Jipps

You are kidding right? The irony of you calling out other alliances as back stabbing when LoSS mass cancelled about every single treaty that it had in one post days before a war started involving those very same alliances. Then signing a treaty with an alliance that would put you on the other side of the war on the same day, thus flip flopping every aspect of your foreign policy from many months before. You have no right to talk about back stabbing, my friend.

West Coast, woot!

Very glad to see this happen, really am. Congrads to Dw and VA, I am positive this will work great for you two.

Apparently rather than actually argue any of the issues or points at hand, people seem to fall back on the hypocrisy line a lot. I think it just goes to chow the blind assumptions made by too many people these days, without addressing substances of posts. After the third or fourth time, the point gets redundant and makes you look lame frankly. It is true that I never spoke out publically against harsh terms in the past to the extent that I did now, but I never spoke out for it either. So many people on your own side of the war had never once spoken out against them either and are guilty of crimes far greater than things my alliance ever commited. However no amount of "lol hypocrisy posts" will change any of the points given here, and it is a shame the arguements dwell into acconts of personal history. The facts still stand, and they would be the same no matter my past. Speaking out against them now is better than never, or are ideals exclusive now? I really do not think any of the opponents of harsh terms are going to make much ground if they continue to reject anyone that hasn't a complete white sheet. Whining, really? You know a comment is bad when they have to result to low vocabulary, school yard insults like whining to demonize their opponent. You really just lost any sympathy I might have had for your post. [ooc] I fought in VietFAN for FAN as my previous ruler Sir Fredrich lll: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...4127&st=140[/ooc] Oh snap.

If I was supporting them in an aggrssive war, wouldn't I have attacked OV also? I, and almost every other Hegemony alliance came into this war for defense. That is the truth, fact. It's not about PR, it is about setting the record straight which you obviously can't handle. I made an error there and corrected it in a later post. They are one of the alliances doing it, so it wasn't entirely false just that they aren't the sole alliance. I really don't think anyone expected everything I say to be perfect, thats just absurd.

Truley an honor I will not soon forget. Thank you Invicta for this recognition, your kindness really does have no limits. Much appreciated, perhaps much more than you know. I shall where ti with pride. Congradulations to my feelow recipients, all of you deserve this honor without a doubt. My many thanks.

I am only obsessed with the spreading of truth. I used it to support my arguements, but it was still entirely based on logic and facts. Honestly it doesn't matter much. Very well put my friend.

If an alliance declares war on another alliance without being attacked, it is an offensive war. Almost all of Karma declared war without ever being attacked, they were aggressors. Basic logic would prove my point there I really don't see anything to argue against. If you say that an attack on alliance is considered to be an attack on their allies as well, then Hegemony would also be the defenders as we were involved in the war based on the attacks on the NPO. -

Well I must admit the response I have seen to this thread is much more than I expected, not just here but on irc and personal messages. I have been literally flooded in debate the past few days and I have seen a lot of results from both sides. I definately thank those who were able to continue the discussion so respectfully, it is a great testament to the new era of civility I hope we are achieving. After at length discussions on irc, much much faster medium than forums, combined with the many fined points on the forums I am starting to think that my definition of harsh terms were a little too broad. I will admit I was being a bit too naive and idealistic in my assesments. I think it was put greatly earlier in that harsh terms are fair, but might not be just. The reasoning behind Azaghul's topic on the idea of proportional reps to the alleged crimes of an alliance seems to make more and more sense, especially in the case of the NPO. As for the historic views of my alliance and convienance of this thread, you have your reasons to doubt but I hope to prove you wrong and for you to remain optimistic. Sure many of you will blow me off as an 'idea' hopper, making philosophy 360 turn arounds. But I took the ideas that I have gained and took it too far to the extreme here, and hopefully others will learn from this. Ultimately this thread has served it's purpose in triggering a debate. Debate is futile however, if you do not walk into it with an open mind and hear the opinions of others. I have already talked with others that have had their own opinions changed from this discussion and so have mine, which is great. However there are still many debatable things in this thread. While my definition of terms may be off, I will still argue the injustice of the threats on NPO based on their peace mode nations and this no longer being a defensive war. I will continue to comment on these points and if we are lucky, hopefully you can change my opinions or I change yours. History and even this war would say otherwise, several allies were just out-right ignored. "Counteroffensive is a large-scale military offensive used by some or all of a defending force against their attackers. The purpose is to seize the initiative from the attackers." I would definately say that Karma is a large scale offensive (most of the DoW's are from Karma's side) used vy some or all of a defending force to seize the intiative from the NPO. I fail to see how an alliance with not one defensive slot in use is in a defensive war.

People in this thread seem to be quick to believe one moral epiphanies over another. I was saying that it is just as probable, if not even more so, that Hegemony alliances become morally conscieous now. I thought that is what most people wanted, for everyone to be more morally conscieous. Apparently you can pick and choose when to be though. This is no lie, and I don't suspect that Karma alliances are either. It is scary to see how many people are hostile to Hegemony alliances becoming more morally responsibile. Normally I would've gone out and repeated myself to much resentment, but this thread is taking a lot of energy from me. If I have time later, I will expand on the subject to the degree I normally would. For now, I hope direction to these posts will satisfy you. Feel free to respond to them directly. Must Get Sleep Sorry again for not giving this the thought it requires at the moment, and I hope you don't think I am dodging the question in any way. In fact, I promise to get back to by the end of tommorow. By being nice I say that alliances will be more nice generally, believe it or not you don't have to force this. Call me gullable, but if I am wrong I will be one of the first ones to the battlefield. You don't have to believe me till you see it, but I wouldn't doubt until you have reason to. Right, because making a pledge to fight against everything the NPO has done for the past two years and saying I would take up arms against them if they did not change really sounds like the kind of PR spin and propaganda to help the NPO. It is more of a counter-offensive, still not defensive unless you are Ordo Verde. The OOC analogy about the death penalty works great here. While the murder that the criminal commited was probably leaps and bounds more brutal than the dealth penalty the criminal would face, at the end of the day it is still murder. The part of their history where they were a member of one of the most oppressive blocs we have seen for years. Being allies of the NPO and thereby supporting every action of the NPO, so they should be punished the same. These are the same arguements being used against me in this thread.

Trashing? I can only speak for myself, but I am having an interesting debate on the morality of terms in war. I think you are being a bit too oversensitive here, if I came across that way then I apologize. The choicing of words in that part of the OP was bad, that is not the message I was trying to send out and not the message I have been defending in this debate. Maybe the definition is a bit too broad, I will ponder this and get back to you.

Former made us do it, I am sorry for taking it out on all of TDSM8. We were a protectorate back then and to be honest, almost all of the gov of then are gone. I am sorry what ahppened to your alliance, I really am. The only way I hope to be able to repay those mistakes is to prevent them from happening again. I hope you can undertand that.

Nothing too suprising here, I am pleased to this in fact. TOOL knows what they are doing and I whole heartedly wish you the best of luck.

It is a suspended, useless treaty as proven by the fact that we aren't proividing the mutual defense required by the pact. Should we be held accoutnable for actions that we condemned, even publically as we did with PZIing? History has held that alliances do not share the full burdened of everything their allies do, that is why they are different alliances in the first place. It has been over a month since we fought for them, in Planet Bob views can change very dramatically in that period of time. I am trying to get the best possbiel deal on terms for everyone now on, the New Pacific Order and the other alliances still fighitng just happen to be the current example. That was my misunderstanding, I apologize. This has been clairified in the OP, although now the blame just stretches to every alliance and has little impact on the overall points being made. From my experience and from talking with other Hegemony leaders I think I can safely say that no vengeance is being plotted. No other war, movement, or anything else has had such a direct impact on the New Pacific Order. As I have said before, if they continue the policies of old I will be one of the first to act. However, I would wait to be judgmental. I am taking a bit of a break, as this took a long time as you can imagine. KinKiac, I will get to your amny comments by the end of tonight.

Papa bear and Mama bear have brutally beaten the NPO and protected their cub. Now they continue to beat him and are forcing him to give up all the money he has as well. That isn't defensive behavior no matter how you put it. No the definition wouldn't, that a much to overly broad statement. I have stated that non aggression clauses should be included in peace terms, if you weren't paying attention. This is one way to look at it, although there is no reason that the war shouldn't be looked at as the punishment. However the benefits of such a view have been proven to be numerous. First off, the terms my alliance recieved were not bad and it is this mercy that has enlightened me a lot. I do regret not standing up earlier, but standing up now is better than never doing so. I am just surprised that plenty of alliances found it so easy to be morally righteous whent hey were losing, but now that they are in the position of power they lose those morals to vengence. Our experiences are much the same, only in reverse. So you are going to blame all the wrongdoing of my AA upon me, even actiosn that went down when I was not member? That is not fair judging by a mile. Turnabout maybe be fairplay, but please do not act like you are any better then those you are turning about. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I think Karma is having a great struggle with those ideals they had whent hey were losing as evident in this thread. Excellently put. Kind of like the Gramlins oh-so-coincidential epiphanies? You have ever right to be skeptical though, and I do hope I can proove myself soon enough. Read my responses earlier to statements almost exactly the same.

The others could be applied differently to whatever the alledged crimes are of the defeated alliance. If there are no crimes, you shouldn't be talking about reps in the first place. Kind of like all those now Karma suddenly realizing it? Look through history my friend, New Polar Order previously took part in huge terms and when it was done to them they changed their moral values. Almost all the people in this thread have probably been a supporter of the Hegemony at some point, we all change at some point. I have made this arguement here and in a couple of other threads: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58721 Read up on those and then come back to me when you understand where the leaps in reasoning come from. I am saying that Karma will have a direct impact on the furute actions of all the alliances of PB, and that they must make the right decision in this position of power or face the future of the very past they are now fighting. If they do start the same policies up again after recieving peace, I will be up in arms with you. That is just how confident I am of this plan to work. Kind of like the coincidential moral awakening of the manyformer Hegemony alliances now in Karma? If anyone honestly believes that this is a PR move or propaganda piece, then your ignorance is beyond repair. As you can see from the response, there is no PR being gained here people. There is a nice debate about terms and the NPO, the exact purpose of this thread. After all the negative things I have said about the same people you claim I am making this PR piece for, you think you would learn by now. Your allies are defended now, I think everyone can agree. So then why not give peace and call it quits now? You are continuing this war as punishment now for all the wrong doings of the NPO, that is not defensive. So you think that the doing unto a criminal what that criminal did to you is justified? [ooc]arguement can very much be compared to the current debate over the death penalty. There is no right or wrong answers, only opinions on both sides[/ooc] That is not what the OP is implying, I have already made many suggestions as to terms that would be morally justified in peace time. Good God, theres a paragraph in the OP and at least a page worth of discussion already answering this question. Doing the same would make you the same, common logic will prove it to be so. Reps would only continue that constant fear and war mongering. That is what I am afraid of and the purpose of the OP. Forums are making me spread this out into three different posts.

I was not in She Said She Was 18 during the time they atacked USN in the GATO war, I wasn't involved in that war or CN at all at the time period. As for STA, we were still a protectorate with little choices. I regret it and not that it makes much difference, but we were planning to give white peace to STA with DefCon until TPF said otherwise. However, many alliances that speak out against the past injustices that they were once a part of. I do not pretend to play innocent, but people change. You were once part of TPF for while, I'm sure you are not clean of any ill deeds. I have really had my eyes opened in this war, in part ot the light terms we recieved and the bond that enabled. It was my personal expeciences that partly motivated me to post this, not some PR spin. I have pledged to follow these principles in the future and I think that is what counts more than any past wrong doings.

Forced tech deals, apologies, banning of the Moldavi doctrine, and oaths not to repeat the same practices all seem like great alternatives.

Please, where are these magical posts you speak of? They aren't the ones you posted, those both had many flaws that I pointed out if you read beyond the biased OP. Read up on my posts and maybe you will understand a bit more.

So you feel that this hghly destructive war isn't enough of a punishment? That the New Pacific Order needs to pay huge reps to alliances like Ragnarok who took part in some of those same crimes? If that is seriously what you think is the best way to change the New Pacific Order, then I guess I can't do much to change your mind. But through this essay and my own personal experiences during this war I would hope you realize the power of peaceful gestures as well. If NPO ever betrayed that white peace that was given in good faith, I myself would jump up in arms with you. A white peace stand here would be the most powerful stance against harsh terms we have ever seen, it just wouldn't be acceptable anymore. I really think we need to take advantage of this opportunity. If you had actually read the threads you linked, you would see that I was involved in heated, inconclusive debates for pages. This thread is almost a topical response to those threads. I was quiet about the injustices of the past and I rgret it, but so have most of the people in Karma at some point. Why would I condemn the actions of the alliance I am supposedly making a PR post for? If you actually read this thread, you might realize otherwise. I would put my nation behind it, but that is against my surrender terms.

You have every right to be suspicous of my motives, but finally being on the losing side changes your viewpoint. You can look at my pledge at the bottom at the page as maybe some compensation for the timing, but I hope you hold me to my word. There would already be a war for any terms to take place, I am suggesting that the war be looked at as enough punishment, especially in these beatdown wars. I am not asking for the prolonging of wars.

Sorry, must have passed it up. The crimes are staggering, I know. I would definately support apologies and admittance of the crimes they have done over the years. Even oaths not to repeat would be great. I know this war has had an effect on me and many others on the side of the Hegemony without reps of any kind. In fact, it was the rather leinient terms that made me change my views drastically. Whether this hold true for NPO I'm not sure, but I'm hopeful.

I honestly do not know if NPO was offered peace and if they rejected it then shame on them. I would love to see an apology for this war and the many past wars too Pitt.

I see your point, but I still think the method I prescribed would work better. I think we just disagree on the ways to NPO change. Right, because I am publically denouncing something my ally has done for years and that is my way of support. Sure, the white peace given to the majority of alliances is great at the moment. However the impact that terms on the NPO could have on future wars would overshadow any other peace offerings. Think of how well you remember the light terms and white peace from the last war. It costs the victor to continue the war as well and it is in neithers best interest to keep it prolonged past the appropriate punishment. The severity of the alleged crime would correspond to the amount of warfare, eternal war would be the equivelent of disbandment. The severty of the crime would have to be decided by the victors, as it is now. My only hope is that people will think less of punishments because it costs both sides to wage war, but only one side on reps.

There is absolutely no shame in a draw, and there is sucha thing as being humble in victory. Why do the losers have compensate fot the victors, why can't losing be enough? I love war mate, I play the game for it. In fact, I am confident white peace would see a great influx of wars. Without fearing huge vengeful reps at the end of wars people will be a lot more motivated to honor treaties and have more war in general. I hold no grudges against the alliances who gave me terms, alliance are a lot more forgiveful after white peace versus reps. I doubt they'll want to be your best buddy, but they probably won't be waiting to stab you in the back. I think you can see by the replies here that I definately don't have anything personal to gain here. I am just genuinely concerned and wish to start a debate to maybe try to sway my or other peoples opinions. I didn't force you to read this.