Jump to content

Hakim

Members
  • Posts

    356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hakim

  1. Gig giddy....that's all...I roll, we roll...let's roll!!!
  2. [b]Biggest Gainer[/b] [color="blue"][i]NATO[/i][/color] [color="green"](+0.21)[/color] Well yay us....more good news coming soon.... Keep rolling fellas
  3. Yay for all involved... Looking forward to this for a long time o/ CCC o/ NATO o/ Friends
  4. [quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1284158137' post='2449156'] Do sacks of fail stop enemy rounds as well as sand bags? Maybe there's an upside [/quote] Well said....
  5. Happy Birthday...congrats on the four years.
  6. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1284073195' post='2448124'] ..."your?" I'm not in UPN, buddy, never have been. And for that matter, I was agreeing with you. My point was that now more people understand how UPN treats their treaty partners. [/quote] My bad, i misread your statement...it is clearer now. and I agree
  7. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1284072469' post='2448116'] Well, perhaps not better diplomacy, but she's promoting more understanding. More people than ever understand UPN's FA "commitments." [/quote] I disagree I think by this statement more people than ever are understanding that your "commitments" are clouded as ever...
  8. [quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1284048523' post='2447706'] ... and FEAR and UPN have been treating the MDoAP as an ODP for quite a while now. [/quote] wow, i mean wow....and you called for better diplomacy and understanding in the OWF? So as long as you lead I am to assume that any treaty you sign is not worth the words because you can decide to downgrade it yourself based on which side you are closer to at the moment...good to know.
  9. [quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283982917' post='2446952'] UPN will not again tell an ally that we can't or won't go in to a war to support them. [/quote] Time will tell whether these words hold as much weight here as the words on your other treaties held, very little.
  10. [quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283978527' post='2446878'] Realistically, though, FEAR and UPN are on differing paths at the moment and we did our part to help clear up the treaty web just a little. [/quote] Does UPN even have a path or a rudder to guide them?
  11. congrats on the new additions Good luck to you all
  12. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283813233' post='2444463'] On topic now, Congratulations NATO. Stats are Stats regardless of how you obtain them. Don't let TPE catch up to you in WRC's tho [/quote] Thanks King Ed...all part of the 10 fold plan...WRC's are on the list
  13. Good job NATO...the ten-fold plan is working...keep on keepin on...
  14. Your premise is valid and based on realism as a foreign policy making approach. Basically that we live in a multi-polar world where security is the primary interest. A realist would say that every alliance (state) would see another alliance as a security concern based off of there relative strength or military might. They would see treaties as only necessary to promote their own security and create a hegemonic society to counter their greatest security concern. The security dilemma exists because you can never truly know what the intentions of another alliance actually are, you have to assume that all treaties or BLOCS can and will be broken by another hegemonic society created solely to remove their greatest security concern. A realist also believes that conflict is inevitable but regrettable. A realist will use treaties to position their power base always looking to create a balance of power that either creates a shift n power to their side or one that can effectively negate their perceived threat. They also believe that all hegemonic groups are bound to fail as each alliance has competing interests and the tie that brought them together is weaker than the interest of self survival. Which is how we see most rulers in alliances make their decisions and try and posture their power base. They are willing to create treaties and BLOCS to project a greater power as a sum of many parts rather than their own power. But these BLOCS and treaties are only what is expedient at the time. We have seen time and time again the shift of power across BOB as alliances jockey for positions of relative security and power. A good example of a realism approach would have been the Karma bloc who was able to bring together a hegemonic group of alliances to counter the Continuum Hegemony. Those alliances had no real common interests other than to counter the main power and determine a new shift in power. which is why you have seen most alliances who were part of Karma slowly filter away from the overall Karma bloc towards more like minded alliances because the security dilemma no longer exists for them. There are certain hegemonic groups of alliances who still remain together because they have a perceived security concern. That is the prism through which a realist would look at politics on BOB. A person who espouses Liberalism as foreign policy making theory would look at the world through an entirely different prism. They would see treaties and BLOCs as a necessary instrument and that people enter into treaties because they have a set of shared values and interests. They believe in "soft" power vs "hard" power. They believe that diplomacy rather than the threat of war is what governs day to day activities. They believe that the use of soft power can generate peace and that democracies will not go to war with other democracies. Liberalism holds at its core that people who live in the same type of world understand each other and treaty themselves to create peace rather than to project hard power , (threat of war). I think we see some approaches to this when you have alliances who will sign into economic BLOCs but shy away from direct ties with alliances who are not like minded. Whatever the approach BOB has made for a very interesting case study in how rulers approach foreign affairs, because regardless of this being just pixels and not blood, people show their thought processes through their actions.
  15. [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1283292393' post='2437474'] Hemorrhaging members has not been good for growth... but good for the ANS. We're up to 13k! [/quote] AVG NS looking good.... I hate it when the Tech farms decide to not stay...I am sure you guys can get in a bunch more, you guys attract nations like you attract women in a bar....by the ton
  16. [quote name='Wentworth the Brave' timestamp='1283218771' post='2436419'] I don't believe it was a charade, some people like to act older than ten. [/quote] QFT my good friend...wishing some civility and maturity catches on
  17. [quote] Biggest Gainer [b]• •[/b] 5. NATO 12.24 --> 15.15 (+2.91)[/quote] Nice solid growth
  18. Good show iFOK ... Argent mojo is strong...
  19. [quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1283040371' post='2434316'] But how can we take your word about your intentions, when you so clearly and publicly refuse to take our word for ours? [/quote] One would say you can never truly know the intentions of another...therein lies the security dilemma. (For any Foreign Affairs Scholars who might understand) [Realism]
  20. [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1283013010' post='2433909'] As a ruler here on Planet Bob I can honestly say that I've done more altruistic work than most players will ever do. [/quote] Be careful you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Wow...really wow. I have heard some ego-maniacal self gratis in my day, but that was really bad man...
  21. [quote]If you happen to accidently raid an ally, and you nuke them, you will have to pay reparitions.[/quote] I would hope that you would catch the "accidental raid" before 24 hrs. Anyway good luck...
×
×
  • Create New...