Aeros

You underestimate the grief a skilled nation with a couple billion dongs on hand can cause. Judging from past history it would only be a matter of time before you call in allies on that too. Just ask GOD about the time they got rouged by Vlad.

Anyone interested in selling tech to Anarchy Inc. feel free to fill out the form below. [url="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDRFZU8xanBsbFp0Rlo4ZkpwQ1Rjc2c6MQ"]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDRFZU8xanBsbFp0Rlo4ZkpwQ1Rjc2c6MQ[/url]

[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1350100381' post='3040940'] Does this mean I can attack someone on the Anarchy Inc AA, and as long as they are currently raiding, then you guys won't do squat about it? Because as a goon I am all for my actions not having consequences. [/quote] I did not respond to this because it was dumb. Since you are forcing the issue though, the answer would emphatically be no unless of course GOONS somehow has a treaty with the raided target. Then perhaps you would have some justification. The problem here is you are raiding an AA, and then claiming that when that AA retaliates, its roguery. That is dumb, since they are perfectly justified to retaliate. You going on a crusade to hit an Ai raider in defense of some nation you have no affiliation with would not be justified, outside of some moralist argument. Which coming from GOONS would be pretty funny and probably not end well. You are of course, more then free to try this though. Bob needs fireworks. *Edit* GraMmAr.

From where I sit raiding is not the issue. The issue is your assertion that retaliating for being raided constitutes roguery.

Grats guys.

GOONS declaring war on Mongols.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1350002282' post='3040271'] I’ll never understand how you and others praise the ‘good guys’ for sticking to their guns and to their morals but are surprised or offended when we do the same. [/quote] Implying I am making a moralist argument. Actually, my argument is based on Raison D'Etat. The only thing that is moral is that which is makes your nation safe and powerful. My argument is your raiding policies does neither.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1349995327' post='3040218'] I know the full story doesn't make for good sound bites, but I expect someone such as yourself to not be so dense about a very clear cut matter. [/quote] What you are failing to grasp is the initial question of the argument. "Why was GOONS at war". The answer to that question serves as the basis of every argument that descends from it. And the answer is simple. You initiated wars on nations who did nothing to justify it except making the mistake of being without an AA, or on unprotected AA's. Yes, this invites raiding. My own alliance does it from time to time. The difference though is you guys assume that you can just declare war on people and then act like nobody has the right to do something about it. The nations you raided were involved with various economic and personal ties with Mongols. So they helped them out. You viewed this as Casus Belli, on the assumption that assisting raid targets is an attack on your entire alliance. I should point out at this point, that GOONS alone among the raiding alliances has this policy. You advanced that policy to its conclusion, even after Mongols secured an alliance. You can argue the timing all you want. They did secure it before you declared war and you declared anyhow. The result should not have been a surprise to anyone. I am not trying to be dense here. In fact, I think I am being quite clear. Your policy of alliance sanctioned raiding lands you in Hot Water. The events of the last year speak for that. I said in March, I am saying it again now. Every other raiding alliance refuses to extend AA protection and sanction to a raider. You are unique, and your fervent effort to hype that uniqueness causes more trouble then it solves, and one day I am absolutely certain you will step on a landmine far more dangerous then Kaskus and PPO.

If alliances are allied to to each other in common, under a common banner, its a bloc however you want to call it. Generalizations or not.

[quote name='Armed Society' timestamp='1349298554' post='3037117'] >Anarchy >Elections to Charter-sanctioned government positions I think you guys are failing to grasp just exactly what anarchy is. [/quote] We are not Anarchists. We sell the service to other people.

In all fairness, you guys were backed financially by MK. Not just financially either, since the Kaskus war started when MK was ghosting your AA to keep you guys in sanction range. So lets not pretend that NEW made an iota of difference. Lets also not forget that in that wondrous little episode, there was no doubt that Mongols was a Kaskus protectorate and you declared war on them anyhow. Either you expected Kaskus to roll over and play dead, or else you thought it would be an easy curb stomping. Months of war later you brought in the most powerful military alliance that existed at the time to bring the war to a close rather then admit you started a war you did not have the power to finish.

It should be noted that virtually every alliance (but GOONS apparently) that allows its members to raid recognizes that a raid is an act of war against the targeted nation and that that nation is permitted to retaliate to the fullest extent it wishes. This is the risk anyone who raids takes on. If you can't live with that, then you should not be raiding. I've "been here before" and I would expect nothing less. *edit* It should also be noted that while we have rules of conduct for the various alliances, they are unwritten. The Nation remains the fundamental political unit on Bob and it is fully permitted, even by our unwritten rules, to defend itself.

Need to check the dates, the bottom is from April, the top is from now. Duckroll is actually closer to Doomhouse

All I got to say about this [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnIp5mggCE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnIp5mggCE[/url]

Thank you for this thread. It gave me something to do with my morning coffee.

