Haflinger Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I believe at this point FAN is only continuing hostile actions against NPO because of the endless state of war they have been thrown into. That factual assessment is key. IMO FAN was always a heavily pro-espionage alliance, and if released from warfare, would be unlikely to suddenly reform, given how much they used spies before the FAN-WUT war. If you're right, of course, then NPO would be better served by letting them surrender. Vladimir has indicated that he doesn't think you're right either, altho maybe not for the same reasons as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm actually with Vlad and Dopp on this one. FAN played their hand poorly, and have continued to make their own situation worse. It's their own job to fix things, not their opponent's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The Order generally doesn't involve itself where its interests aren't endangered -- we're not the world police. So if Alliance A wants to attack alliance B, and neither alliance is linked to the Order, then it is left between Alliances A and B. But if we take the alliances to be linked to us, then it of course depends on the form of the links. if Enemy A attacks Ally A, then the chances are that we will respond. If Ally A attacks Enemy A, then the chances are (barring circumstances that would lead to damage to the Order) that we will 'let it slide'. ...... This is truly a great statement in many, many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I should emphasis, before anyone gets the wrong idea about what I advocate, that the main disagreement I have with Ejrazz's assessment is that I think he only views strategy as considering the immediate and obvious benefits. Thus betraying an ally for immediate gain is always a good idea, and so forth. A good strategist goes far, far deeper than that. The example par excellence, in my opinion, is Philosopher's Two Theories of Morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm actually with Vlad and Dopp on this one. FAN played their hand poorly, and have continued to make their own situation worse. It's their own job to fix things, not their opponent's. It seems to me they can only fix it by disappearing, making this situation kind of a paradox: NPO is telling FAN they can only exist by not existing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Then you're asking NPO to let up a bit. Why should they? They don't owe it to anyone, certainly not FAN.This is what's wrong with the world. Everyone is always looking to others for help in changing what they would like to see changed. If you want to see change, do something about it. I...completely agree *shudders* As much as I hate to validate Blacky's prediction (a few pages back), it seems like it really is up to the rest of the world to force this change to occur. Pacifica's not budging on the issue and I don't see why they would or should allow a perceived threat against them to develop unfettered. So until it's no longer in their self-interest (or ability) to keep FAN down, they're going to keep FAN down. It's up to FAN and her advocates to prove that NPO'd be better off letting the issue go...or to bring about the conditions that make that position true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 If you want to go deeper I'd imagine they're doing far less damage to you now than they would be once those 71 nations that seem to enjoy sticking around get Manhatten Projects. They're already up to 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut 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. This is the best description of how things are and will be going in this thread. Now the question is, for most of you people reading this - do you want to live in Vladimir's world and help them enforce things by consolidating their political position (see: permanent-ZI for an alliance, permanent-viceroyship for another, threatening people with p-ZI unless they get out of peace mode, keeping alliances in a diplomatical lock for baseless grudges, etc etc.) or do you want to live in a world you're fighting to create for your own values and ideas whatever they are. I guess most people find it easier to feed themselves on the crumbs off the political table called "safety" (or at least an illusion of it) then fight towards making something of their own. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It seems to me they can only fix it by disappearing, making this situation kind of a paradox: NPO is telling FAN they can only exist by not existing at all. On the next section: yes, alliances change. This is why I said that we would likely give FAN peace if the evidence suggested that they honestly had. This is not a plea to give them peace either, just people giving their opinions on it. Title: "Bring the Boys Back Home" description: "A plea to NPO and a tribute to the fallen" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 If they have a strategic mind and actually want to accomplish their goals (unless said goal is something silly like 'destroy the Order'), then they will indeed join the glorious utopia I call Rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Stopping the acts of war while you keep them at war? Why do people continue to say this, it's the single stupidest thing I've heard about the entire situation. If you want peace with them, give them peace, don't expect things to go one way. I can here talk for the sentiments that I witness in the MHA only. FAN spied on our forums when we weren't even at war; they are still doing it along with Vox and their party line is that they will continue to do it, as we're allied with the NPO and intelligence from us is therefore "valuable" to them (this last thing being quite silly if you ask me: it's not that Moo routinely posts polls in the MHA headquarters asking what to do next... But whatever floats their boat.) Considering that FAN committed aggressions against us, they continue to do so and they refuse to even acknowledge the situation, I really don't see how you can claim that "we keep them at war". If they want peace they shouldn't be attacking others in the first place, and should at least stop doing it when they find themselves in bad waters. I surely would be happy to go past those old grudges, but not as long as the aggressors continue to be hostile, maybe showing friendly faces but with knifes hidden behind their backs. If this is their choice I prefer them cornered, isolated, forced in Peace Mode and basically "untouchable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It seems to me they can only fix it by disappearing, making this situation kind of a paradox: NPO is telling FAN they can only exist by not existing at all. Speaking as the leader of the alliance that was first perceived as the reincarnation of the NPO's ancestral enemy, and then proceeded to nuke the hell out of them, yet still exist in freedom, there are other ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Title: "Bring the Boys Back Home"description: "A plea to NPO and a tribute to the fallen" Touché Have a read of the posts in the thread though, pretty much all of them are on why FAN should get peace rather than any sort of request. No one here is naive enough to think the latter would have any effect. Edited March 31, 2009 by Kindom of Goon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speaking as the leader of the alliance that was first perceived as the reincarnation of the NPO's ancestral enemy, and then proceeded to nuke the hell out of them, yet still exist in freedom, there are other ways. The trick is nuking the hell out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Have a read of the posts in the thread though, pretty much all of them are on why FAN should get peace rather than any sort of request. No one here is naive enough to think the latter would have any effect. Agreed. Thread didn't lived up to its intended purpose, but turned out to be a constructive debate from both sides (for the most part that is). Edited March 31, 2009 by Branimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Well then, I guess we all see the remaining options on the table for FAN's ultimate release. Moo has been quoted on record saying, FAN needs to get out of peace mode and fight a war first, then peace terms can be discussed. We have never condemned FAN to permanent war, we expect though that they 1) fight the war first 2) we are convinced we and our allies have guarenteed long term security vis-a-vis FAN and aren't just creating a situation where we give FAN a defacto ceasefire to rebuild and counter attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTofAK Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Moo has been quoted on record saying, FAN needs to get out of peace mode and fight a war first, then peace terms can be discussed. We have never condemned FAN to permanent war, we expect though that they 1) fight the war first 2) we are convinced we and our allies have guarenteed long term security vis-a-vis FAN and aren't just creating a situation where we give FAN a defacto ceasefire to rebuild and counter attack. but but white peace... Edited March 31, 2009 by GTTofAK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Then you're asking NPO to let up a bit. Why should they? They don't owe it to anyone, certainly not FAN.This is what's wrong with the world. Everyone is always looking to others for help in changing what they would like to see changed. If you want to see change, do something about it. Although I see how one could think it looks like I'm asking for that. I'm not. I'm counting on them doing nothing of the sort, as thats whats needed at the moment to bring about change in this game. I guess NPO could screw this whole thing up and end PZI, free FAN, free GATO, end secret terms etc etc and all this rhetoric would fall flat on its face. Whos court is the ball in afterall? Edited March 31, 2009 by Paradigm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTofAK Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Whos court is the ball in afterall? Uh FAN's, they have known what they have to do for months. They choose to remain in peace mode, spy and swindle. A white peace is not going to happen. Edited March 31, 2009 by GTTofAK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I don't care to join the debate, so I'll say my piece and leave. I think it would be very interesting if FAN got peace, albeit white peace or with terms. Simply because even after that there would be a strong bit of antagonism between Pacifica & FAN. However, I doubt FAN will ever be given peace in the current state of the world. The Political Landscape would have to be altered completely for that to happen and sadly, there aren't many leaders seeking to change that landscape. In addition, if FAN ever got peace from Pacifica it would probably have heavy terms...in which case I would expect FAN to reject. Even then, FAN would probably have to work out peace agreements with various other alliances who it went to war with at the time of the initial declarations. (Which happened so long ago, I no longer remember who is involved outside Pacifica) That being said, I'm not really opinionated on the issue nor supporting either side of the issue as it's really none of my concern nor does it really pertain to me in the slightest bit; it's just my viewpoint from the fences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Moo has been quoted on record saying, FAN needs to get out of peace mode and fight a war first, then peace terms can be discussed. We have never condemned FAN to permanent war, we expect though that they 1) fight the war first 2) we are convinced we and our allies have guarenteed long term security vis-a-vis FAN and aren't just creating a situation where we give FAN a defacto ceasefire to rebuild and counter attack. So what you want them to do is adopt a set of suicidal tactics that you decree they must, have them take a godawful pounding, and then expect them to be filled with enough goodwill that they will be able to convince you of their good intent? I am not sure what planet things like that actually happen on but its name isn't Bob. It's almost like you're intending on this war lasting forever. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. Being one of the only people around here who sees anything close to the total picture, I think FAN is just about the least of your worries at this point. I warned you a year and a half ago. I hope you were paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The Order generally doesn't involve itself where its interests aren't endangered -- we're not the world police. So if Alliance A wants to attack alliance B, and neither alliance is linked to the Order, then it is left between Alliances A and B. But if we take the alliances to be linked to us, then it of course depends on the form of the links. if Enemy A attacks Ally A, then the chances are that we will respond. If Ally A attacks Enemy A, then the chances are (barring circumstances that would lead to damage to the Order) that we will 'let it slide'.The important point here is that friendship is not merely an emotional attachment, but a strategic link between two alliances. When an alliance starts acting against your interests, friendship is unlikely to strengthen as a result. On the next section: yes, alliances change. This is why I said that we would likely give FAN peace if the evidence suggested that they honestly had. I am stating many different acts, not only primarily composed of physical, but rather verbal actions as well, that is, in my assessment of my ideas pertaining to your former friends and allies. Interests in itself is subjective pertaining to how serious the 'interests' are and how drastically they are evaporating into something else. But this is where friendship occurs, with interests and an emotional attachment. This is the difference between my alliance and NPO, this being NPO has had allies comes and go merely because of your views, while Grämlins have not (Independent treaties, not including the Continuum which we later felt out of place), but as you stated, our interests were not of the same as many others and thus we acted upon this. I have yet to read Philosopher's post since the day it was released a long time ago in which I will reread again, but this is where we will have yet another respectful disagreement. I am sure we have similarities, but I feel the emotional bond outweighs the strategical planning, though my alliance is selective in choosing who they align themselves with, especially when I was Praetor and leader with my brothers. Time to go read his thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It would probably get the NPO some major PR if they let FAN off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njndirish Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 So what you want them to do is adopt a set of suicidal tactics that you decree they must, have them take a godawful pounding, and then expect them to be filled with enough goodwill that they will be able to convince you of their good intent?. Even if the NPO somehow gives FAN white peace, there still will be no good will between the two, just a build up to a third war with FAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTofAK Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Being one of the only people around here who sees anything close to the total picture, I think FAN is just about the least of your worries at this point. I warned you a year and a half ago. I hope you were paying attention. And you have been saying that for over half a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts