Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Linking to the essay wasn't to demonstrate my correctness (though it does), it was to save me from restating what I've already stated -- especially since it was slightly off topic. Here I am on Page 3 explaining how an irrelevancy can be a threat (keep in mind that it does assume the irrelevancy in question to be bent on your destruction): Any alliance or individual that seeks to damage the Order makes themselves a threat. It doesn't matter who they are, what their strength is or what their resources are. As I stated just above, one does not need something to be life-threatening to deal with it. If a nation has the ability to create soldiers, it is a threat to another nations. If that nation is in the Order, then it is a threat to the Order. That is to say, whether or not something is a threat worthy of liquidation isn't judged by the size of the thing in question. Just as I shoot the tiger, I swat the mosquito. Different types of threat requiring different types of responses, certainly, but both are threats all the same. Edited March 31, 2009 by Vladimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Linking to the essay wasn't to demonstrate my correctness (though it does), it was to save me from restating what I've already stated -- especially since it was slightly off topic.Here I am on Page 3 explaining how an irrelevancy can be a threat (keep in mind that it does assume the irrelevancy in question to be bent on your destruction): That is to say, whether or something is a threat worthy of liquidation isn't judged by the size of the thing in question. Just as I shoot the tiger, I swat the mosquito. Different types of threat requiring different types of responses, certainly, but both threats all the same. So when FAN comes to you, and says that they want peace, will you give it to them? Or are you going to continue "swatting" them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Really, can't you just read the thread? Please? It's not that long. You can even go to my profile page and search for my posts if that's easier. Technology is a wonderful thing! Here I am on Page 2 explaining our position: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Paradigm sits back and ponders what he is seeing. Is dialog creeping back to the Planet Bobs forums? Guess my job is done.....nah, lets finish the next 34 chapters first and then see where we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Not sure what planet you've been living on, Paradigm. Anti-Pacifican propaganda like this thread has made up half the forum for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Really, can't you just read the thread? Please? It's not that long. You can even go to my profile page and search for my posts if that's easier. Technology is a wonderful thing!Here I am on Page 2 explaining our position: You act as if you've made a real counter to the arguments posted. What is Pacifica's definition of an honest fight? You admit that you don't believe that they have any spies, or the capability to use them. What are they supposed to do, "fight like men" against an alliance thirty times their size? You've destroyed them enough. They are no longer a meaningful opposition, which you admit occasionally, before taking up the party line again. Your only argument for continuing this ridiculous spectacle is that "they'll come back and oppose us." One day, maybe. But they're nowhere close, and they shouldn't have to ask you for permission to play the game. And stop with the patronizing tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Not sure what planet you've been living on, Paradigm. Anti-Pacifican propaganda like this thread has made up half the forum for months. If all you see this as is "anti-Pacifican propaganda" then I guess it will be frustating once the chess board doesnt look the way you thought it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoran Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Couldn't NPO release FAN on probationary terms? A 3 month Viceroy? Something better than Eternal War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Couldn't NPO release FAN on probationary terms? A 3 month Viceroy? Something better than Eternal War? For that to happen, FAN would have to agree. I don't think they'd agree to a Viceroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) You act as if you've made a real counter to the arguments posted. What is Pacifica's definition of an honest fight? You admit that you don't believe that they have any spies, or the capability to use them. What are they supposed to do, "fight like men" against an alliance thirty times their size? You've destroyed them enough. They are no longer a meaningful opposition, which you admit occasionally, before taking up the party line again. Your only argument for continuing this ridiculous spectacle is that "they'll come back and oppose us." One day, maybe. But they're nowhere close, and they shouldn't have to ask you for permission to play the game. And stop with the patronizing tone. What are you talking about? An "honest fight"? Where did that come from? I don't care about honest fights, I care about my alliance's security. This isn't the dark ages; we're not going to start jousting to defend our respective lady's honour. As far as the war goes, I don't expect them to fight, I expect them to die [waits for someone to take that out of context]. Whether or not they have spies is also ultimately irrelevant. I'll chip away the meat and move straight to the bone (don't say I never did nothin' for you): FAN will get peace when we are satisfied that their objective is no longer to threaten the security of our alliance. I have already explained that their size doesn't matter, and that we don't intend on letting them grow into a more significant threat just so the OWF moralists can feel all fuzzy inside. It's a relatively simple concept: we protect our members. Couldn't NPO release FAN on probationary terms? A 3 month Viceroy? Something better than Eternal War? The discussion is academic. FAN have already stated that they won't accept terms. Edited March 31, 2009 by Vladimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobiash Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 To start with keeping FAN down (or out of the game) 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. Giving FAN a honorable white peace, and FAN accepting it as a gesture of goodwill, would show planet bob that honour and not just strength is still a part of the game! What is this honor you speak of? Remember, there is always two sides to the coin in regards to public image.. I speak of honour that you earn by putting aside your old grudges and offer an enemy peace, I talk about the honour earned by putting aside old grudges and accepting a peace offer made by an old enemy. If NPO and FAN could do this then they would have shown planet bob what honour is! This goes FAN, NPO & everyone else still in war with FAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 If all you see this as is "anti-Pacifican propaganda" then I guess it will be frustating once the chess board doesnt look the way you thought it did. If you want genuine political discussion, perhaps you would prefer VIdiot the Great's thread. Admittedly it's not about how mean the NPO is, but it in terms of interesting debate it gets the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'll chip away the meat and move straight to the bone (don't say I never did nothin' for you): You aren't saturated enough with all that FAN flesh in your belly yet? When you're out of sacrifices who will you feed on then? Hopefully civilisation will be brought to NPO before there is nothing left to bring civilisation to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 When you're out of sacrifices who will you feed on then? Depends on the mood that strikes. Some work to tenderise the meat and a spot of pepper, and I reckon Dilber wouldn't be so bad. I had a nibble earlier. Tastes like chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Depends on the mood that strikes. Some work to tenderise the meat and a spot of pepper, and I reckon Dilber wouldn't be so bad. I had a nibble earlier. Tastes like chicken. There are still bigger fish in the ocean yet. I hear trying to feed on some of them tastes like lead. Bang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 What are you talking about? An "honest fight"? Where did that come from? I don't care about honest fights, I care about my alliance's security. This isn't the dark ages; we're not going to start jousting to defend our respective lady's honour. As far as the war goes, I don't expect them to fight, I expect them to die [waits for someone to take that out of context]. Whether or not they have spies is also ultimately irrelevant.I'll chip away the meat and move straight to the bone (don't say I never did nothin' for you): FAN will get peace when we are satisfied that their objective is no longer to threaten the security of our alliance. I have already explained that their size doesn't matter, and that we don't intend on letting them grow into a more significant threat just so the OWF moralists can feel all fuzzy inside. It's a relatively simple concept: we protect our members. The discussion is academic. FAN have already stated that they won't accept terms. Read your own posts. You were the one who used that language in the first place. 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. Right, and we'll let you decide FAN's fate, along with anyone else who you deem a threat. This isn't about some "fuzzy feeling". Pacifica has decided time and time again to go past protecting her own membership. You've made it your business to exert yourself on every corner of the game. The viceroyalites, the ridiculous peace terms, they're all an example of your inability to let other people who wouldn't even necessarily be anti-Pacifica play the game with some shred of decency and, dare I say it, honor. Why was Mushroom Kingdom only allowed to start buying nukes again recently? Why was the Siberian Tiger Alliance in such ridiculous peace terms for so long? The war you started, intended to kill Polaris, had nothing to do with these alliances. And yet you deemed it necessary to hold their respective heads under water long after they posed a "threat" to your members' security. FAN isn't a threat. GATO isn't a threat. Let them be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoran Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The discussion is academic. FAN have already stated that they won't accept terms. Didn't know that. My fault for a misinformed post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I have thoroughly enjoyed watching FAN wriggle and squirm like the snakes they are. They deserve everything they've been through and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobiash Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 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. I don't question your reasons for fighting them in the past. I question your reasons for keep fighting them now. FAN is no longer in a position to defend it self agianst the NPO, if they came out of peacemode. Even if FAN doubled or tribled their strength they would hardly be able to make a dent in the NPO. You not offering peace, is almost the same as kicking someone after he whent down in a fist fight. On the other hand if a you did offer a white peace, it would show that it have integrity & honour. If FAN turned down a white peace offer or started a war against NPO without reason after accepting a white peace then they would have showed their lack of honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I have thoroughly enjoyed watching FAN wriggle and squirm like the snakes they are. They deserve everything they've been through and more. In my opinion they got their come uppance a little over a year ago. Now it's just overkill. Even they didn't do this much wrong in their stint as being apart of the hegemon. Fortunately Karma is universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Given that this is, NPO, we're talking of... I don't expect a move that requires respect for the opinion of the public. Nor do I expect any change in this "stomp the bugs" attitude. Being someone who was around during the time that FAN had power, even on their opposite side (if I recall our first big public interafction with anyone was calling FAN a group of hillbillies and getting moved off of yellow) I would pick to have FAN in NPO's place ANY DAY. Atleast with NPO on top we get someone with only size, not skill.But nevertheless, I'm getting to a rant and I'd rather avoid that for now. FAN were put into this position dishonorably, and NPO won't give them a "no strings attached" peace. It's not in their character (or lack there of) to do so. I just CAN'T see it happening. I don't know, if NPO did do that I'd probably stop attacking, but as it stands I doubt it. Some of FAN likes it better this way, to tell you the truth I don't blame them, being able to say and do anything you like without being under the threat of EZI is great. NPO is afraid of a FAN that isn't peacemode, NPO is afraid what will happen if they let free anyone currently disbanded that would, if remade, grow like wildfire. It all boils down to NPO being frightened of those better than them, and of losing their top spot. What they don't understand is that releasing FAN would get them a large PR boost, and make them... maybe... kind of... not the worst alliance ever to set foot in this game. So to quote Aros here, Godspeed boys. *Jofna rides off back to his battle post, ready to fight again. LOL, haven't seen this much crying in a while. And to us being the worst alliance in the game... *Well that's just like your opinion, man...* Comon name the movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I find it incredibly ironic that so many bleeding hearts would be interested in the survival of an alliance that was, at least in the peacenick sense of the concept, as immoral as you get. OOC: Bringing back FAN won't make the game more interesting. They are part of a past that is come and gone and they have by and large accepted it themselves. Edited March 31, 2009 by Mussolandia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I find it incredibly ironic that so many bleeding hearts would be interested in the survival of an alliance that was, at least in the peaceni[fixed]k sense of the concept, as immoral as you get.OOC: Bringing back FAN won't make the game more interesting. They are part of a past that is come and gone and they have by and large accepted it themselves. It's about a larger trend. Also, nostalgia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's about a larger trend. Also, nostalgia. If anybody has a right to nostalgia, I'm damn sure it's Mussolandia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 If you want genuine political discussion, perhaps you would prefer VIdiot the Great's thread. Admittedly it's not about how mean the NPO is, but it in terms of interesting debate it gets the job done. I always appreciate a good link and will review it in greater detail this evening after my next installment in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts