Upper End of the War

[King Louis the II]

 
That looks like a sound logic. The problem is that I don't remember to have read you using it when the suicide charge was aimed to bring down Hegemony back in Karma. Or when your block needed SF/XX to bring down TOP/DR. Or when you joined forces with NPO, DR and the like to smack down SF/XX. So, as long as it's your bloc and any of the other two blocs taking on the third, it's all logical to you. But when it's both the other blocs takin on yours, then you shuddently don't uderstand them at all. Uh?
 
If you really want to understand the actions of your enemies, you should begin with thinking from their point of view and from their interests, not yours. DR has been rolled by you lot before. SF/XX has been rolled by your lot before. NPO has been rolled by your lot before, the last time just because they where rebuilding too fast. Dire peace terms, be it in harsh reps or forced warfare, had been imposed with the clear objective of weakening their high tiers and slowing their reconstruction.
 
The trend is clear. What would come next? another curbstomp against SF/XX with absolute no CB? or another strike at NPO/DR just to keep their numbers under check? You say that SF/XX was scrapped and DR/NPO looked well-built. Given your past actions, the most reasonable prediction was another roll on NPO/DR. But it doesn't matter who would you attack first, because sooner or later both would be attacked and rolled, again. So, both blocs have joined forces to take down the bloc that has proven to be the main threat to their existence: Yours. You can't pretend to be able to go on playing the same trick, time and time again, forever. It's not so difficult to understand.
 
Anyway, I understand your point of view, and why you are defending it. In order to win this war, it's in the interests of your bloc to attemp to break the Equilibrium coalition. And, due to NPO's ties to some of your allies, you perceive them as the weaker echelon of the chain. Hence all the campaing in the forums targettied at spreading paranoia between NPO and the rest of Equilibrium. The main problem here is that actions speak louder than words, and DH's past actions are loud enough. If NPO bails out of this war, your side will roll them in the next, as they have proven to be a threat to your hegemony, and you are not the kind of people that let threats exist. They allied with your enemies and declared war on you. Your bloc destroyed SF/XX for less than that.
 
You can try to sweet-talk them all you want, but we all know what would happen in a few months.
 
In conclusion, leaving "moralism" aside (I leave that to the professionals - like our beloved Schattenmann), and under your own bloc "realpolitik" logic, NPO has four good reasons to keep the war against you:
 
1) Revenge from Karma
2) Revenge from DH-NPO war
3) Power grabbing
4) Just plain long-term survival
 
Any of the four is a perfectly valid reason to keep doing what they are doing. And they shouldn't worry about the next war, because your bloc has all the numbers to be the next target again.

QFT. Excellent post. And you are so right. This war will repeat itself.

[rsoxbronco1]

You're deluding yourselves if you think this war will repeat itself.

 

eQuilibrium fractured the moment TLR was hit.

 

If you're looking around and hoping to not be 'next' get the hell away from anyone involved in hitting TLR and fighting NG. Destinies were sealed and long term retribution will be unavoidable.

Edited February 8, 2013 by rsoxbronco1

[DonVox]

That looks like a sound logic. The problem is that I don't remember to have read you using it when the suicide charge was aimed to bring down Hegemony back in Karma. Or when your block needed SF/XX to bring down TOP/DR. Or when you joined forces with NPO, DR and the like to smack down SF/XX. So, as long as it's your bloc and any of the other two blocs taking on the third, it's all logical to you. But when it's both the other blocs takin on yours, then you shuddently don't uderstand them at all. Uh?

 

If you really want to understand the actions of your enemies, you should begin with thinking from their point of view and from their interests, not yours. DR has been rolled by you lot before. SF/XX has been rolled by your lot before. NPO has been rolled by your lot before, the last time just because they where rebuilding too fast. Dire peace terms, be it in harsh reps or forced warfare, had been imposed with the clear objective of weakening their high tiers and slowing their reconstruction.

 

The trend is clear. What would come next? another curbstomp against SF/XX with absolute no CB? or another strike at NPO/DR just to keep their numbers under check? You say that SF/XX was scrapped and DR/NPO looked well-built. Given your past actions, the most reasonable prediction was another roll on NPO/DR. But it doesn't matter who would you attack first, because sooner or later both would be attacked and rolled, again. So, both blocs have joined forces to take down the bloc that has proven to be the main threat to their existence: Yours. You can't pretend to be able to go on playing the same trick, time and time again, forever. It's not so difficult to understand.

