The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Neo-imperialism and moralism correlate well because in the mind of the imperialist his own actions are always justified while his opponent is always cruel and immoral. It stems from fundamental misconceptions about international relationships, and an inability to analyze situations from an objective point of view. Through moralism, the imperialist attempts to conceal the inherent contradictions in his system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Well, congratulations on closing this front. Cheers to all involved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 The funny thing is, Farrin offered us tech reps as well as a much lengthier aid restriction at one point, we declined.Agree with the terms or not, an aid restriction on less than 10% of an alliance's nations doesn't strike me as all that harsh in the grand scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbasmehdi Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Everyone is a secret moralist at heart until they find themselves on the winning side and become sadistic. One thing i can tell you, i wouldn't care if someone imposed terms on me, when i imposed on them, but the fact is people crying about terms when they didn't get any. These guys crying simply said they won't support terms on any side. So this is what you call hypocrisy. Changing opinion as soon as their war ended. If NPO is gonna say they will impose terms on me next war, I would not call them hypocrite nor sadistic. I would consider it what goes around comes around. Edited February 12, 2014 by abbasmehdi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Regarding CCC's "white peace," I would argue that one should exit the war when it was clear that your allies were defended. By staying on until final peace is signed, and only signing final peace after your allies demands were met, CCC is clearly party to these deed. Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. With respect to members of the oA coalition wishing us luck with rebuilding, I can only take it as either extreme cluelessness or smug maliciousness, much like telling a homeless person to "enjoy the rain." It is not luck that Pacifica needs to rebuild, but aid slots... slots embargoed by these terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Polar coalition: fruitless deeds of darkness. Edited February 12, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I'm not sure where all this faux outrage is coming from. Terms have been given to alliances just enterring because of MD level treaties for as long as I've been here, since 2006. Get over yourself and get off your high horse. We had finally gotten rid of the damn things and all of a sudden you geniuses decide to bring them back around. So that's fine, I'm off my anti-term high-horse now, you have converted me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 The funny thing is, Farrin offered us tech reps as well as a much lengthier aid restriction at one point, we declined.Agree with the terms or not, an aid restriction on less than 10% of an alliance's nations doesn't strike me as all that harsh in the grand scheme of things. Less than 10% of an alliance's nations staying in peace mode doesn't seem like the kind of egregious behavior that would warrant punitive terms.Farrin's offer was responsive to what your side claimed their concerns were about these nations (that they were a reservior of NS and tech), while preserving what we insisted was important to us about these nations (their ability to send cash aid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I see nothing stopping members leaving NPO to join other alliances for the duration of terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaskowicz Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I do not think anyone could congratulate peace with this terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Were you even here for Equilibrium? I mean, I get that you're trying to pull a ~propaganda~ move here, but you might as well at least attempt to inject some sense into it all. This coalition wasn't "brilliant" like Tywin tries to pull it, but it was hardly terrible either. Middle of the road, really. Yes I was here for that hot mess but, this one made that one look well run and planned. And what propaganda? I am glad to see NSO and NG get burned and as a bonus Nor as well. And I do not even know who runs NPO anymore. That does not change the fact it was a complete and total cluster fuck of an effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 We had finally gotten rid of the damn things and all of a sudden you geniuses decide to bring them back around. So that's fine, I'm off my anti-term high-horse now, you have converted me. Good to know, hopefully this means you won't mind when you get them next war. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yes I was here for that hot mess but, this one made that one look well run and planned. And what propaganda? I am glad to see NSO and NG get burned and as a bonus Nor as well. And I do not even know who runs NPO anymore. That does not change the fact it was a complete and total cluster $%&@ of an effort. This war was one of the worst I've experienced in the beginning, it settled down and the coalition came together to at least a working relationship in the second and third month. EQ from my standpoint was the opposite. Started off alright, but deteriorated and then blew up towards the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link Gaetz Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Less than 10% of an alliance's nations staying in peace mode doesn't seem like the kind of egregious behavior that would warrant punitive terms. It isn't or there is egregious behavior all over the place. That was just an excuse, and a very weak one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 This war was one of the worst I've experienced in the beginning, it settled down and the coalition came together to at least a working relationship in the second and third month. EQ from my standpoint was the opposite. Started off alright, but deteriorated and then blew up towards the end. You really have no right to complain about coalition disunity given the AA you lead, but you're not entirely wrong so I'll give you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I, for one, am astonished this thread made it four pages before it became about something completely different...I quit reading there. Anyway, congrats to all parties, for coming through a long tough war. o/All involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) This war was one of the worst I've experienced in the beginning, it settled down and the coalition came together to at least a working relationship in the second and third month. EQ from my standpoint was the opposite. Started off alright, but deteriorated and then blew up towards the end. It was a much different approach to warfare. Brehon relied on a reactionary approach with his coalition, acting in response to a situation. It is easy for that sort of war to start well because everyone sees the objective. Fighting Mushqaeda went along similar lines, reacting to and containing a situation which everyone could see happening. The approach in this war was reversed: It began as an idea within a small group of people, and was slowly and carefully spread and implemented. When the hammer blow came, it was quick and decisive, and a quick look around revealed that resistance was futile. This is the higher form of warfare, but also the one most difficult to implement. This could be considered a revolutionary war from some perspectives, since it essentially toppled the hegemonic culture of white peace. With MK out of the way, along with their dominant ideology, this war became possible. Edited February 12, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 This war was one of the worst I've experienced in the beginning, it settled down and the coalition came together to at least a working relationship in the second and third month. EQ from my standpoint was the opposite. Started off alright, but deteriorated and then blew up towards the end. Nah, the scapegoating began fairly early on in Equilibrium. It just so happened that at least some of those scape goats kept the staggers on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xantha Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 o/ to Peace and Pacifica o/ to CCC for being honorable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 So many tears over so little. Bob has become soft and self-indulgent. Harden up princesses, none of these terms are anything like the terms received by Polaris and others over time and the notion that it cripples Pacifica is pure fantasy. Most of you commenting seem fixated on issues that have nothing to do with why the terms were imposed and a demonstrated track record of swinging your ''morality'' to whatever argument you think most appropriate to support your coalition or position. I am genuinely embarrassed for some of you, trying to argue that the imposition of terms and very very lenient and innocuous terms as these somehow sets the evolutionary process back to the Stone Age of Bob. Pacifica received its terms for a reason, the reason is patently obvious even to you, and whilst I appreciate the notion of needing propaganda and politics in every discourse, at some stage your statements just become a pathetic parody of any political purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 With respect to members of the oA coalition wishing us luck with rebuilding, I can only take it as either extreme cluelessness or smug maliciousness, much like telling a homeless person to "enjoy the rain." It is not luck that Pacifica needs to rebuild, but aid slots... slots embargoed by these terms. Good luck with rebuilding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruler the White Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Regarding CCC's "white peace," I would argue that one should exit the war when it was clear that your allies were defended. By staying on until final peace is signed, and only signing final peace after your allies demands were met, CCC is clearly party to these deed. Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. With respect to members of the oA coalition wishing us luck with rebuilding, I can only take it as either extreme cluelessness or smug maliciousness, much like telling a homeless person to "enjoy the rain." It is not luck that Pacifica needs to rebuild, but aid slots... slots embargoed by these terms. Hello sir. First, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful response to our actions, whether you agree with them or not. Secondly, I believe that the reasons for the CCC's staying in the war until this point can be summarized in the following ways: 1) We wished to ensure that our treaty obligations were fulfilled to our allies in the most satisfactory manner possible. 2) Our government hoped to gain, if terms were obligatory, the most lenient terms agreeable to the coalition as possible, as is our way as an alliance. The most effective way to influence the negotiations, therefore, was to be party to them. That said, you are correct. We are party to these terms, as we were party to this war. It is an unfortunate aspect of politics and coalition warfare that there is such a thing as "guilt by association", at least in the eyes of our "enemies" (a term I use lightly). And we regret that. Indeed, we would see all wars fought honorably and end in white peace, but such is not the case in the world of today. Instead, we must do the best we can, as all people, and nations, do. Thank you for your time. (OOC: Also, your singing is excellent. Really.) Edited February 12, 2014 by Ruler the White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Kill or be killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Hopefully Pacifica learned a lesson here. When you show mercy to your enemies, it's often paid back with a knife. Topolarella do it properly, get your enemy down, you put them down for a while. This is exactly the price you paid for the fast, white peace last war that so many were against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 1) Much as I love members on the other side, the idea that NPO was some sweet merciful entity that waived away any terms on Umbrella et al. is a lie. Been said over and over again. Regardless of these terms or not, the farce that NPO has no desire to ever see its enemies hurt and tried (and failed to enact that) to stop it needs to end. Seriously. 2) The only thing that ends from this entire 10 pages or argument is people promising retribution in the future. That just means that at heart, we are all red in claw and long in tooth and want blood. Argue moralism, but wearing it like a cloak is disgusting as you literally promise revenge. Morality is not revenge, it is exact justice and you are promising unlimited escalation. If people want to "punish" others, you only further prove the point that the decision was valid. The fact that NPO and others pushed for far harsher terms in EQ is what started this cycle. Just because people *failed* in that, doesn't mean it wasn't pushed for. This isn't some new phase in warfare. This is someone doing a limited action with the opposition promising total war in response. The fact you call that justice just shows you the worse for it. Again, I argue not about morality of terms, only that the response should make you ashamed of calling escalation "justice". Call a spade a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.