Jump to content
  • entries
    16
  • comments
    534
  • views
    29,128

War

Sign in to follow this  
Rush Sykes

350 views

War. It is what it is. Its not meant to be pretty, its not meant to be honorable. We are in such a poor shape on planet Bob that we literally hail people who follow their treaties as honorable. Stop it Planet Bob, just stop it.

The job of a military in a war is to win. You win by killing people and breaking things. Friendships, treaties, all of that nonsense aside, you have two sides in a war. If you are not the same as a friend, you know what that makes you? An enemy. It may sound brutal, and the reality does not lend itself to pretty propaganda pieces about how alliance A is stabbing alliance B in the back by attacking alliance B's friend. Its ok that you are on the other side. And its ok that you let the coalition on your side use your friend on the other side to pick and choose entry points that specifically cripple your friend on the other side's ability to help their friends that they are fighting on the same side with. In this situation, you placing your friend on the other side in a bad position to help your side gain an advantage is STRATEGY. Its not dishonorable at all, not ONE IOTA, to be part of a planning channel, that SEEKS to put your friends on the other side in a bad position. You maintain your honor in this. But then, your friend on the other side decides that they want to do what they can to help the people they are fighting with, on the same side, to do the unthinkable (win a war, SHOCKING ISNT IT), and they decide that they will not let an ally of an ally cripple a war effort, so they do the unthinkable, and hit an ally of an ally. They are treacherous. They did not allow their friend on the other side, to enable their friends on the other side to make their decision making about who to hit difficult. This is not strategy, this is dishonor. And should incite rage. Stop it planet Bob, just stop it.

HOW DARE YOU TRY TO WIN A WAR.

This just in, doing what is best to win a war is horrible. News at 11. Oh yes, and while we are talking about Sparta talking about honor. The morning before ODNs horrific pre-empt on Spartas ally in MHA, Sparta gov approached Olympus. About getting a blanket peace on the olympus front. Why you ask? So they could...are you ready for this.... hit ODNs ally in MK. Honor, indeed. Stop it planet Bob, just stop it.

Sign in to follow this  


16 Comments


Recommended Comments

You can be certain that the other 4/5ths of the Spartan government didn't know about Silent Spectre's little field trip and wouldn't have signed the peace terms if they had any chance of coming to fruition. I'm personally embarrassed by his inexcusable behavior.

We didn't declare on Olympus for fun. (Well, not entirely for fun, anyway).

Share this comment


Link to comment

You sound mad bro.

Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You sound mad bro.Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

Come on Tromp. You know me better than that. This blog has nothing to do with following treaties. This blog has everything to do with "you are dishonorable because you hit an ally of an ally, but we are strategic for putting you in that position." Its a nonsense way of masking and hiding, that the moment you sign on to side a or side b of a conflict, you empower your coalition to put every single one of your allies on the other side, in the worst position possible, but there is no dishonor in this. Its a stupid double standard. And, it is NOT a new stance for me. I preached it straight MKs face in \m/-NpO, and you know I did, you and I talked literally EVERY day back then. This is nothing new for me, and Im not mad. I am ODNs friend and ally, and I am here to say the "RAWR ODN HITTING MHA DISHONORS SPARTA" tag line is flipping stupid.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You sound mad bro.Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

Do people not realize by now that starting a post with a "u mad" statement makes their post not worth reading?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Alliances should accept that by having allies on two fronts that hitting an ally of an ally is almost inevitable. Whining about it then, or trying to prevent it, is simply a waste of time. Accept the fact they if you aren't clear in your FA, it can lead to problems like these.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This blog has nothing to do with following treaties.

Ofcourse it does. The implication of your argument is that when you're on one 'side' because of a 'coalition' that yes, an alliance has to disregard treaties with alliances 'on the other side'. Even to the point where you'd (temporarily) consider them enemies.

And I know you're not mad, quite on the contrary. I just noticed how many words you had capitalized, which, as I'm sure you are aware, gives the impression of 'screaming' on the internet. :P

Do people not realize by now that starting a post with a "u mad" statement makes their post not worth reading?

Such a wonderful retort, well done!

Share this comment


Link to comment

Rush, I don't disagree with you, but I think the truth is more nuanced. A coalition does not have a single goal, and for each member "winning" is defined differently. Just as the coalition positions itself for victory, there is always an unspoken (and in some cases unrecognized) drive for individual members to accomplish their own agenda. And those individual agendas don't always align.

In order to bring together a diverse coalition, compromises must be made. The coalition members are not allies with each other. If the compromises are not respected, the coalition disintegrates. If such an event occurs, it is a failure of some coalition members to respect the broad consensus that brings everyone to the table.

-Craig

Share this comment


Link to comment

Rush, I don't disagree with you, but I think the truth is more nuanced. A coalition does not have a single goal, and for each member "winning" is defined differently. Just as the coalition positions itself for victory, there is always an unspoken (and in some cases unrecognized) drive for individual members to accomplish their own agenda. And those individual agendas don't always align.In order to bring together a diverse coalition, compromises must be made. The coalition members are not allies with each other. If the compromises are not respected, the coalition disintegrates. If such an event occurs, it is a failure of some coalition members to respect the broad consensus that brings everyone to the table.-Craig

Well said, Craig.

I think there are too many who value honor > strategy. Tho, without 'honor' there would be less big wars and more curbstomps, as allies strategically choose to live & fight another day.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...