Jump to content

A Joint Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom and the Viridian Entente


Leet Guy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1320607881' post='2840371']
Having read through this thread I seem to recall that VE/MK is saying that they do this because Tetris have learned their lesson and should have peace now and that it is just Legion and NSO that keep Tetris in this war.
But maybe I am just reading to much in to it?
[/quote]

They were just trying to justify their action, and failed since Tetris can leave the war whenever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='HisK Owns You' timestamp='1320606445' post='2840355']
You're asking the wrong guy he has no idea what's going on.
[/quote]

Yes, because usually the intelligence of random OWF denizens is better than that of the involved government(s). :rolleyes:

[quote name='MrHavok' timestamp='1320608047' post='2840374']
So will tetris be counter declaring on MK when they hit your treaty partner?
[/quote]

We're actually planning to pre-empt them. And by we, I mean with the full force of all 300k of our NS. Stay tuned for the announcement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1320608319' post='2840376']
We're actually planning to pre-empt them. And by we, I mean with the full force of all 300k of our NS. Stay tuned for the announcement!
[/quote]

I read that as sarcasm.. if so, do you not believe in honoring a treaty just because it won't do much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1320607981' post='2840372']
Lets not make this about us or OP.

Oops, got my paradox's mixed up.
[/quote]
But if VE go through with this and get countered, it leaves no one to stop the war against SF/XX from happening..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1320608319' post='2840376']
Yes, because usually the intelligence of random OWF denizens is better than that of the involved government(s). :rolleyes:



We're actually planning to pre-empt them. And by we, I mean with the full force of all 300k of our NS. Stay tuned for the announcement!
[/quote]

Hmm like a month ago you were just the guy with all the answers talking a lot of trash about how good your alliance was

Now you seem like a beaten man, what happened to you? Oh wait nevermind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1320609113' post='2840388']
But if VE go through with this and get countered, it leaves no one to stop the war against SF/XX from happening..
[/quote]

Depends. I can only speculate here, but if VE gets countered, who's to say PB or their other allies won't step in? The war pulls two ways as well, along polaris/XX and along mjolnir. Considering the Sparta-Umb ties, and RnR-Int/FOK ties. This war could get extremely messy, and i think its too early to say who rolls who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320608890' post='2840386']
I read that as sarcasm.. if so, do you not believe in honoring a treaty just because it won't do much?
[/quote]

Wait and see for yourself, mate.

[quote name='MrHavok' timestamp='1320609161' post='2840390']
Hmm like a month ago you were just the guy with all the answers talking a lot of trash about how good your alliance was

Now you seem like a beaten man, what happened to you? Oh wait nevermind
[/quote]

Who the hell are you and why are you so mad? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I see that a number of people have essentially been claiming that I am not genuine in my arguments and thus they should not be considered as valid. I offer two responses to this:

The first is that this is [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i], a logical fallacy. My argument and the points I have made are true or false on their own merits, and have nothing to do with me as a nation ruler.

The second is that this is absolutely not what I would be doing if I were in a commanding political position right now. I believe in a sense of fair play and always have. I have also always believed in a very healthy dose of aggression. I have often preached that wars should be shorter and more frequent, to keep ordinary nation rulers more engaged in world affairs. I have ALWAYS been about providing for the needs of ordinary rulers, and it often did put me at odds with political colleagues.

Yes, I did advocate that CnG attack NPO very shortly before MK left CnG. What Rush has not said is that I advocated that we make it short and sweet... anywhere from raid length to maybe a week... possibly 2 depending on how things went. The point of it was to change the tone of war, change what it meant. The CnG ideology was always $%&@ the police and rub your sweaty balls in the other guy's face. That was what I wanted war to be about, NOT about threat elimination or attempts to achieve political dominance. In my view, the way to achieve political dominance was to lead by example and have people follow you out of respect, not out of fear. NPO ruled the world by fear. I wanted to achieve dominance through respect. I wanted to change the way that people here saw war. And I was not alone in my feelings - government from at least two other CnG alliances posted in support of my idea in that thread.

When MK actually did attack NPO, their objective was not to rub their balls in their face and show their dominance, but to eliminate NPO as a threat for a long long time and possibly forever. There is a far cry between the two. I wanted to build a world after Karma where there was lots of aggression but threat-eliminator behavior ala old-skool Pacificanism was not tolerated. Even if we FAILED in the attempt, I considered it better than becoming threat-eliminators like what we had worked so hard to beat.

But by that point MK was sold out on the idea of "playing to win", and "winning at any cost". What does winning mean? Do you win if you destroy every other alliance and make every other nation disappear from the world?!? That is quite literally the logical desired outcome of "winning" to a realpolitik alliance. It is what winning means to them... staying on top of the world by constantly eliminating any threat that arises. It's a cold and bleak vision of the world compared to mine. To me, winning was rolling out, busting some heads, going home, and having some beers, kicking up our feet and beating our chests and talking about how hard and badass we were. But any group of people who gathered some balls and some guns could go out and try to do the same thing. They could try to win the respect of the whole world by activity and coordination and martial prowress. By decisively answering insults with an upraised fist, and by being quick to take insult! The victory would be decided by activity and how hard we fought, and how much style we showed in doing it, not just in purely cold and calculating realpolitik decisions.

So we come to this situation, and we see that MK (and VE) are not just attacking someone they don't like to attempt to show dominance. They are planning to wipe the floor with Legion, who has just won their first military victory pretty much ever and might have what it takes to become a competent and upstanding alliance worthy of some respect, and why? Because Legion is a "political enemy", and is tied to more enemies. You see, divide and conquer is the oldest strategy in the book. They get Legion now (and maybe Polar and some others who defend polar), and then once the potential base of support for Superfriends/XX is weakened, then Superfriends/XX gets taken out too. VE with them, if VE decides to stick with GOD. That's what's funny about this to me. This is the way that standard, cookie-cutter realpolitik play works. The people that are calling me a madman for my past actions either want a world where this sort of thing is the norm like it was under NPO, or a world with barely any aggression or action at all - because someone has to start !@#$ for there to be anything going on. I'm not a madman and I never was. I was a leader who did his best to shape the world as I saw fit, and while I succeeded in helping to remove realpolitik play for a time, my alternate view of how war and conflict should be and how the community should operate was never widely adopted. It would have been great for the general membership of every alliance, but maybe not quite as interesting for the political players. So the same kind of people that used to run NPO and the other realpolitik alliances have made their way to MK, the elements in MK that wanted realpolitik play that were there from the beginning have risen to the top, and the old CnG worldview is almost completely gone from practice.

But yet, the idea remains. And ideas are bulletproof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1320616396' post='2840596']
WORDS
[/quote]

Point 1. Yes you advocated that it be a short 2 week war. You know what the problem with that was? NPO allies counter. Our allies counter their counter. There is absolutely, and you KNOW it, no way to enforce that a war on THAT massive of a front would just "end in 2 weeks." And there is absolutely ZERO chance that we could have enforced so many wars to end on a "schedule." Hence what YOU wanted to do, would have achieved nearly the exact same thing that DH achieved. A long drawn out war with NPO and allies.

Point 2. You believe in a sense of fair play. Tell that to Acti. Yes they were terrible. No, not one single one of them did anything to you (save MAYBE Batallion) that warranted YOU and YOU alone setting out to determine their fate. Dont play that fair play nonsense with me, I know you better than any of these people around here.

Point 3. Fair Play part 2. Your 1st attempt to kill Acti purely for your own ****'s and giggles was predicated on giving several Athens members "dual membership" in TIO, despite Acti and TIO having previously agreed none of that nonsense would take place.

Point 4. Your own past does not make your points invalid. Of course you are right, but it also doesn't make that opinion not blatantly buried in hypocrisy.

Point 5. That this MK-VE intervention brought to a close a war that, by your own standards, had drug on far too long, would seem to me to be something, that within your grand view of things(aggressive move that lead to a shorter war) would be... appreciated, rather than condemned.

Edited by Rush Sykes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1320622328' post='2840676']
WORDS
[/quote]

I seem to recall the OWF mostly cheering when Thriller attacked AcTi. If you don't see the difference between an aggressive smacking around of people you dislike (and then often making up with them later) and a widespread pattern of convoluted thread elimination like what NPO practiced, then you are being rather insensitive to even the most obvious of distinctions in my opinion. However, having known you for a long time, I am sure that what I perceive as deliberate intransigence for political reasons is in fact a genuine misunderstanding on your part. :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...