Imperial Decree - DBDC

[Monty of the Herm]

With last instance being... 2008? 2007?
 
Bob has not seen anything resembling terms (if we don't consider post-war NAPs, of course) since the Grudge War. You should remember because it was NpO that paid them. By supporting them you did yourself no favor, imo.

We were forced to accept terms the last war simply for defending an ally.

[Monty of the Herm]

 

Anyone reading that Wiki can see that New Polar Order entered that war pre-emptively because of an imminent attack, which New Pacific Order was orchestrating. I do not think even they would appreciate them being depicted as victims. Your selective memory on the terms of surrender omits that the intention was to make it so any further mischief on their part would be delayed somewhat.

 

Clearly you've gone off into lala land your coalition last war took aggressive action against us and our allies because they felt logs from a discussion that was six months old at the time posed an immenent threat. The discussion was where NSO and NG wanted to take aggressive action against you after EQ, but our leadership told them we wouldn't back them because we knew we were in a really bad position politically coming out of EQ. If six month old logs are an "immenent threat" then I clearly don't have a clue about what a threat is, and on top of that we never took action on that discussion told our allies to back off that line of thinking and moved on. Then six months later you hit us and gave us punitive terms because we discussed it with them at the time.

 

And I thought Tywin was crazy...

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Monty of the Herm

[kerschbs]

 

 

Yeah, we have officially entered lala land here.   I feel like i'm in a bad 1984 rip off.  Up is down.  Black is white.  Are you actually saying that the disorder war.... where Polar aggressively attacked multiple people and NPO entered via an MDP was Pacifica supporting "aggressive action"?  If that's the case, than i'm pleased to see doomsphere defending themselves from Polar aggression this war.  Since clearly actually starting a war no longer counts as aggression.

 

Seriously dude.  You started the Disorder war with an aggressive attack (and lied about your reasons for going to war, but hey).   Then you held NPO hostage for a month and wouldn't let them surrender.  Then you extracted punishment terms for their having nations in pm (far less than I see most of your allies having this war).  How is that not being aggressive?   Its literally the definition of aggressive.

 

You would look a lot less foolish as an alliance if you stopped trying to pretend you were something you weren't.

 

Os has the right of this. Morgaine you should really stop posting now, its not going well for you. 

[The Big Bad]

With last instance being... 2008? 2007?
 
Bob has not seen anything resembling terms (if we don't consider post-war NAPs, of course) since the Grudge War. You should remember because it was NpO that paid them. By supporting them you did yourself no favor, imo.

 

Or the begining of this year for NPO?  Short term memory loss or did that fact just not fit your narrative?

[Ogaden]

Clearly you've gone off into lala land your coalition last war took aggressive action against us and our allies because they felt logs from a discussion that was six months old at the time posed an iminant threat. The discussion was where NSO and NG wanted to take aggressive action against you after EQ, but our leadership told them we wouldn't back them because we knew we were in a really bad position politically coming out of EQ. If six month old logs are an "immenant threat" then I clearly don't have a clue about what a threat is, and on top of that we never took action on that discussion told our allies to back off that line of thinking and moved on. Then six months later you hit us and gave us punitive terms because we discussed it with them at the time.

You need a more balanced historical account of the post-EQ environment. NPO was very much involved in, and indeed spearheaded, the coalition to punish Polar for countering TLR in EQ. That only changed after Polar allied TOP. In fact, the only reason why Polar was not destroyed immediately following the EQ war was that TOP and allies would not sign off on it. Pacifica's weak political position following the EQ war was entirely due to Brehon's strategic decisions in the EQ war, and Pacifica went into the war set to decisively seize power with much of the world backing that seizure.

[White Chocolate]

I do not see how attacking New Polar Order accomplishes the security or sovereignty you profess to desire. Actually, your alliance is repeatedly showing itself to be a threat to the peace and is also serving the interests of others who do indeed have ambitions of "calling the shots" based upon the ability to impose force as you say. Making yourselves once again into a problem to be dealt with by groups that would otherwise leave you alone might not yield what you want.
 
Your alliance's actions and the results of these actions do not comport with your espoused values.

You already said you trust your leadership. I can respect that as I know you're not the type to give up sovereignty easily. I trust mine as well, and I am also the type of nation ruler that does not chose an alliance without a great deal of thought. Let's just leave that as it is. A "my leader is better than yours" agrument is, in my opinion, beneath both of us. Agree to disagree.

Having gotten that out of the way, attacking Polar is something I want to do for my own reasons right now and the fact that the political situation happens to match that desire is fine by me. I have nothing against NpO as a group, but one of your members (Schatt) apparently has strong enough feelings about the fact that I'm a member of both DBDC and The Javahouse League (joint membership) to feel the need to verbally threaten The Javahouse League (in a different thread - one that had nothing to do with tJL). He baited me, I took the bait. Hopefully we're both happy :D Edited November 17, 2014 by White Chocolate

[WarriorSoul]

 

Or the begining of this year for NPO?  Short term memory loss or did that fact just not fit your narrative?

 

He was excluding those, and referring to the last instance before the terms placed on NPO. Maybe.. just maybe.. instead of trying to take a pot shot, you could read into what's being said.

 

...But don't listen to me.

[Hereno]

Greatest irony ever.  Probably, given that it is an absolute.  Proof enough that both sides are the dark side, I guess.

just one of many reasons why the sith are superior

we would never hold such stupid beliefs

*looks up*

although yeah, we tend to deal in absolutes, i guess. :v:

[brucemania]

 

Are you saying that I should not have paid "reparations" in the Grudge War as ordered by our leadership? I did not see that there was any choice short of leaving the alliance. We were the ones attacked then.

If you are referring to aggression perpetrated by New Polar Order years prior, I already said that no alliance can claim to innocence. As White Chocolate had said, the last alliance that stood purely for sovereignty and defense was exterminated years ago. I know. I was there. I joined my allies in allowing our original nations to be deleted rather than comply,

 

 

Talk to your Allies in TOP about the Grudge war reps :)

[The Big Bad]

 

He was excluding those, and referring to the last instance before the terms placed on NPO. Maybe.. just maybe.. instead of trying to take a pot shot, you could read into what's being said.

 

...But don't listen to me.

 

So we was excluding them because it did not fit his narrative then?  Does not help his case. 

[Garion]

We were forced to accept terms the last war simply for defending an ally.

 
Exactly my point.
 

So we was excluding them because it did not fit his narrative then?  Does not help his case.

Are you just dense or... ? You have been suggested to re-read my post, and you got it wrong twice?

The NpO guy (Morgaine) said NPO has an history of imposing terms and chasing away people, to which I replied that the last occurrence of that was in 2008 probably, while his own alliance (NpO) imposed terms as early as this year (so the "big bad NPO" argument seems weak coming from them).

Is it more clear now?

[Letum]

You need a more balanced historical account of the post-EQ environment. NPO was very much involved in, and indeed spearheaded, the coalition to punish Polar for countering TLR in EQ. That only changed after Polar allied TOP. In fact, the only reason why Polar was not destroyed immediately following the EQ war was that TOP and allies would not sign off on it. Pacifica's weak political position following the EQ war was entirely due to Brehon's strategic decisions in the EQ war, and Pacifica went into the war set to decisively seize power with much of the world backing that seizure.

There was a massive split within NPO about it actually, and after Brehon stepped down there was a marked drop in enthusiasm for it as well. We became a voice against it well before TOP and Polar hooked up, though to be honest despite that, if it had ever gone ahead we'd still have had some form of participation (would be hard not to).

[rabonnobar]

There was a massive split within NPO about it actually, and after Brehon stepped down there was a marked drop in enthusiasm for it as well. We became a voice against it well before TOP and Polar hooked up, though to be honest despite that, if it had ever gone ahead we'd still have had some form of participation (would be hard not to).

 

There was a split within NSO about it too. I was strongly against it and Joe Stupid was too, amongst others. Both high gov. But let's not let that get in the way of throwing it all on us and NG. Heh.

[Vindicator]

Lots of people here being absolutely 100% certain that Polaris wanted, nay DEMANDED that Pacifica pay all the reps in the history of reps paying.

 

I recall us at the time being pretty clear, both on and off the OWF, that we didn't want reps and didn't give many shits about Pacifica nations being in PM. Sure it wasn't high on our "this is cool" list (yes we have a list), but I never heard a member of our government saying "THEY MUST BURN IN THE FIERY DEPTHS OF PAINLAND". 

 

Now, we did have some allies at the time (shocker, I know, we're so isolated and leaving everyone to burn nowadays). Some of these allies were less mellow about Pacifica's PM policy than we were. So, as victors of the war (coalition, remember?) they sought to rectify this. After negotiations (which took AGES of back and forth, I might add), a term was decided between BOTH sides (this includes Pacifica). I won't pretend that NPO came out happy or unscathed, but that was kinda the point of it.

 

 

Lest I start to ramble, a recap:

- Yes, Pacifica paid a price higher than "white peace" at the end of the last war.

- Yes, this was a demand by the coalition of the so lovingly dubbed "Polarsphere" alliances.

- No, Polaris was not a strong advocate of the price that was paid, but we weren't alone in our coalition and didn't call each and every shot.

- No, you can't just twist history like that to make it more convenient for you to get your point across. It's fun and all, but people that were there tend to know what happened.

 

 

Now let's all get back to counting the number of aid slots and shouting at big bad Polar to both be a coward for declaring war on tech farms and a weakling for not declaring enough war on tech farms.

[The Pansy]

Anyone reading that Wiki can see that New Polar Order entered that war pre-emptively because of an imminent attack, which New Pacific Order was orchestrating. I do not think even they would appreciate them being depicted as victims. Your selective memory on the terms of surrender omits that the intention was to make it so any further mischief on their part would be delayed somewhat.

Praise Dajobo!!

[Letum]

Lots of people here being absolutely 100% certain that Polaris wanted, nay DEMANDED that Pacifica pay all the reps in the history of reps paying.
 
I recall us at the time being pretty clear, both on and off the OWF, that we didn't want reps and didn't give many !@#$% about Pacifica nations being in PM. Sure it wasn't high on our "this is cool" list (yes we have a list), but I never heard a member of our government saying "THEY MUST BURN IN THE FIERY DEPTHS OF PAINLAND". 
 
Now, we did have some allies at the time (shocker, I know, we're so isolated and leaving everyone to burn nowadays). Some of these allies were less mellow about Pacifica's PM policy than we were. So, as victors of the war (coalition, remember?) they sought to rectify this. After negotiations (which took AGES of back and forth, I might add), a term was decided between BOTH sides (this includes Pacifica). I won't pretend that NPO came out happy or unscathed, but that was kinda the point of it.
 
 
Lest I start to ramble, a recap:
- Yes, Pacifica paid a price higher than "white peace" at the end of the last war.
- Yes, this was a demand by the coalition of the so lovingly dubbed "Polarsphere" alliances.
- No, Polaris was not a strong advocate of the price that was paid, but we weren't alone in our coalition and didn't call each and every shot.
- No, you can't just twist history like that to make it more convenient for you to get your point across. It's fun and all, but people that were there tend to know what happened.

Oh yes, this is perfectly true, and I don't hold it against you that you did something everyone in a coalition does.

But the thought comes to mind that if the same coalition came together on the same targets, and NPO still used the same peacemode policies, then there'd be the same sort of "price" being paid, wouldn't there? Edited November 17, 2014 by Letum

[Monty of the Herm]

Lots of people here being absolutely 100% certain that Polaris wanted, nay DEMANDED that Pacifica pay all the reps in the history of reps paying.

 

I recall us at the time being pretty clear, both on and off the OWF, that we didn't want reps and didn't give many !@#$% about Pacifica nations being in PM. Sure it wasn't high on our "this is cool" list (yes we have a list), but I never heard a member of our government saying "THEY MUST BURN IN THE FIERY DEPTHS OF PAINLAND". 

