Orville Reginbacher
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Orville Reginbacher
-
-
My first war was the BLEU-NADC war back in January of 2008. There was a lot of animosity back then between a very isolationist NADC (Emperor Charles) and a very active NpO. I was in NADC until the end of 2007, and then joined NpO because I wanted to see some action in a non-neutral alliance. NADC has totally changed since then, and it's awesome to see after I took years and years away from Bob. A bunch of us changed AA's before the war to NpO.
It was kind of weird attacking my former alliance, one that I still had a lot of connections with (I was relatively active back then as opposed to now). But I don't think there were any hard feelings about me or them. I had some very good connections in NADC at the time and still spoke with them on a regular and mostly friendly basis then.
Since then I've been diplomat a couple of times there but otherwise just haven't had the time that I used to have. NADC still holds a special place in my heart. It is still my birthplace.
I assume this was supposed to be first alliance-wide war, not simply ghost or pirate battles.
-
Welcome Knights!
-
o/ RIA you lovable random bunch.
In honor of you joining the fight, I'm gonna flip a coin to decide if I nuke my opponents everyday. -
I don't remember Polar being such crybabies. All this talk about people coming for Polar, blah blah, look at our scars, blah blah.
Carly Simon called and wanted you to know this war isn't about you. The last war that was about you was in 2011, the Grudge War.
Carly Simon? Really? Last time she was relevant in Lawyeria was in 1972. If I call someone, I prefer to call the band Nazareth and share some Hair of the Dog.
Back on point:
I don't remember seeing any cry babies, just folks dishing out apt criticism of you and your ilk in this war. You know, smack talking--the kind that happens in every single freakin' war by every party.
Also, as for this war not being about Polar--maybe you should have consulted with NPO before they posted their declaration, in which they went to war against our allies but focused their rhetoric on Polar.
You're just having a bad day because there will be no more Polar bears for you to play with up north in the highest tiers. I'm so sorry for you. Please tell me where I can sent my condolences.
-
Declarations of War against the New Polar Order
Reavers
Sengoku
NATO & RnR
The Last Remnants
Orange Defense Network
Fellowship of the Wolves
Aurora Borealis
The Grämlins
[/update]I love that this has its own section!
-
You're basically just trying to rationalize a difference that is just an old institution. Having a trade deal with someone helps them significantly, too. If you want to see "aiding an enemy" as an act of war, then a trade circle could certainly be such an act. It being "passive" is really rather secondary -- people could easily check if they wanted to.
The core of the matter is simply that we have institutionalized the idea that foreign aid to nations at war is an "act of war", while we have not done the same for trade circles. It is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less. There is no objective little label called "act of war" that is attached to aid deals, and there is no sticker saying "exempt from rules of what an act of war is" on your trade circle.
This is not to say these traditions, or institutions, are to be broken. As can be seen in this thread, following traditions generally grants some amount of legitimacy to your organization. Your argument, however, is based on the false notion that "act of war" is anything but a social construct made by the nations of our world. There is no objective truth on it that can be discerned, no matter how much you try to reason about it.Simply because it is a social construct does not mean it (1) isn't true, and (2) is meaningless. Taking an active step with someone in a way to aid them specifically is different from passively going along with trades you have. Active vs. passive is a difference. Social construct or not, these two things are viewed differently. No one asked for objective differences. Subjective differences are pretty important, too.
Other OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE differences include, but are not limited to: (1) trade partners are secret except for spy operations used to reveal them whereas foreign aid is not default secret unless you make it so at higher cost; (2) in the specific example cited, DBDC can trade amongst itself and maybe one or two outside nations to make the numbers add up, whereas DBDC would not aid its own tech to itself; (3) tech trading, specifically, directly affects military power, whereas only some trading can have an indirect effect on military power (except for some direct impacts on efficiency of soldiers, which is rather meaningless in a nuclear war); (4) as unrealistic and hard to enforce as some people believe the NpO policy on tech dealers to DBDC will be, a war on all trade partners of them would certainly be more unrealistic and harder to enforce (including the requirement to have a successful spy op to uncover trade partners).
-
But consider this: Umbrella is merely pinching off resources at the source, as Polar did with DBDC's tech suppliers. How is one acceptable while the other is not? This is a legitimate question, btw.
The distinction is pretty obvious, really. Being in a trade circle is hardly an act of war. You are not making an active decision to aid someone who is bad or at war with someone (unless you actually monitor your trade partners and trade with someone after you see them go to war).
Actively sending aid to someone at war is and has been a reason for punishment. People sending aid make an active decision to send aid every time they send it. The same is not true for trade partners, which are passive.
If you don't see the difference between trading with someone and actively sending aid to someone, or you don't want to see the different, I question your integrity.
-
My apologies, I wasn't actually pointing my comment at NpO. I take no issue with NpO's strategy (though I question the enforceability of the whole DBDC embargo thing). Just pointing out to Starfox that there are stakes in war beyond who wins or who loses. In my experience, people's opinions on alliances are made or broken during war.
I'm gonna have to see your math on the whole 7 months thing though. Unless there's a massively surprising shift in both coalitions I don't see any hang ups prolonging the war to anything near that length. Though given the slow build up of this war, it might be 7 months until it fully expands, heh.
Good point, I totally agree.
And as much as both sides prior to a war always trump up their rhetoric, I for one will focus on speaking through my actions (and my snide remarks from particular blowhards like Big Ego and pretty much anyone with the word "Big" in their name).
If we come out of this with everyone knowing we are still formidable, I'm happy with that. If we win, I'm thrilled with that. If we lose, I'll keep on keeping on. I just want folks to know that Polaris never goes away, and is always rising (even when our NS is falling).
-
o/ Invicta
-
You got a reading comprehension problem? No, I've been at war since three days after my remade my nation, chump.
I apologize, I have a hard time reading poor grammar, as well. They also make guides for that.
-
I love the NpO! They're just willfully donating their war chests to me. I appreciate it, since being in a constant state of war since day 3, I'm pretty tapped.
o/ NpO!
I don't understand, you've been at war for a few days and you are already tapped? They offer guides for that.
-
I had a feeling LSF/SWF entering on an ODP would be the straw that broke the old narrative. SNX is letting micros enter on an ODP but, not Polar on a MDP was not going to sell. Now people will forget the attacking a few tech dealers and SNX would not let us enter nonsense and get to warring. Time to create the new narrative Polar. Good luck.
Your theory is a few days late (assuming it was true). Let me take a shot at the narrative: By donating NG and DS nations every day, planet Bob can find a home for the 4005 nukes currently sitting in cold launching facilities. No nuke need be homeless or cold again.
-
"Aftermath finally agreed to let us enter"
Too funny XD
Good luck, Polar. You're gonna need itNo luck necessary, just places for us to store our nukes for the winter.
-
And with that in mind: World Task Force, Aztech, The Future, Atlas....
The thread so far, for those not inclined to read thirty-four pages:
There, now everyone is all caught up.
I love how you like to misrepresent others' statements. Have you considered being a lawyer? We have many openings in Lawyeria.
-
Methinks you missed the literary reference, and thus, also the point of my post.
Literary...the word itself has too many syllables for some folks in this thread.
It is not protesting it is taking advantage of your inaction. Failing to defend an ally being curbstomped remains one of the few things that is still looked down on here on Planet Bob. They pretty much have you in a catch 22. Defend your alliies and get rolled or do nothing while one after another they burn your allies to the ground all the while reminding them that you are sitting around doing nothing. The longer you do nothing the longer your allies burn and your enemies will keep reminding of that. What do you think those burning will think in a month? And once they have been removed as any sort of threat it will be your turn. Of course if you jump in now, sure you look good but, you burn along with them. The problem is others on your side have jumped into losing war for allies. That is what makes you bad. Even tiny SWF jumped in. If Aftermath and the others were also sitting it would take the spotlight off you and the we do not want help line that SNX is trying to sell would hold some water.
This thread exemplifies why I banned political talking heads on cable news stations in my nation--I can't stand the disingenuous BS that gets said from folks like Big Ego, Big Bad, and the ilk. At least be honest with yourself.
The feeling is mutual.
Also we have little reason to believe AFM is the source of the "NpO stay out" line. If they'll die for you, they'll certainly lie for you.
Well I see there's no fooling you. This has actually all been a Klondike commercial for my country. "AFM, what would you do for the scrumptious delight that is a Klondike bar?" "We'd concoct a lie just to try to fool Big Ego because we have nothing better to do than to try and fool him because that really matters." Is your Ego really as big as they say?
-
Which treaty partner is that? I'm not seeing the overlap... or are we talking about potential future allies? xD
Last I checked, TOP had a treaty with NpO (unless I missed something) and an economic treaty (still a treaty) with DBDC, right?
-
I can only assume that the LSF and SWF are calling up their armies and preparing to enforce the Die Linke charter by force. Because, of course, both alliances are noble and honorable and always respect the documents they sign.
-Craig
Because, of course, it's not like there is a much larger concern right now or anything on the global radar that most everyone will get caught up in.
-
Caladin aided an alliance at War, and DBDC, like us, recognize that as an transgression, however we were able to come to a diplomatic solution without resorting to conflict. Its as simple as that, it happens all the time, I could list a half dozen AA's that have done similar this year towards us alone. We don't treat every aid packet as a DoW.
I guess that's one of the many differences between NPO and NpO and one of the reasons I'm happier in NpO than I would be in NPO. And while I'm pretty sure Caladin can be reasoned with diplomatically, I'm equally sure that "DT Probes" cannot. And I think we all know why they cannot be reasoned with, and why DBDC cannot be reasoned with (see DBDC's earlier DoW against all allies of NpO, including their own treaty partners).
-
NpO is at war with tech sellers. Whatchu talkin' bout.
I was talking about NPO's declaration. It was pretty clear, I even quoted the person I was talking about in the thread which was the referenced DoW. Or at least I thought it was clear. My bad on any ambiguity.
There is a difference between contextualizing an action then the action itself, but apparently you can't understand the difference.
I believe I understood it perfectly. The Polar references were the context, which was the plurality, and then the action was against others that are not Polaris. That is what I commented about. I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here. Page 31.
-
Well, in general terms, you didn't end up being the point of escalation because you didn't have a situation where DS was able to "recognize a state of war" with you.
If you had you wouldn't have faced NPO because we've picked a different front beforehand (partly because the 2007 part of me still feels uncomfortable signing any DoW on Polaris, hence the "picking a different front").I do love how the DoW here was, at least a plurality of it, about Polaris, and yet someone else was attacked instead of Polaris.
-
Now I know you are clueless.... low key rogues and whatnot are 3673578349685498654987 times easier to micromanage. But by all means, continue to act as if I am the one who is being moronic here.
You lost me here. Caladin is a low key rogue?
Also, now your problem with our stance isn't the merit or intention of it (which was originally your problem, i.e. warm fuzzies) but that this will not be "eas[y]" for us? I appreciate your concern, I really do. Don't worry, we'll be just fine.
But you are right. I do get the warm fuzzies from this. I am going to wear them to bed tonight.
-
You apparently do not know what GLOBAL WARS means either....
You're right, of course, because there is a functional difference in this context between an alliance war and a global alliance war. /sarcasm.
I believe the phrase is "distinction without a difference." The reasoning used by Cuba looked pretty sound to me there. I agree with August Cuba as opposed to November Cuba. The two of them should get together to work out their differences sometime.
I don't agree with you at all, though. Nice attempt to save face.
edit: poor grammar
-
LOL, nice. Warning to people who want to be like Rush Sykes and speak loudly/without the facts, I guess.
-
DBDC doesn't require anyone to live on their knees. . . You're free to remain standing when you surrender.
That level of cognitive dissonance is dangerous to one's mental health, you know? We have some professionals in Lawyeria who can help you with that.
Your First War
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Correction, first war might have been the FAN-1V or VietFAN II war, I forget if I engaged in that before BLEU-NADC or after. Probably after.