 

Anyway, I understand your point of view, and why you are defending it. In order to win this war, it's in the interests of your bloc to attemp to break the Equilibrium coalition. And, due to NPO's ties to some of your allies, you perceive them as the weaker echelon of the chain. Hence all the campaing in the forums targettied at spreading paranoia between NPO and the rest of Equilibrium. The main problem here is that actions speak louder than words, and DH's past actions are loud enough. If NPO bails out of this war, your side will roll them in the next, as they have proven to be a threat to your hegemony, and you are not the kind of people that let threats exist. They allied with your enemies and declared war on you. Your bloc destroyed SF/XX for less than that.

 

You can try to sweet-talk them all you want, but we all know what would happen in a few months.

 

In conclusion, leaving "moralism" aside (I leave that to the professionals - like our beloved Schattenmann), and under your own bloc "realpolitik" logic, NPO has four good reasons to keep the war against you:

 

1) Revenge from Karma

2) Revenge from DH-NPO war

3) Power grabbing

4) Just plain long-term survival

 

Any of the four is a perfectly valid reason to keep doing what they are doing. And they shouldn't worry about the next war, because your bloc has all the numbers to be the next target again.

 

This. The main goal of the war is to stop the cycle of DH beating down the rest of CN's upper tiers. Just because NPO/DR has allies on both sides does not detract them from the original aim of the war. That's why its the Equilibrium War. The massive political rout that DH has suffered in the leadup to this war is a consequence to the vast inequality it has created since Karma. 

[HHAYD]

You're deluding yourselves if you think this war will repeat itself.

 

eQuilibrium fractured the moment TLR was hit.

 

If you're looking around and hoping to not be 'next' get the hell away from anyone involved in hitting TLR and fighting NG. Destinies were sealed and long term retribution will be unavoidable.

 

You know, I don't think the pre-Karma NPO expected it to get rolled... Or the defunct alliances that ended up on pre-Karma NPO's to-kill list....

 

And I think that may happen to you folks sooner or later.

Edited February 8, 2013 by HHAYD

[CubaQuerida]

 
This. The main goal of the war is to stop the cycle of DH beating down the rest of CN's upper tiers. Just because NPO/DR has allies on both sides does not detract them from the original aim of the war.

It would seem that this goal will not be coming to fruition. Edited February 8, 2013 by CubaQuerida

[Unknown Smurf]

It would seem that this goal will not be coming to fruition.

 

I have to agree here, eQ is just increasing the gap between the absolute largest nations on that side of the web and everyone else. 

[Ardus]

That looks like a sound logic. The problem is that I don't remember to have read you using it when the suicide charge was aimed to bring down Hegemony back in Karma. Or when your block needed SF/XX to bring down TOP/DR. Or when you joined forces with NPO, DR and the like to smack down SF/XX. So, as long as it's your bloc and any of the other two blocs taking on the third, it's all logical to you. But when it's both the other blocs takin on yours, then you shuddently don't uderstand them at all. Uh?

I suddenly don't understand? Where did I ever say I don't understand any part of the war against us? If you wish to dispute me, please do so, but I must ask that you not dispute that illusory me you appear to have constructed.
 

If you really want to understand the actions of your enemies, you should begin with thinking from their point of view and from their interests, not yours. DR has been rolled by you lot before. SF/XX has been rolled by your lot before. NPO has been rolled by your lot before, the last time just because they where rebuilding too fast. Dire peace terms, be it in harsh reps or forced warfare, had been imposed with the clear objective of weakening their high tiers and slowing their reconstruction.

As I recall it, reparation demands plummeted tremendously after BiPolar, after DH was formed. As I remember it, the only reps that have been paid was that token chump change GOONS has a bad habit of wasting its breath on. Those were hardly dire.
 

The trend is clear. What would come next? another curbstomp against SF/XX with absolute no CB? or another strike at NPO/DR just to keep their numbers under check? You say that SF/XX was scrapped and DR/NPO looked well-built. Given your past actions, the most reasonable prediction was another roll on NPO/DR. But it doesn't matter who would you attack first, because sooner or later both would be attacked and rolled, again. So, both blocs have joined forces to take down the bloc that has proven to be the main threat to their existence: Yours. You can't pretend to be able to go on playing the same trick, time and time again, forever. It's not so difficult to understand.