[quote name='Matt Miller' timestamp='1349862989' post='3039396'] I just thought I'd pop in here to note that GPA is moving to Peace Mode with 104 nations there already. [/quote] And who say's GPA does not pay attention to the news

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1349840818' post='3039314'] it has something to do with our charter not defining them as an alliance. therefore we are being attacked by a single rogue nation who is defending six or seven other nations we are raiding. most people who attack goons in this way end up EoG. this concept may be difficult to digest for those who consider any grouping of nations an alliance, we are aware of that, so it needs not really be discussed except by those who aim to embarrass us again (and be destroyed in the process, again). [/quote] Oh man, time to take a trip down memory lane to last March. We all remember what happened last march right? I'll just post my initial comment from that lovely 55 page master piece of drama. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1332288313' post='2940937'] True, I will admit these guys are not what you would consider "winners" in grand scheme of things. But somehow I don't really think that is the point. Its more like, they are Terrorist organizations rather then traditional alliances. They are not really interested in winning so much as they are trying to cause as much damage as they can. You really can't apply the same strategies to them as you would an Alliance that is interested in self preservation more then proving a point. I suppose the question GOON's should be asking is whether or not this is a war worth fighting to its ultimate conclusion, or if the damage done now has sufficiently exacted retribution for what caused the conflict. As a thought, what exactly does GOONs want from this war? We keep hearing "Reps", but this is pretty vague. What constitutes victory for you guys? [/quote] My argument then was the same now. When you pick fights with people, sometimes they choose to fight back. Sometimes, other people choose to defend them. Not to necessarily be throwing comparisons around, but that seems to be what is happening here. Again. Now, clearly a 6 man AA is not necessarily comparable to an AA with nearly 30 people. Yet I would have thought that after the last debacle that involved an entire Bloc of great powers swooping in to resolve your last episode of Micro-drama, you might possibly have considered revising your raid policy, which lets face it, is highly unique to GOONS. It is your right to set your own policies, provided of course you are prepared to deal with what those policies result in. From where I am sitting, you attacked a group of people clearly affiliated with each other. It should not come as a shock they defended each other.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1349839933' post='3039311'] Why exactly? [/quote] Because he defended his AA I am assuming.

[quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1349830237' post='3039221'] Prepare for anarchy to be loosed upon the world. [/quote] Hang on, we are supposed to have NPO on the puppet strings, not the other way around!

If you wanted to get the attention of your spheres Senators, don't you think it would have been more efficient to just send them a message directly rather then creating an ALL CAPS titled thread in the hopes that they can be bothered to check?

Bipolarity is actually the hardest international system to form. It requires the destruction every great power bar two. To my knowledge, this has never been the case on Bob since there are simply too many actors in our system. You can imitate a Bipolar system through treaties of alliance, and this is often what has been attempted historically. Personally, I don't want to see this as the major hallmark of Bipolarity is stability. The two sides are so evenly matched they cannot prevail over each other and so more often then not they don't make the attempt. You also have to keep in mind the maintenance of Bipolar system requires there be two centers of gravity that dominate every other power source in there particular orbit. I seriously doubt people want that for their individual alliances. Which means any super blocs necessary for creating this on Bob will disintegrate. So no, the world is not going to divide into "two sides".

Once my nation has conquered the world I expect everyone to pay me yearly tributes in Tech. My slots must be filled at all times.

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349485824' post='3037789'] To put it in simpler terms, there won't be any wars because the treaty web won't allow it and more importantly, MK will not supply the CB you'd need to justify it to the bulk of alliances seeking to get their pound of flesh. As those alliances would be repeating the actions of the alliances they wish to topple (CB less wars) if they did make a move...and that wouldn't sit well with the good vs bad narrative that's been built so far. [/quote] You know, if people needed to manufacture CB's, this thread would not even exist. There is no Good vs. Bad narrative going on. Only hard calculations of survival. You have a huge section of Bob desperate to escape a cycle of annihilation and another large section desperate to avoid entering a similar cycle. This is not a recipe for stability. And a child of international relations theory could have seen the current state of affairs as the culminative result of that catastrophe called the Dave war. Clearly it was noted after the fact belated, elsewise we would not be here right now trying to pretend that everything is just fine.

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349482193' post='3037776'] I'm not nervous at all... and I'm quite near the center of power. As it stands, some of my closest allies are allied to the people that would be clamoring to topple our friends... And while the peanut gallery is definitely whipping itself up in demand of some action, that is neither a new phenomena nor an unexpected one. Not to mention MK are being conciliatory with quite a few alliances in an attempt to make up for the well documented slip ups of the past year. If not for that then perhaps you would have a case to be made but as it stands you don't. The people of the OWF are hungry for war...but I say, let them eat tech. [/quote] Implying I am trying to make a case here. I am not. I am merely commenting on the state of affairs as it stands. And no, this level of of peanut gallery euphoria is not normal. At least, its not in the 2 years I have been ruling my humble domain. Expectations are running rampant in all directions, and it is not because of any organized plans by any pole of power. The current state of affairs is a direct result of simple calculations. Who has been beaten, who is tied to who, and who is left. This thread is a testament to the toxic combination of hope, fear and paranoia. I simply do not buy that the current state of affairs is the result of a "win" as Ardus claims, or any planned effort by any alliance. We are where we are by a combination of humongous screw ups and tactical overreach.

Multi-polarity does not mean instability. A clever statesman is always able to insure security and power in a multi-polar system through treaties and influence. The only reason this thread even exists is that the treaty web is destabilized. Why is the treaty web destablized? Because in the last couple of wars two major centers of power, SF and XX have been subjected to a horrendous beating. In the war before the last two, it was the NPO sphere to suffer a massacre. Is it no surprise then that other centers of power yet to suffer a beat down are suddenly very nervous? And is it surprising then that the peanut gallery is suddenly whipping itself into a frothing fury over it?