Sargun II Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 No, my friend, it is you who need to learn history. Yes, we were diplomatic. But we continued to fight until the situation was completely resolved. We acknowledge diplomacy should be tried, but not at the expense of abandoning all military options at defending your people. You ask me a question about my own country, saying that if I diplomatically prevailed while being invaded by a foreign, more supreme power I would have the right to criticize this country. During our civil war we were invaded by two vastly superior foreign powers, and diplomatically ended both wars. How this turned into a conversation about you, I have no idea, but as I have filled your criteria perhaps you can keep your word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 You ask me a question about my own country, saying that if I diplomatically prevailed while being invaded by a foreign, more supreme power I would have the right to criticize this country.During our civil war we were invaded by two vastly superior foreign powers, and diplomatically ended both wars. How this turned into a conversation about you, I have no idea, but as I have filled your criteria perhaps you can keep your word. What word? We have promised nothing. And we asked you no questions concerning your country. You gave the Indochinese government no CHANCE at diplomacy. Just claimed they supported terrorist attacks, waited a little while, and invaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 What word? We have promised nothing. And we asked you no questions concerning your country.You gave the Indochinese government no CHANCE at diplomacy. Just claimed they supported terrorist attacks, waited a little while, and invaded. We? We were only acting on behalf of a client. All diplomacy could and should have gone through to Dragonisia, not Artemis. Artemis was called in to support defensive positions against a possible IndoChinese attack. When the Dragonisians invaded, Artemis provided support only along the border. When the IndoChinese fleet attempted to bypass our own, it was a threat against the Dragonisians and we also responded. Our "invasion" lasted for a few kilometers to help fulfill a contract. We offered to help IndoChina with their investigation into terrorist attacks, which they refused. Diplomacy was not why we were hired. In addition.. OK, you go ahead and try diplomacy when you are being invaded by a superior force. Then you'll have earned the right to criticize their government. We responded. During our civil war we were invaded by two vastly superior foreign powers, and diplomatically ended both wars. How this turned into a conversation about you, I have no idea, but as I have filled your criteria perhaps you can keep your word. You can't even remember your own words? Perhaps this discussion is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 It is impossible to attempt to hold Artemis Security responsible for diplomacy, considering all they have done is honor a contract signed in good faith. Business is Business, after all and all attempts at negotiation should go through their employer; in this case Dragonisia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 We?We were only acting on behalf of a client. All diplomacy could and should have gone through to Dragonisia, not Artemis. Artemis was called in to support defensive positions against a possible IndoChinese attack. When the Dragonisians invaded, Artemis provided support only along the border. When the IndoChinese fleet attempted to bypass our own, it was a threat against the Dragonisians and we also responded. Our "invasion" lasted for a few kilometers to help fulfill a contract. We offered to help IndoChina with their investigation into terrorist attacks, which they refused. Diplomacy was not why we were hired. Our mistake. We should have known there was no point in reasoning with mercenaries. We should instead be addressing such arguments to those who contracted you--except you seem to be defending Dragonisia's actions. In addition..OK, you go ahead and try diplomacy when you are being invaded by a superior force. Then you'll have earned the right to criticize their government. We responded. During our civil war we were invaded by two vastly superior foreign powers, and diplomatically ended both wars. How this turned into a conversation about you, I have no idea, but as I have filled your criteria perhaps you can keep your word. You can't even remember your own words? Perhaps this discussion is over. Ah, but you trip over your own argument. We still see us asking no questions. OOC: Don't try to argue semantics with me...you'll find yourself dizzy... It is impossible to attempt to hold Artemis Security responsible for diplomacy, considering all they have done is honor a contract signed in good faith. Business is Business, after all and all attempts at negotiation should go through their employer; in this case Dragonisia. And we apologize for our poorly worded argument...we meant to say that Dragonisia should have given them a chance at diplomacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Our mistake. We should have known there was no point in reasoning with mercenaries. We should instead be addressing such arguments to those who contracted you--except you seem to be defending Dragonisia's actions.We responded. You can't even remember your own words? Perhaps this discussion is over. Ah, but you trip over your own argument. We still see us asking no questions. We are not defending our clients, we are offering an opinion: in Artemis' cause we believe that IndoChina was not stable in the least. The invasion was, in our eyes, justified. You asked us no question, true. Perhaps I should re-word my statement: you told us that if we had tried diplomacy during a war, we can criticize their government. We not only tried diplomacy during a war, but we succeeded against two separate entities. You continue to criticize for our criticism. We see a major flaw in your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 We are not defending our clients, we are offering an opinion: in Artemis' cause we believe that IndoChina was not stable in the least. The invasion was, in our eyes, justified.You asked us no question, true. Perhaps I should re-word my statement: you told us that if we had tried diplomacy during a war, we can criticize their government. We not only tried diplomacy during a war, but we succeeded against two separate entities. You continue to criticize for our criticism. We see a major flaw in your logic. We see no flaw. When we see a mistake, we honestly revise our argument to take in the new facts. We see no such concession from you. You refuse to acknowledge any logical points we make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 We see no flaw. When we see a mistake, we honestly revise our argument to take in the new facts. We see no such concession from you. You refuse to acknowledge any logical points we make. Promised Land: If you attempt diplomacy during a war, you have the right to criticize. Artemis: We succeeded in using diplomacy during a war. Promised Land: LOL JUST KIDDING I believe this sums up our argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Promised Land: If you attempt diplomacy during a war, you have the right to criticize.Artemis: We succeeded in using diplomacy during a war. Promised Land: LOL JUST KIDDING I believe this sums up our argument. Your comments are causing a few raised eyebrows here. You did not take in the entire scope of that argument in that rather innacurate, childish portrayal. We refuse to continue this. OOC: See here to understand why. 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.