Vilien

Best. April. Fools. Ever.

What scarcity?

Not peace in our time, but peace for all time.

There doesn't have to be a god for one to recognize his duty to fellow human beings. This isn't a debate about the existence of god. It's a debate between you, who does whatever he wishes because he can, and me. I, for one, do things because they are the right thing to do. That's the difference. You've just repeated one of the biggest lies in history. Congratulations! No one said self-determination meant allowing people to enforce their will on others through violence. That directly contradicts the entire principle. Self-determination is the right of people to govern themselves without being told what to do by, let's say for argument's sake, someone who is stronger than them. Might does not make right.

The ultimate ideology is not survival. There is no reason for survival without honor, or existence without a moral code. The few alliances you refer to do not embrace honorable and moral conduct because it will allow them to survive. They do so because they believe in common decency. There are issues, though few and far between, where we can all recognize the right thing to do. The material world, ultimately, means nothing. At the end of the day, all of these things that you hold so dear will be gone. It will only live in memory; how you acted toward others, how many people you can hold a common sense of respect with. I will never let concern for my survival trump my duty to act decently toward other human beings. You have my word.

There are some issues where the moral standard is not subjective. Self-determination is one of them.

What is one supposed to do in a war against a larger power? If they were "fighting honorably", they'd be in GATO's position, with your government stating that they'll go free whenever the NPO feels like it. Besides, what could you even take from them? There's nothing left for FAN to give. You've admitted our ideological difference. I believe in a moral standard, and Pacifica does not. At this point, FAN could be granted peace and we'd still be fighting. But it would be a different time, and over a different issue. Our points of view are fundamentally different. Hopefully we will find common ground some day.

There's that patronizing tone again! Now, let me get this straight, you won't give FAN peace because they seek to harm you. So you keep fighting them until they no longer want to do you harm. You are, I assume, at war with FAN. Do warring alliances not wish to do each other harm? Do you see how incredibly circular your logic is?

I'm sorry if I was a little bit unclear, I meant "larger trend" as in FAN is an example of continued disrespect in the inter-alliance affairs on the part of Pacifica. I don't expect FAN to be released unless something extremely violent occurs, and even then I wouldn't expect them to become a major player in world affairs. I'm not looking at this through a tactical viewpoint, I'm looking at it through an ideological prism.

I see arguing for honorable conduct makes you a coward, and a child. Realpolitik is !@#$%^&*. You're using this mask as an excuse to treat people terribly, and are persecuting them for far longer than need be. The circumstances? FAN has been ravaged by war, what more can you do to them? An eternal vice royalty like GATO? Way to show us all how big and strong you are, really, you've made a great impression here. The choice to destroy alliances and nations simply because you can is cowardly. You're showing your cowardice through and through.

It's about a larger trend. Also, nostalgia.

A joke thread? I was under the impression that we were on the verge of war.

There were only three wars with GATO, NAAC, LUE, etc. on one side.

Great War IV.

What is this I don't even...

Read your own posts. You were the one who used that language in the first place. Right, and we'll let you decide FAN's fate, along with anyone else who you deem a threat. This isn't about some "fuzzy feeling". Pacifica has decided time and time again to go past protecting her own membership. You've made it your business to exert yourself on every corner of the game. The viceroyalites, the ridiculous peace terms, they're all an example of your inability to let other people who wouldn't even necessarily be anti-Pacifica play the game with some shred of decency and, dare I say it, honor. Why was Mushroom Kingdom only allowed to start buying nukes again recently? Why was the Siberian Tiger Alliance in such ridiculous peace terms for so long? The war you started, intended to kill Polaris, had nothing to do with these alliances. And yet you deemed it necessary to hold their respective heads under water long after they posed a "threat" to your members' security. FAN isn't a threat. GATO isn't a threat. Let them be.

You act as if you've made a real counter to the arguments posted. What is Pacifica's definition of an honest fight? You admit that you don't believe that they have any spies, or the capability to use them. What are they supposed to do, "fight like men" against an alliance thirty times their size? You've destroyed them enough. They are no longer a meaningful opposition, which you admit occasionally, before taking up the party line again. Your only argument for continuing this ridiculous spectacle is that "they'll come back and oppose us." One day, maybe. But they're nowhere close, and they shouldn't have to ask you for permission to play the game. And stop with the patronizing tone.

So when FAN comes to you, and says that they want peace, will you give it to them? Or are you going to continue "swatting" them?

Explain how FAN is a real threat. You've had numerous members post in this thread about how much of a joke FAN is. I've seen numerous FAN posters say that they're willing to accept peace. And I see no reason why they still don't have it, other than a grudge that you acted on a long time ago. I also heard that quoting your own essays does not automatically validate your argument. EDIT: Grammar, rhyming.

Happy birthday LoSS, it's good to see you guys are still around and thriving.

Ah, yes, I must have missed the very argument that I refuted. So, by your standards, it is acceptable to deal with any perceived threat, or past threat, with overwhelming force. If NAAC reformed, would you fight an eternal war with us? We once fought you in the past, clearly it would be our goal to dethrone you. Would you be justified in holding Polaris in eternal-ZI because they once fought against you? They could become a threat; surely you are justified in doing everything you can to crush the life out of them. And thus, you are surely justified in crushing the life out of anyone who threatens you, anyone who you perceive as a threat, or anyone who you consider to not be aligned enough with your warped concepts of the common good. Grow some honor; maybe there's a reason so many have tried to bring you down.

They haven't just dealt with the directly belligerent or those who attack them. They've actively viewed any alliance that grows and isn't directly tied to them as a threat, and so far, those alliances have been destroyed. They've been driven out of the game for the crime of existing. If Pacifica needs to keep FAN in a state of war in order to stay in power, then they are indeed weaker than they seem.

I apologize, I was referring to this argument: I'm looking for a collectible genuine-Vladimir response to this one.

Reductio ad Sponge is an interesting addition to the list of logical fallacies you use. Address the argument.

Really, pat yourself on the back. Congratu-!@#$@#$-lations on destroying so many alliances. I know it's been tough work. It's good to see that you've used NAAC, LUE, and GATO as examples of dishonorable conduct, considering the long line of transgressions on your part. Keeping FAN under your boot only shows the rest of us how completely weak and insecure you are. It's pathetic. We're all stunned by how you've managed, as the largest alliance in the game, to continue to fight against a bunch of nations in peace mode. Bravo.