 

Now, we did have some allies at the time (shocker, I know, we're so isolated and leaving everyone to burn nowadays). Some of these allies were less mellow about Pacifica's PM policy than we were. So, as victors of the war (coalition, remember?) they sought to rectify this. After negotiations (which took AGES of back and forth, I might add), a term was decided between BOTH sides (this includes Pacifica). I won't pretend that NPO came out happy or unscathed, but that was kinda the point of it.

 

 

Lest I start to ramble, a recap:

- Yes, Pacifica paid a price higher than "white peace" at the end of the last war.

- Yes, this was a demand by the coalition of the so lovingly dubbed "Polarsphere" alliances.

- No, Polaris was not a strong advocate of the price that was paid, but we weren't alone in our coalition and didn't call each and every shot.

- No, you can't just twist history like that to make it more convenient for you to get your point across. It's fun and all, but people that were there tend to know what happened.

 

 

Now let's all get back to counting the number of aid slots and shouting at big bad Polar to both be a coward for declaring war on tech farms and a weakling for not declaring enough war on tech farms.

We were forced to accept TERMS which your coalition was keen on distinguishing it as hence why we've couched this discussion in those words. Also last time I checked Dajobo's "leading from the front" (his words not mine) so in "leading from the front" you really have to take full responsibilty for the actions of you and your allies. So stop playing dumb on that.

[Hereno]

if you weren't the ones advocating for those reps, who was? :popcorn:

either way, we were all kept at war from halloween until february, so lol

[Gibsonator21]

Greatest irony ever.  Probably, given that it is an absolute.  Proof enough that both sides are the dark side, I guess.

Plot twist: Peace really is a lie?

[Artigo]

 

 

I do not see how attacking New Polar Order accomplishes the security or sovereignty you profess to desire. Actually, your alliance is repeatedly showing itself to be a threat to the peace and is also serving the interests of others who do indeed have ambitions of "calling the shots" based upon the ability to impose force as you say. Making yourselves once again into a problem to be dealt with by groups that would otherwise leave you alone might not yield what you want.

 

Your alliance's actions and the results of these actions do not comport with your espoused values.

 

The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.  Nations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. The cycle cannot be broken.

[Schattenmann]

We were forced to accept TERMS which your coalition was keen on distinguishing it as hence why we've couched this discussion in those words. Also last time I checked Dajobo's "leading from the front" (his words not mine) so in "leading from the front" you really have to take full responsibilty for the actions of you and your allies. So stop playing dumb on that.

You were given terms because you wanted out before we ever expected you to want out, and because your allies demanded to know what your terms would be when we had no plans to treat you any differently than anyone else, so you got what you wanted: terms. 

 

Wars end in terms.  Wars continued to end in terms after Karma, and your cohort are the ones who kept them up, until the tides turned and suddenly they all found Jesus and you made promises to them because you had allied them before Brehon's schizophrenic war.  The same OsRavan who is crying 1984 will easily be quoted over the past 18 months saying he has never accepted or supported reps, yet it was he who demanded extended war for MCXA, supported $2 billion in reps in DH-NPO, and fought in support of $1 billion and tens-of-thousands in tech in TOP-C&G.

 

Wars end in terms.  But they do not have to end in the excesses that your allies ended them in.  They can be rather innocuous (as you yourselves boasted post-terms) like the ones you got last war.  You're welcome, Love, Polaris.

 

NPO "forgot" that wars end in terms because you needed to forget in order to play your EQ allies while trying to appease your lame C&G allies, and because your new allies needed you to forget that they gleefully applied terms until they wanted white peace for themselves. 

That you played along for one war does not change reality.  White peace, however regular for sideshow AAs, is an anomaly in serious wars between serious AAs. 

 

You wanted to know what the terms of peace would be, you got the first thing that the coalition thought of, your weak-willed marionette "emperor" Farrin agreed, but when his council of brains got upset, he changed his mind and dragged NPO through a month of agony for no reason except to drag NPO through a month of agony when you could have had peace within a few days of the first offer which your whinging never changed much.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Prodigal Moon]

Alliance #1 will form a coalition to go after people who plot on it and publicly threaten it repeatedly. This doesn't demand reparations but may give in to coalition demands that you have some nations stay in peace mode (the horror) for a while. Otherwise, they want to be left alone to grow in peace. They don't even raid unaligned nations, let alone nations in well-established, peaceful alliances.

 

Alliance #2 attacks people without any pretense of justification beyond further maintaining their unrivaled power. Simply being stronger than everyone else isn't enough for them - they need to completely outmatch even the nearest unaffiliated power to feel secure. Their aggression isn't to stop an injustice, or thwart an actual threat to them, or even to satisfy a grudge. They do it because they can, and they've calculated that it will be good for them and they can get away with it. The question of whether it's ethically defensible doesn't even enter the equation.This is the hallmark of a sociopath.

 

 

I wish we were perfect, and Polaris never hurt a fly in all our lives, because the OWF seems absolutely incapable of discussing nuance. How else would you reach the conclusion that these two alliances are essentially the same?

[BrJLa]

You were given terms because you wanted out before we ever expected you to want out, and because your allies demanded to know what your terms would be when we had no plans to treat you any differently than anyone else, so you got what you wanted: terms. 

 

 

Hmm.  My recollection is that the message early on to all our allies was, "You have to peace out, you have to peace out, you have to peace out, we can't even begin to discuss how NPO will get peace until all its allies peace out."  Which then turned in to, "Let us be clear.  NPO is not getting out without terms."

[Schattenmann]

 

Hmm.  My recollection is that the message early on to all our allies was, "You have to peace out, you have to peace out, you have to peace out, we can't even begin to discuss how NPO will get peace until all its allies peace out."  Which then turned in to, "Let us be clear.  NPO is not getting out without terms."

I won't argue you on that, it's a long time and memory is not a photograph.  I will say I do not think the two are mutually exclusive.

The point is that some of you seem to still have a big problem that there were terms at all.  Wars end in terms.  Sometimes that means someone simply speaking the truth "we surrender," sometimes that means someone lying, sometimes that means economic sanctions, sometimes it means reps.  It shouldn't mean excesses, too often it does.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Monty of the Herm]

You were given terms because you wanted out before we ever expected you to want out, and because your allies demanded to know what your terms would be when we had no plans to treat you any differently than anyone else, so you got what you wanted: terms. 

 

Wars end in terms.  Wars continued to end in terms after Karma, and your cohort are the ones who kept them up, until the tides turned and suddenly they all found Jesus and you made promises to them because you had allied them before Brehon's schizophrenic war.  The same OsRavan who is crying 1984 will easily be quoted over the past 18 months saying he has never accepted or supported reps, yet it was he who demanded extended war for MCXA, supported $2 billion in reps in DH-NPO, and fought in support of $1 billion and tens-of-thousands in tech in TOP-C&G.

 

Wars end in terms.  But they do not have to end in the excesses that your allies ended them in.  They can be rather innocuous (as you yourselves boasted post-terms) like the ones you got last war.  You're welcome, Love, Polaris.

 

NPO "forgot" that wars end in terms because you needed to forget in order to play your EQ allies while trying to appease your lame C&G allies, and because your new allies needed you to forget that they gleefully applied terms until they wanted white peace for themselves. 

That you played along for one war does not change reality.  White peace, however regular for sideshow AAs, is an anomaly in serious wars between serious AAs. 

 

You wanted to know what the terms of peace would be, you got the first thing that the coalition thought of, your weak-willed marionette "emperor" Farrin agreed, but when his council of brains got upset, he changed his mind and dragged NPO through a month of agony for no reason except to drag NPO through a month of agony when you could have had peace within a few days of the first offer which your whinging never changed much.

That's not my issue I responded to the previous post to point out your leadership's hypocracy of "leading from the front" but then passing the buck in terms of responsibility for the way the war ended. I'm not arguing the issue of the justification of the terms or whatever, but Dajobo, "leading from the front" can't just pass the buck to other members of your coalition in the last war on that point, if he's truly "leading from the front". Own it like we are in this war, at least we're calling a spade a spade in this shindig.