MichaelH43ID

:v:

You don't believe us and you don't believe them; the only truth you recognize is the one you've fabricated. You have, to paraphrase the old saying, rejected reality and substituted your own. Whatever works for you, I guess. :v:

Like Mihail said, that's precisely my point. Both sides are eyeing the treaty web, not only their direct connections to other alliances, but also the connections that those alliances have. It's the rational, strategic thing to do--but your side is trying to pretend that we're the only ones doing it... or, at least, that when we do it, it's because we're impotent, cowardly, incompetent, or some other bit of propaganda. I'm simply advocating some intellectual honesty here. The reason these conversations never get anywhere is because we're all too busy focusing on the one line we disagree with, instead of giving some actual thought to the entire post and its collective merits.

Is that so? I mean, I don't want to restart the whole "aiding an alliance at war is an act of war" conversation... but this decree didn't appear out of a vacuum. It was a direct response to hostilities, an undeclared war against our upper tier. By your reasoning, couldn't we also say that everyone who aided DBDC after they attacked us (this time, last time... you choose) but prior to the decree was attempting to bait Dajobo into making just such a decree? Even more laughably, once DBDC's aggression was officially recognized, DBDC had the audacity to pretend that we were somehow coming from left field--prompting them to announce a state of war against all of our allies; a statement which, by and large, haven't led to much of anything. Interesting that our critics fail to point this out every time they bring up the fact that we're not attacking everyone who aids DBDC. Both sides are being selective about their targets. Why does this fact reflect poorly on Polaris, but not on the rest of you? You can at least try to be consistent. This whole thing is one hot mess. DBDC's policies put it in a state of almost perpetual warfare while it simultaneously never stops receiving tech, meaning that those tech providers are constantly committing acts of war, acts which alliances (until now) have chosen not to act on. The moment someone (NpO) acts, it's criticized for not going far enough... even though every other alliance was more than willing to not only not do enough, but not do anything at all! Moreover, there are very solid reasons behind the restraint we're showing regarding who we choose to engage--restraint which Dajobo acknowledged from the start. All of the that said, people have been suggesting this tactic for the longest time, so I grant that we're late to the party--but at least we're here now. Let's compare a list of Polar's allies, who DBDC claimed they were at war with, with a list of alliances that DBDC has recently attacked. ... What, TOP isn't on that list? Weird. And that awkward silence? Yeah. That's you realizing you're full of !@#$.

Double post.

It is and it isn't. Big Bad spoke of the appearance of impotence in light of the fact that NpO isn't wildly throwing itself against VE and Umbrella; I replied that we're anything but impotent, and that if we were as impotent as we're alleged to appear, people would just pile on and defeat us already. Naturally, my words were immediately twisted. Or that's one possible interpretation; I could always choose not to attribute to malice what can be appropriately attributed to stupidity. But I don't know OWF posters well enough to confidently make that judgment.

NpO doesn't do that. Tywin accepted the challenge of his own free will, a decision he's no doubt regretting; you know, 'cause of the withdrawals. He's been suffering from OWF addiction for a while now, and the prognosis isn't good.

Don't be silly--no one think's Polar is impotent. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure, but meaningless, rhetoric. If anyone did they'd be piling on... but guess what, they're not. Why? Because we're a force to be reckoned with, and few alliances want to take the hits we have to offer head on. So they circle like buzzards, and maneuver themselves in an attempt to get us where they want us. But everyone, allies and opponents alike, knows that when NpO chooses to attack (or not to attack) someone it does so for strategic reasons; funny that you (presumably) don't suggest the same thing of DBDC when they choose not to attack certain allies of NpO even after declaring war on all our allies and those providing aid to them. We all know how this works. No one wants to burn bridges, and no one wants to be taunted into a fght before it's strategically prudent to enter. Don't bother pretending otherwise. We'll no doubt join in when/if our leaders deem it necessary, or when/if our allies call for aid. Umbrella sending tech to DBDC in a clear attempt to bait us in isn't going to be successful, as I have full confidence in our leaders to decide on their own terms who and when to attack. Moreover, every non-standard nation (be it VE, Umb, or some other AA) which sends tech to DBDC to spite NpO is hurting its own alliance. These are people who would ordinarily provide for their own alliance, or use their slots for some other purpose... and who, for some juvenile reason, have decided to waste their slots on the Doom Chicken. Good on them. Without them, we wouldn't be as able to properly demonstrate the best possible example of "sycophant." You'll see him in a few days. He accepted a challenge via NpO's IRC, hence his current absence. Personally, I'm hoping he'll see the virtues of his temporary sobriety from OWF inebriation and tone down his posting habits.

Liars can be bold-faced, bald-faced, and barefaced. They cannot be bad-faced. There are subtle yet important distinctions between them; when people say "bold-faced," they often mean bald or bare--but not always. This has been a Public Service Announcement from NpO's resident grammar nazi. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. The above was just an excuse to post here. What I really came here to say was that if someone could write up a nice one-paragraph summary of the last 26 pages... that'd be great.

I made the video, so I figured I may as well share it! xD https://vimeo.com/111954209 It started simply enough: a few people on NpO's IRC rejoicing the recent move against DBDC's tech suppliers. Then it escalated. I wondered aloud if I'd get away with firing a few celebratory shots out of my window. Buuyo said no, but Spoofmaniac egged me on... before suggesting that I couldn't get away with it if I used my silencer. Desperate to prove the efficacy of the item I spent hundreds of dollars on, I did it. This is that. I blame any action portrayed in the video on the abundance of alcohol* in my system. My thank to the makers of 'Smith & Forge Hard Cider' for putting me in my current state, and the Advanced Armament Corporation for selling me the Tirant-9, which is affixed to my Glock 19. Good times. *Alcohol is standard for members of Pax; sobriety is the exception rather than the rule. Oh. And, suck it, Spoof. My silencer works just fine. (The gun was fired into a secure backstop.)

I approve of this message. No ones cares... but if I'm ever elected to high public office, I want my biographer to be able to look back and know that I approved of this message. :v:

<3 Come back to NDO! -Misty-eyed Philosophy major.

I'm amused to note that you're now in a position of agreeing (at least in part) with what Riley originally said. That aside, of what use is your personal definition of national sovereignty to the current conversation? Why did you bring it up?

So basically, a non-answer. This conversation has been dominated by discussion of sovereignty as it's practically applicable--"Alliance Sovereignty"--yet the moment you're challenged with the self-evident fact that your sovereignty means nothing if it's not recognized (through either benevolence or force), you retreat to your (unique) secondary definition. You're equivocating. You're attempting to argue on the topic of "alliance sovereignty" by defending the impotent ideal of "national sovereignty..." which in this case means the leader of a nation cannot be assassinated, even if he claims to preside over a constituency of zero. Edit: Put more clearly, it's pointless to talk about the sovereignty of leaders because a leader is powerless without his people, and his people are powerless without membership in an alliance due to attacks on national sovereignty--'real' national sovereignty. Discussing the idea of sovereignty with respect to alliances, and even with respect to a leader and its people, has some merit. Doing what you're doing and waxing nonsensical about your own personal definition of national sovereignty (which I imagine is in no way representative of how anyone else has used that phrase, ever) has none. It serves no purpose; except perhaps to give you more chances to say "hegemony," and, given time, I'm sure you'll sneak "bourgeoisie" in there too.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And at this point, you've stripped most of the meaning from the word. Sovereignty in the political sense means nothing if you're the ruler of nothing and no one, and you rule from a prison from which there is no escape. Sovereignty of states can only be taken by force or granted by the will of others; it's not something you just have. If you say you're a sovereign nation and the rest of the world says you're not--guess what, you're not. At least not in any appreciable sense. If you couldn't take sovereignty away with bombs and nukes, people on this forum (including yourself) wouldn't be accusing DBDC of violating the sovereignty of alliances and nations when they declare wars on those same alliances and nations. You know, nukes and bombs. Some consistency would be nice. So far it looks like you're making it up as you go along, conjuring up and/or changing definitions of words as it suits you.