Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 To start with keeping FAN down [removed for stupidity] showed people what would happen if they whent up against NPO. Now it just shows how sad it is when people cant let go of their grudge. Where did you get that silly idea? FAN were attacked because they plotted our destruction, little different from the recent Jarheads war. We then gave them a relatively quick peace out of the kindness of whatever is in the region usually reserved for a heart, and they proceeded to spit all over it with their systematic violation of the terms and subsequent verbal attacks against our membership (attacks of such a disgusting character that they saw a number of their membership (including their leader) banned). We then went into a lengthy period where they continued to attack (militarily and as aforementioned), spy and foretell (however poorly) our downfall. Now, one can accept that an enemy will attack you, but one cannot accept that you should give peace to an ongoing enemy that is intent on your destruction. Why would I give peace to someone who only intends to grow larger and restart the war? If I am ambushed on the street and happen to lay a good punch, do I wait for the criminal to recover and come back at me, or do I stick the boot in to ensure my own security? Indeed, I would argue that the only 'moral' position is continued war until such a time as FAN prove themselves no longer intent on damaging our alliance. Perhaps when they withdraw all their (supposed) spies and attempt to reach a peace honestly we will consider their plea. Until then we will take their two-faced moralising as what it is -- propaganda that they would have laughed at (and indeed, did laugh at) before they found themselves the destroyed rather than the destroyer, designed to fool you into supporting their cause so they can rebuild and attack. You may consider us to be brutal in our execution of threats to our security -- and I would have it no other way -- but I would sincerely hope that you don't consider us idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 If somebody had me in handcuffs I'd try to strangle them with them too. Perfectly natural reaction. I'd try this first though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKXvKJKje4o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Then I would keep you in handcuffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Then I would keep you in handcuffs. You don't see the nonsensical endless chain there? They're being kept in chains, because they want to strangle you with the chains. And they want to strangle you with chains because you've kept them in chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 FAN has certainly proved your war against them is impossible to win, and impossible for them to lose, as long as they exist they're "winning".this is true, because it's not like NPO is going to give a crap about public opinion anyway. FAN was reduced to a shadow of its former self at the hands of Pacifica. They have had close to the maximum amount of devestation -- that the game mechanics permit -- inflicted upon them. I would hardly consider that a victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 They wanted to (and tried to) strangle us before they were in chains. Important point there, as I outlined in my earlier post. And regardless, it would still be rather foolish of us to unlock the chains and allow them to try and strangle us again -- especially since history demonstrates that FAN isn't the fee-love commune that some here seem to wish they were. The prerequisite for undoing the chains is always, in any sensible situation, the negation of that desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 They wanted to (and tried to) strangle us before they were in chains. Important point there, as I outlined in my earlier post.And regardless, it would still be rather foolish of us to unlock the chains and allow them to try and strangle us again -- especially since history demonstrates that FAN isn't the fee-love commune that some here seem to wish they were. The prerequisite for undoing the chains is always, in any sensible situation, the negation of that desire. By defending them selfs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 What? They tried to strangle us while we were allies, and Mpol (before he was banned) admitted that it was their long term plan. If you refer to the second paragraph, then the important word there is "desire." We have given peace to many alliances who were engaged in hostilities against us, when we felt that they met the prerequisite that they would no longer seek our destruction -- obviously history has taught us to be cautious about what they believe of other alliances. You too would do well to look beyond FAN's contradictory, hypocritical, nonsensical rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 And regardless, it would still be rather foolish of us to unlock the chains and allow them to try and strangle us again -- especially since history demonstrates that FAN isn't the fee-love commune that some here seem to wish they were. Agreed. I would rather not see them freed of NPO's will but rather against NPO's will. It would make it that much more delicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You will never find common ground with Vladimir because he is arguing from a purely utilitarian point of view, whereas you are arguing from a moral one. In his world view, keeping hostile people down indefinitely is the best way to ensure that they will never be a threat to you – and I don't think you can argue against that. In yours, it is wrong to keep people in perpetual war – and he does not have an answer to that because it is simply not relevant to his view of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 What? They tried to strangle us while we were allies, and Mpol (before he was banned) admitted that it was their long term plan. If you refer to the second paragraph, then the important word there is "desire." We have given peace to many alliances who were engaged in hostilities against us, when we felt that they met the prerequisite that they would no longer seek our destruction -- obviously history has taught us to be cautious about what they believe of other alliances. You too would do well to look beyond FAN's contradictory, hypocritical, nonsensical rhetoric. All I see is an alliance that as been through more then any other alliance and has survived 3000 nations, I know when peace needs to be reached. Let the past be past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursarkar E Creed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Uh ... no. I think they're fine right where they are. Just imagine how peaceful their economies are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) In yours, it is wrong to keep people in perpetual war – and he does not have an answer to that because it is simply not relevant to his view of the world. You're quite right as usual Bob Janova. However one could argue that with the new innovative modes of combat being utilised by Vox and FAN, their methods tend to be most effective in their current state. Whereas in normal circumstances they would pose much less a threat. Edited March 31, 2009 by Blacky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursarkar E Creed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You're quite right as usual Bob Janova.However one could argue that with the new innovative modes of combat being utilised