true, except you haven't even offered terms to refuse or accept for some of us. If you want us to keep lobbing nukes at you while we take much less dmg than we inflict, be my guest. You want to keep us in perma-war because you can't figure out what to do with NPO? Then come out and say it.  May the Ramirius be with you.  On that note, it's funny that TOPsphere continues to take damage (at least the minority not in peace mode) while IRON can grow stronger as well as Aztec and other outside alliances that aren't big fans of TOPsphere.  Wait, you are taking less damage? Then please explain why your side has taken more damage than our side? Yes, it is ever so slight but it disproves exactly what you just claimed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 It's just beggar steve pitching his "please, any and everyone we've thrown under the bus since we've existed -- please help us!" pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 I like you Pingu but you are kind of trying way too hard here. MI6 was one of the first to grant peace in case you forgot. Â I really don't understand what this has to do with anything. Some people, affiliation irrelevant, claim that a victor gets to dictate terms. Attempting to be amusing/score points, they/others sarcastically suggest that others believe that the loser gets to dictate terms. I point out that the whole basis of this is fundamentally flawed, since it is only in the rarest of circumstances that anyone gets to dictate terms, that in fact terms are always negotiated, and that fighting is mostly about providing negotiators with stronger or weaker hands. In response, no-one has attempted to dissuade me of this reasonable view. Instead there is all this talk about sarcasm and MI6. I don't think that I am trying too hard. I think that no-one else is trying at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 I really don't understand what this has to do with anything. Some people, affiliation irrelevant, claim that a victor gets to dictate terms. Attempting to be amusing/score points, they/others sarcastically suggest that others believe that the loser gets to dictate terms. I point out that the whole basis of this is fundamentally flawed, since it is only in the rarest of circumstances that anyone gets to dictate terms, that in fact terms are always negotiated, and that fighting is mostly about providing negotiators with stronger or weaker hands. In response, no-one has attempted to dissuade me of this reasonable view. Instead there is all this talk about sarcasm and MI6. I don't think that I am trying too hard. I think that no-one else is trying at all. Â Â Holy crap man. We might need to have a pot of tea sometime to discuss this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Very true, except you haven't even offered terms to refuse or accept for some of us. If you want us to keep lobbing nukes at you while we take much less dmg than we inflict, be my guest. You want to keep us in perma-war because you can't figure out what to do with NPO? Then come out and say it.  May the Ramirius be with you.  On that note, it's funny that TOPsphere continues to take damage (at least the minority not in peace mode) while IRON can grow stronger as well as Aztec and other outside alliances that aren't big fans of TOPsphere. Oh shut up with perma war. Every single war the loser cries about how they're gonna be held in perma war. You're not. Everyone acknowledges just how stupid that is; it's simply not worth it.  Also, it doesn't matter how much NS AZTEC builds. They have SOM. His blueballs shall prevent them from war. Edited December 22, 2013 by Gibsonator21 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.