The reasonable expectation was to take us at our word. The political capital necessary to launch an aggressive war was spent to the last dime in the Dave War, much to my chagrin. In its immediate wake we swore to peace. Everybody knew we couldn't project after blowing our load and ticking off enough alliances that you'd need to take off your shoes to count them. So that's exactly what we did. I came swaggering out here, puffed up my chest, and heralded in a new era of peace while your own men pointed out it was really the only option available to us, especially given the very proactive rebuke among you and yours from the start of the Dave War.

That said, what y'all could reasonably expect of us and what was in your interest are two different things. You found it in your interest to attack Umbrella. That's fine. But it isn't some moral crusade. It's just the same old, same old, the game of nations. Although, given how much I actually wanted to believe in reconciliation between the Order and the Kingdom so we could have some new alignments in the world, I'm a little disappointed.

 

Anyway, I understand your point of view, and why you are defending it. In order to win this war, it's in the interests of your bloc to attemp to break the Equilibrium coalition. And, due to NPO's ties to some of your allies, you perceive them as the weaker echelon of the chain. Hence all the campaing in the forums targettied at spreading paranoia between NPO and the rest of Equilibrium. The main problem here is that actions speak louder than words, and DH's past actions are loud enough. If NPO bails out of this war, your side will roll them in the next, as they have proven to be a threat to your hegemony, and you are not the kind of people that let threats exist. They allied with your enemies and declared war on you. Your bloc destroyed SF/XX for less than that.

I'm stating quite plainly what I see. I see NPO members deriding NADC and SF/XX attacking TLR to draw in NG. Those are not the actions of alliances fond of all other members of the coalition. I never said they'd bail out early, only that the war would end when its costs clearly outweighed its benefit. Unless y'all have a specific set of numbers posted somewhere in your coordinating channels (if you have any), your "victory" condition is fluid. The point is to do as much damage to DoomCo before hitting that invisible point I described before. Your ability to get along with one another changes where that point falls. I don't think so low of you as to believe that I'm going to wake up Valentine's Day and see peace treaties thrown up.

To the contrary, I really try to resist the temptation to look down on the competition. That leads to sloppy work.
 

You can try to sweet-talk them all you want, but we all know what would happen in a few months.

What am I going to do, spook up an army to engulf everybody outside TOP, MK, GOONS, and Umbrella? You can't claim to break us and enshrine us as what goes bump in the night at the same time; that is internally inconsistent. Non Grata still likes NPO, as do certain members of C&G; I imagine they'd have my head with some quickness if I tried to destroy their ally like that. NPO ain't Sparta or MHA; I can't just go around asking people to cancel on them. The atmosphere doesn't really permit that.

You can't really deny that we're in a tripartite world at the moment. Hell, we're precariously close to being flatly multipolar. A world like that breeds uncertainty, though I'll admit I deliberately overstated its early arrival to prod our foes in the lead up to this war. Uncertainty breeds caution and permits little rolling.

 

Lastly--attacking NPO would be beneficial to SF/XX and I hate those guys (and them us).  Attacking SF/XX would be beneficial to DR/AI and I hate those guys (and them us).  Even without all the other considerations, that's reason enough to not go ganking people.
 

In conclusion, leaving "moralism" aside (I leave that to the professionals - like our beloved Schattenmann), and under your own bloc "realpolitik" logic, NPO has four good reasons to keep the war against you:
 
1) Revenge from Karma
2) Revenge from DH-NPO war
3) Power grabbing
4) Just plain long-term survival
 
Any of the four is a perfectly valid reason to keep doing what they are doing. And they shouldn't worry about the next war, because your bloc has all the numbers to be the next target again.

In conclusion, I'm a realist. A successful alliance measures, calculates, and executes. An alliance that wishes to fail persists in a war longer than necessary for frivolous reasons like "revenge." It may play a role in dictating what one's long term goals are, but it has little place in the actual conduct of a war. The first two reasons are invalid. I've already pointed out why the last is bunk. The only one that matters, and the one I've consistently recognized, is the third. It's the reason on which all the other analysis is premised.  And it's the only one that permits meaningful consideration in a thread such as this one.

I also hope "revenge" isn't a motivation in this war on the part of Pacifica for personal reasons. I swore to bury the hatchet after DH-NPO. I was a man of my word. When allies asked my opinion of the Order, I refrained from condemning them. When people considered them potential enemies, I stood firm by my word. Brehon was the other half of that contract. I hope he's a man of his word, too.

[HHAYD]

Carry the bickering to another thread please.

 

BTW, CN Wiki's stats haven't been updated since a while.

[jerdge]

Most of that (quality) OOC discussion on the strategy/politics is good for another thread/blog.

 

The part relevant to this thread is whether what happens to the upper tiers of the various alliances involved will have political ramifications that eventually change the situation on the battlefield - e.g. alliances reducing their commitment or even openly ceasing to participate. The Umbrella front was opened by the side that has a top layer disadvantage, thus it could be argued that they knew very well what kind of situation they were going into, and it's unlikely that they're going to have many doubts about it (maybe in the long run?) I have no clue about the other fronts.

 

(Can we do here much more than wildly speculate on this stuff, though?)

[Krashnaia]

(great brick-wall of text)

 

Ok, adressing the important points:

 

1) It's interesting that you talk about the fall in quantity of reps instead of adressing the issue, which is your persistant doctrine to eliminate high tiers and win the upper hand in the tech race. For that goal, dire reps where dictated in Karma and TOP. After those wars gave your bloc the upper hand, as you understood that reps are retarded (they aren't worth the slot usage), and as you began to declare wars with no justification at all, you changed your strategy to just forcing the weaker into curbstomps. Hence the new doctrine, which was to declare wars with no need for CB and force the curbstomped alliances to put their high tiers out of Dove.

 

 

2) You ask people to "take you at your word". However, you also define yourselves as "realists", this "realism" meaning that the road to power must not be hindered by "frivolous" considerations like morals. You expect people to believe your word when it has become a synonim of "double standards". You expect people to "take you at you word" when you have been proven consistently dishonest over the last few years. It's not like we haven't seen your people change policy and the meaning of concepts from one week to another over the last years. You can't expect to declare wars for the LuLz and laught at concepts like casus belli and then expect people to think you are reliable.

 

Sorry, buy actions speak louder than words, and your actions in the last years have been sound enough.

 

 

3) SF/XX did not drag NG into the war by attacking TLR. TLR dragged NG into the war by entering it in the side NPO is fighting against. Are those the actions of alliances fond of their allies? I don't know, but the relationship between NG/TLR and NPO is their own bussiness, and I'm no one to tell them who they have to ally with or how they have to treat their allies. The relationship between the members of Equilibrium are their own bussiness, too. If NPO/DR/SF/XX have any problem with the way each one is acting, that's a problem for them to talk in private, and reach a compromise (as if Equilibrium brokes, everyone in their coalition loses). You are attemping to spread animosity between the people you are at war with, which I admit is a good stratagem, but just don't try to hide it under "morals" or any other lame justification.

 

 

4) You say that you wanted reconciliation between the Order and the Kingdom... until it suits you to drag them under the cart and roll them again. Some years ago, SF/XX were your best friends, when you needed them to kill NPO and TOP, and then shuddently become your most depised enemies. A year ago, Mjolnir were your best friends, and now you have stated your hatred for most of former MJ. Given your past actions, the most reasonable expectation is that it will not take long for NPO to be labeled again as depised enemy. Specially now that they have proven to be willing to ally with your enemies and declare war on your block.

 

You say that what best suited you was to roll SF/XX-AI/DR. Ok, then of my two previously stated scenarios, the one correct is SF/XX getting stomped again, and NPO getting stomped after them, and not the other way around. Excellent. Still, it's best for NPO to strike at you now alongside SF/XX/DR/AI, instead of wasting their pixels stomping the latter alongside you, and then getting themselves stomped by you and SF/XX-AI/DR.

 

...

 

But the best part of you bricklayer of text is how you are playing meek, now that your warmonging has lead you to your current predicament. Yeah, Ardus, Prince of Peace. Come on, man, get real.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Krashnaia

[ArneS]

How about you just fuck off to another thread?

[Charles Stuart]

Nobody dragged NG anywhere.

[Daimos]

double post.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Daimos

[Daimos]

I suddenly don't understand? Where did I ever say I don't understand any part of the war against us? If you wish to dispute me, please do so, but I must ask that you not dispute that illusory me you appear to have constructed.
 

As I recall it, reparation demands plummeted tremendously after BiPolar, after DH was formed. As I remember it, the only reps that have been paid was that token chump change GOONS has a bad habit of wasting its breath on. Those were hardly dire.
 

The reasonable expectation was to take us at our word. The political capital necessary to launch an aggressive war was spent to the last dime in the Dave War, much to my chagrin. In its immediate wake we swore to peace. Everybody knew we couldn't project after blowing our load and ticking off enough alliances that you'd need to take off your shoes to count them. So that's exactly what we did. I came swaggering out here, puffed up my chest, and heralded in a new era of peace while your own men pointed out it was really the only option available to us, especially given the very proactive rebuke among you and yours from the start of the Dave War.

That said, what y'all could reasonably expect of us and what was in your interest are two different things. You found it in your interest to attack Umbrella. That's fine. But it isn't some moral crusade. It's just the same old, same old, the game of nations. Although, given how much I actually wanted to believe in reconciliation between the Order and the Kingdom so we could have some new alignments in the world, I'm a little disappointed.

 

I'm stating quite plainly what I see. I see NPO members deriding NADC and SF/XX attacking TLR to draw in NG. Those are not the actions of alliances fond of all other members of the coalition. I never said they'd bail out early, only that the war would end when its costs clearly outweighed its benefit. Unless y'all have a specific set of numbers posted somewhere in your coordinating channels (if you have any), your "victory" condition is fluid. The point is to do as much damage to DoomCo before hitting that invisible point I described before. Your ability to get along with one another changes where that point falls. I don't think so low of you as to believe that I'm going to wake up Valentine's Day and see peace treaties thrown up.

To the contrary, I really try to resist the temptation to look down on the competition. That leads to sloppy work.
 

What am I going to do, spook up an army to engulf everybody outside TOP, MK, GOONS, and Umbrella? You can't claim to break us and enshrine us as what goes bump in the night at the same time; that is internally inconsistent. Non Grata still likes NPO, as do certain members of C&G; I imagine they'd have my head with some quickness if I tried to destroy their ally like that. NPO ain't Sparta or MHA; I can't just go around asking people to cancel on them. The atmosphere doesn't really permit that.

You can't really deny that we're in a tripartite world at the moment. Hell, we're precariously close to being flatly multipolar. A world like that breeds uncertainty, though I'll admit I deliberately overstated its early arrival to prod our foes in the lead up to this war. Uncertainty breeds caution and permits little rolling.

 

Lastly--attacking NPO would be beneficial to SF/XX and I hate those guys (and them us).  Attacking SF/XX would be beneficial to DR/AI and I hate those guys (and them us).  Even without all the other considerations, that's reason enough to not go ganking people.
 

In conclusion, I'm a realist. A successful alliance measures, calculates, and executes. An alliance that wishes to fail persists in a war longer than necessary for frivolous reasons like "revenge." It may play a role in dictating what one's long term goals are, but it has little place in the actual conduct of a war. The first two reasons are invalid. I've already pointed out why the last is bunk. The only one that matters, and the one I've consistently recognized, is the third. It's the reason on which all the other analysis is premised.  And it's the only one that permits meaningful consideration in a thread such as this one.

I also hope "revenge" isn't a motivation in this war on the part of Pacifica for personal reasons. I swore to bury the hatchet after DH-NPO. I was a man of my word. When allies asked my opinion of the Order, I refrained from condemning them. When people considered them potential enemies, I stood firm by my word. Brehon was the other half of that contract. I hope he's a man of his word, too.

 

NPO leadership truly has nothing against MK and GOONS.  It's just unfortunate you are tied to Umbrella.

[Daimos]

How about you just fuck off to another thread?

 

Agreed.  Thread badly needs a Vasily update.

[Krashnaia]

(do you recall those past times in which one could delete his own posts? oh, good times long gone)

Edited February 8, 2013 by Krashnaia

[shahenshah]

To "stay relevant for the future" the side with less high-tech nations, less-teched nations and lower "warchests" will be interested to not allow the side with more high-tech nations, more-teched nations and higher "warchests" to retain their advantage.

It's possible to take bigger nations down one by one (or a few at a time) from below, forcing them to deplete their treasuries, if one side has a large pool of attackers that can rotate and suffer a smaller collective long-term damage. It's possible to prevent the high-tech nations from remaining ahead in the tech race, if one side can force them to use their slots for outgoing aid and/or it can successfully cut their tech supply lines - thus hampering their tech dealing (the more numerous side can at the same time restore an acceptable tech market). If the less top-heavy side has enough nations and time it will eventually necessarily win.
As you hinted, however, the tech-heavy nations may be numerous enough to render the whole affair bloody and long enough that divisions among their enemies can emerge, eventually forcing the situation to reach another kind of end. The less top-heavy side has still anyway an interest in going on as long as they can, to reduce their disadvantage as much as they can.

I don't know what's the morale and/or political unity in either side, but neither of you has the air of breaking up soon. It can be a really long affair before it comes to a close.

Generally as in the past, the longer the enemy has persisted, longer the side or coalition stays united, politically and otherwise. So the very real threat of upper tier dominance will remain a point of political convergence for various actors in EQ. 

[Natan]

NPO leadership truly has nothing against MK and GOONS.  It's just unfortunate you are tied to Umbrella.

 

Umbrella leadership truly has nothing against the body republic of the order. It's just unfortunate you are led by a liar.

[Daimos]

Disregard.  Not the right forum.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Daimos

[Ardus]

Words that are ultimately off topic that I can't respond to here.

I'm stating what I actually believe in an analytic  OOC thread.  If you want to lose your cool because you think I'm Satan, that's your loss.  If I were working in loyal service to any of the Orders, or any other alliance in CN, I'd offer the exact same analysis.  I'd respond fully in private, but it'd be no more productive than huffing paint, so g'day to you.

[Krashnaia]

I may consider you Satan, or I may not, but that's not my point, because I'm not judging your policy from a moral point of view. I'm just pointing out the limits of DH's "realpolitik". And my points are, basically:

 

1) One can't follow a consistent doctrine of dominating the high tier through elimination of any non-close-allied high tier and then pretend to convince third parties that ganging up to eliminate your high tier is bad for their interests.

 

2) One can't follow a consistent doctrine of "the interests of my alliance trump any moral considerations" and then pretend people to take your word at face value.

 

And last, but most importantly:

 

3) One can't pretend to have been following a consistent doctrine of teaming with bloc A to stomp bloc B, then teaming with bloc B to stomp bloc A, then repeat... and now pretend to convince bloc A and/or bloc B that they should keep teaming with you against each other instead of joining forces to take on your bloc.

 

 

But, well, we would be going in circles if we keep this debate up. You are doing your work, and I understand it.

 

BTW, maybe at this moment NPO/DR are taking more casualties (I don't know, from Gopher's statics I'd say AI is taking the bigest hit in the Equilibrium's side), but when (if) the war reaches the point in which the high-tier bar has been lowered under 100k NS, then probably SF/XX will be the ones taking the blunt of the fight.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Proest]

Text here.

The problem with your statement is that you link the actions of Umbrella carrying out an internal tradition against a rogue nation of ours that was attacking Anarchy Incorporated with the past deeds of Doom House vs. New Pacific Order & Co., your statement could not be any more off base than it is at that point.

 

Let's get the traditional cards in a counter-argument off the table first: No, I am not excusing any past wars Doom House as a collective entity, Umbrella, Mushroom Kingdom and Goon Order Of Negligence and Sadism may have carried out by themselves or in tandem in separate engagements. No, I am not arguing 'might makes right' or 'might makes wrong' or any other variation of the same. No, I am not arguing about tactics.

 

Quite frankly, I am rather tired of the beating of the dead horse here, by all sides of the spectrum in this realm. And, quite frankly, I don't care if the opposing side disagrees with me, that's the beauty of not having to care.

 

However, here are some facts that the folks on the opposite like to ignore:

i) Blood In Blood Out (BIBO) is a tradition that Umbrella has unofficially upheld for quite awhile (sometimes not, sometimes in full force) against those that agree to it

ii) Attacking Puppets was coordinated within Umbrella as a purely BIBO action and was meant to last for the traditional time period

iii) Attacking Puppets was not meant as a slight towards Anarchy Incorporated; however, the lot on the other side wanted it to be as such (which is cool)

iv) The war was started against Umbrella on false pretenses which were later clarified as false by Brehon himself as just wanting war (which is again, cool)

v) Nobody actually means most of anything they ever say in the political world here, which is the essence of politics anyway

vi) None of the past actions of Umbrella or Doom House actually have anything to do with the current war, despite people trying to link it as a revenge

 

You see, the thing about politics, you have to be able to successfully sell your version of a story and make yourself believable. We all know the current war has nothing actually to do with past wars or even to do with Puppets himself; the war against Umbrella was just an opportunity -- which I again state, is totally cool. I don't actually mind that fact at all to be really honest.

 

But to argue that it has anything to do with the past and not to do with just simple opportunity is rather disingenuous.

 

I find the heavy irony in the many threads/posts around here to be so ironic that anyone reading them has had their iron supplement for the year. The "coalition" fighting against Umbrella and company use one pretense to declare war, then throw in additional reasons (saying it's karma, etc), prove the pretense was a lie, then call out Doom House for those very same actions in the past. Again, I actually think war for simple opportunity is pretty cool and don't mind it at all. Because I really hate politics and the lying and fake friendships that goes with it.

 

But let's call a spade a spade here; this is the Ironic War. Not the Equilibrium War.

 

The actions of the lot of you are incredibly hilarious and the attempt at clever word usage and dense verbal attacks make everyone look less than intelligent.

 

Prior to this war, Umbrella made serious diplomatic attempts with Brehon and we wanted to try and do things in a way that was unique to us in the foreign affairs realm, we reached out, we did things we thought would be good. In the end, war is the mainstay of the realm and it's what most always want, so war seems inevitable unless people truly agree with you.

 

Putting our often playful internal attitude aside, I've personally found that when our government says something, we generally mean what we say. And it's up to the foreign entities that be to interpret and engage it with an open mindset.

 

But let's at least stop one thing here, shall we? Let's stop pretending this current war is anything but an opportunistic attack on an alliance that many saw as a peace mode loving, stats hugging alliance and an opportunity to have some fun.

 

For the record, I am not Umbrella Government. I am merely a member and hold diplomatic positions.

 

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Regards,

Cuba

[ChairmanHal]

You know, I don't think the pre-Karma NPO expected it to get rolled... Or the defunct alliances that ended up on pre-Karma NPO's to-kill list....

 

And I think that may happen to you folks sooner or later.

 

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

 

[Krashnaia]

stuff

 

Do you really think that none of the past actions of Umbrella or DH have anything to do with the current war?

 

Do you honestly believe that past wars have nothing to do with the current one?

 

Do you genuinely believe that you are facing an opportunistic attack, and not a coalition that has been building up over months of preparation?

 

 

Sorry if what I'm about to say sounds disrespectful, but... what you are smoking looks like really good stuff. So I don't mind if we smoke the peace pipe now, as long as you put some of that stuff in it. :awesome:

[Proest]

Do you really think that none of the past actions of Umbrella or DH have anything to do with the current war?

 

Do you honestly believe that past wars have nothing to do with the current one?

 

Do you genuinely believe that you are facing an opportunistic attack, and not a coalition that has been building up over months of preparation?

 

 

Sorry if what I'm about to say sounds disrespectful, but... what you are smoking looks like really good stuff. So I don't mind if we smoke the peace pipe now, as long as you put some of that stuff in it. :awesome:

It's a wonderful peace pipe; my people have been smoking it since the 17th of January. You too can indulge in the peace pipe by joining Umbrella! :v

 

The above aside, I believe historically speaking, there of course has been resentment by others for the actions Umbrella and/or Doom House have taken against them or their friends, yes. However, politically speaking, the current war was just opportunistic. Which as I said in my prior post, I don't mind.

 

I realise that at some point, everyone "gets theirs" in terms of payback and karma and such. Umbrella did make diplomatic efforts towards other alliances in a bid to be our own entity and plot our own future -- obviously the lead up to this war seemed inevitable as December gave way to January and people wanted a war, some how, some way.

 

What I'm simply saying though is that the common throw around by the opposition that it's payback is on one hand, fine. But it smells of hypocritical actions when taken in context of how the war started. Honestly though, at this point, I don't think even the reasoning is beginning to matter to most of anyone anymore. I'm just the type that likes to have clear reasons for the events that transpire.

 

As for the build up, well, that was rather obvious. Everyone builds up before the end of the year in anticipation of the annual winter war.