by Vox and FAN, their methods tend to be most effective in their current state. Whereas in normal circumstances they would pose much less a threat. Yeah, who doesn't love a good fight in peace mode? Can't get much better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 All I see is an alliance that as been through more then any other alliance and has survived 3000 nations, I know when peace needs to be reached. Let the past be past. I remember a similar debate I had with Generalissimo (of ODN fame) in another world (although the debate, which took place on an alliance board, was quickly deleted to save his blushes). There too many were against what the Order did, and there too the attacks would be refuted one by one; but there too the majority would let these refutation fly in one ear and out the other, because what they 'knew' was right in spite of the evidence. It was right by virtue of them learning that it was right and nothing would, or could, change their minds. I'm reminded of many bearded old men and their wise words, from "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" to "a political struggle is in its essence a struggle of interests and of forces, not of arguments." Of course, many of those hard-headed other-worldly figures ultimately came to change their minds through their own very real experiences, and as a result of leaving the comfort of their 'force' and running straight into the brick wall of reality they embraced Pacifica. I hope one day that you will do likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yeah, who doesn't love a good fight in peace mode? That line became overused about a year ago. But, if you want to act all tough, then release the beast that is FAN and prove that you're not afraid Chicken.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Hey they must be doing something right. They've got NPO shaking in their jackboots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 FAN should most defiantly be released from their eternal war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursarkar E Creed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) That line became overused about a year ago. But, if you want to act all tough, then release the beast that is FAN and prove that you're not afraid Chicken.... And you call my lines overused. Hey they must be doing something right. They've got NPO shaking in their jackboots. Yes, we're shaking because of that peace mode ridden thunderous war machine that is FAN. :lol: Edited March 31, 2009 by Ursarkar E Creed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) They wanted to (and tried to) strangle us before they were in chains. Important point there, as I outlined in my earlier post.And regardless, it would still be rather foolish of us to unlock the chains and allow them to try and strangle us again -- especially since history demonstrates that FAN isn't the fee-love commune that some here seem to wish they were. The prerequisite for undoing the chains is always, in any sensible situation, the negation of that desire. Oh noes, they didn't like you? That's sad, but I'm sure the hostility wasn't as intense as it was after you'd attempted to knock them out of existence. If you do not enjoy alliances wishing to plot your downfall, perhaps you should stop giving them reasons to do so? YOU attacked them when they thought they were under your protection and YOU have kept them from developing as an alliance and enjoying the game normally ever since. YOUR actions have fostered bitterness and resentment, therefore the onus is on YOU to right your wrongs and reverse the trend of extended bitterness and grudgery. Frankly I'm sick and tired of you trying to pin the lack of peace on FAN - you're in control and you can take the initiative if you wish. If you can be the bigger man and disregard the ridiculous lines about the 780k NS alliance wanting to kill your 22m NS alliance in favour of a genuine desire to move past long-standing hatreds it could set a good example from the top: no more underhanded tactics, no more squashing communities out of the game and a willingness to embrace wars and fun with no unhealthy level of hostility at the end of it all. FAN may forgive you for your actions if you own up and admit that you were wrong to take things so seriously, and I'm sure they wouldn't waste their chance of a new start by engaging you lot again. All it needs is for you to swallow your pride and admit that you were wrong to attack FAN when they were unarmed, and maybe an apology for ruining their gaming experience for so long. Is that asking too much? Edited March 31, 2009 by Aimee Mann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Uh ... no. I think they're fine right where they are.Just imagine how peaceful their economies are. Yeah, who doesn't love a good fight in peace mode?Can't get much better than that. Yes, we're shaking because of that peace mode ridden thunderous war machine that is FAN. :lol: That was so clever it was worth repeating twice, wasn't it? As for FAN, they had no desire to go against the NPO after the first war. And yes, despite the myth FAN was quite good with keeping with the terms. The majority of the violators were ghosts, whom FAN had no control over. They did ask the NPO to handle them, however, for one reason or another nothing ever came to pass (I remember similar issues with the NPO failing to protect FAN nations under attack as well). Anyway, yes, the violations. Most were ghosts, and the ones who were not ghosts were soldier count violators. Let's take a look at that term shall we. The term stated that FAN could keep only enough soldiers to keep their nations happy. Of course this is a rather vague term, seeing as how that ranges from 20-80% of the population. Most FAN violators, to my knowledge, had 20-25%. There were only a few outliers in the 70 percentile. So yes, that's my take on it. Although I hope I may have shed some light on this, this is not my argument to argue. Regardless, I do wish to see FAN have peace eventually. I do believe over a year is enough, and that is not including the first war. Edited March 31, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zizka Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 And you call my lines overused. Yes, we're shaking because of that peace mode ridden thunderous war machine that is FAN. :lol: You can't seriously mock them as irrelevant one moment and the next claim that you won't release them because they pose a threat to you without engaging in an amazingly high level of doublethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 NPO won't listen to this. But it is interesting how many people in established alliances are agreeing with public calls like this one and the anti-EZI one. People are prepared to make politically controversial public stands once again.Also, is this not IC? Because many of the alliances are gone which would result in trolling/flaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursarkar E Creed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You can't seriously mock them as irrelevant one moment and the next claim that you won't release them because they pose a threat to you without engaging in an amazingly high level of doublethink. Sarcasm my good sir, learn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Sarcasm my good sir, learn it. You appear to be a party-line spouting drone. We get it, FAN have a low NS LOLOLOL. Can you please give it a rest now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts