In the GATO

[TheStig]

Moreover, if they cared enough about the "oppression" they are subject to; they would leave.

Because the few left in GATO are the honourable few, who will not leave just because of the loss of some insignificant pixels like so many silly folk would abandon any position to protect, instead they stay to remain within the damaged yet still standing place they call home, because they understand, appreciate and choose to dignify themselves with the actions and morals I am describing.

[Tom Litler]

I must say that I don't have a problem with what has happened to GATO, Orkules. Those were the surrender terms they chose to accept and now their members stay in the alliance, subjecting themselves to these "injustices" that everyone whines about on the forums.

TheStig: if that's true, I'm the "romantic"? If they care that much about their ideals, then they should recognize that martyrdom is not about happy endings. They should either stop their hunger strike or starve.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Tom Litler

[Denial]

Funny how the same people that argue that they didn't join a battle because they were not connected to either side by any treaties cancel those same "binding agreements" on a whim whenever it suits them.

What?

If people cared, they would have fought for GATO without a treaty which brings me to my point: you could have done something. You didn't. Instead you choose to "display your opposition through different methods" which seem to be limited in their difference to the type of methods that entail passive-aggressive verbal assaults on the enemy.

Passive-aggressive? That's certainly the first time that one has been thrown at me in regards to my commentary. You may have your definitions mixed up, because actively campaigning is as far opposite from "passive-aggressive" as you can get. And who says I did not do something then. Who says I'm not doing something now? Frankly, your idea of "doing something" is purely idiotic. In essence, it equates to taking a single sword and flailing wildly at the stone walls, rather than biding your time and developing a movement. Throwing a minor collection against a concrete wall of numbers, strength and nuclear weapons would not have accomplished anything for GATO. In fact, it would have been entirely counter-productive, as any non-treatied alliance defending GATO at the time would likely be under a Viceroyship of their own, entirely prohibited from taking part in the growing movement now demanding their freedom.

My idea isn't romantic. If more people had the resolve to fight for what they supposedly believe in, stars could be moved. What have we accomplished thinking like you; that it is pointless to fight because you might lose so you shouldn't even try? Look at Great War 1 in CN. It could have been just another curbstomp but smaller alliance rose up and defeated what was thought to be an invincible enemy.

Heh, who do you think spent months ensuring those alliances would rise up and defeat the 'invincible enemy'? These things take time; there is nothing more dim-witted than wasting your diplomatic, political and military capital at an inopportune time.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Revanche

[LJ Scott]

This is exactly what I'm trying to explain, a reluctance of a sufficient retaliation against these unjust actions that alliances such as NPO are doing to people like GATO. As for the "community" rallying behind me, there are hundreds, even thousands of decent people out there who would support my voice but are resilient to do so because supporters like yourself shroud their voice and prevent the unification of such righteous movements.

It's one thing to cheer on from the sideline, and another to jump onto the playing field.

I also apologise for shrouding the voices and preventing the unification of hundreds, nay thousands of decent people whom play CN with my rabid support for the continuation of "immoral" acts such as the viceroyalty of GATO. I guess I didn't realise the magnitude of how my words affect the rest of the CN Community.

To clarify, I don't really care what happens to GATO. Does it affect me? No. I'm not in favour of what is happening, I'm just apathetic to the situation, since although I recognise this as being the "wrong" thing to do, I just view it as another element of the game and who am I to tell others how to play? Don't want to be a hypocrite now >_<

Edited April 11, 2009 by LJ Scott

[Orkules]

I must say that I don't have a problem with what has happened to GATO, Orkules. Those were the surrender terms they chose to accept and now their members stay in the alliance, subjecting themselves to these "injustices" that everyone whines about on the forums.

TheStig: if that's true, I'm the "romantic"? If they care that much about their ideals, then they should recognize that martyrdom is not about happy endings. They should either stop their hunger strike or starve.

I do not have a problem with the terms at the time as they were accepted (even if I think it was a bit more extreme than necessary). I do have a problem that such terms have been held and enforced for so long. It seems far beyond what was even kind of needed.

GATO, the time has come to rise up in revolt. Viva la WAEvolution!

[Denial]

I'm sure if they were so sick of being "oppressed" we'd surely have had GATO members speaking out via indirect methods.

There have been several GATO members that have voiced their concerns. They were swiftly labelled as political dissidents and either removed from their positions within GATO, or forced from the alliance altogether.

Moreover, if they cared enough about the "oppression" they are subject to; they would leave.

To repeat what I said earlier:

You could say those members are free to leave GATO, but that would only allow the destruction of another community at the hands of Pacifica.

[Tom Litler]

What?

Read it over again, it makes sense. Frankly, I'm tired of explaining plain English to people who will find it to be "purely idiotic".

Passive-aggressive? That's certainly the first time that one has been thrown at me in regards to my commentary.

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

And who says I did not do something then. Who says I'm not doing something now?

What did you do? What are you doing?

Frankly, your idea of "doing something" is purely idiotic. In essence, it equates to taking a single sword and flailing wildly at the stone walls, rather than biding your time and developing a movement. Throwing a minor collection against a concrete wall of numbers, strength and nuclear weapons would not have accomplished anything for GATO.

Drawing lines, you mean? If you really cared about GATO, you wouldn't let them be subjected to terms you feel are unfair for more than a year while you "bide your time".

In fact, it would have been entirely counter-productive, as any non-treatied alliance defending GATO at the time would likely be under a Viceroyship of their own, entirely prohibited from taking part in the growing movement now demanding their freedom.

Can't blame you for looking out for Number One.

Heh, who do you think spent months ensuring those alliances would rise up and defeat the 'incincible enemy'? These things take time; there is nothing more dim-witted than wasting your diplomatic, political and military capital at an inopportune time.

I'm fairly sure that GW1 wasn't planned. I'm fairly sure that it was probably the most haphazard war in the history of CN. I'd like to hear from someone that actually participated in it how much planning by alliances went behind posting an account suicide. I'm sure that others would like to hear that too.

[Tom Litler]

I do not have a problem with the terms at the time as they were accepted (even if I think it was a bit more extreme than necessary). I do have a problem that such terms have been held and enforced for so long. It seems far beyond what was even kind of needed.

GATO, the time has come to rise up in revolt. Viva la WAEvolution!

Well one of the terms was that they would be effective indefinitely and GATO accepted them all so there's no surprise there nor should their be any complaints.

[Orkules]

We can complain all we want. Just like they can ignore us all they want. Such is the way of the world. Perhaps someday we'll be in a position to enforce our complaints, perhaps not. We shall see eh?

[Tom Litler]

I'm not saying that you can't complain. I'm saying that if you cared about your integrity, you wouldn't.

[Orkules]

Touche my good man, touche. Though if I didn't complain, what else would I do with all my time? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO SIR

[TheStig]

Touche my good man, touche. Though if I didn't complain, what else would I do with all my time? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO SIR

There's always... never mind.

[Denial]

Read it over again, it makes sense. Frankly, I'm tired of explaining plain English to people who will find it to be "purely idiotic".

I find your ideas to be purely idiotic, not the English language. Your sentence may have been capable of being comprehended, but it certainly does not apply or have any foundation whatsoever. Tell me, which alliances "not connected to either side by any treaties cancel those same "binding agreements" on a whim whenever it suits them"?

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

Strange, considering the term "passive-aggressive" was contained in the sentence in your response entirely directed towards me.

What did you do? What are you doing?

Don't you think it would be counter-intuitive to display any form of decent strategy for the public at large to view?

Drawing lines, you mean? If you really cared about GATO, you wouldn't let them be subjected to terms you feel are unfair for more than a year while you "bide your time".

I could swear I'd already responded to this exact ludicrous claim a couple of times before. Ah, right, here and here. Again, to pull out the medieval analogy, your idea of making a difference equates to a single warrior taking his sword and flailing wildly at the stone walls, rather than that same warrior recruiting an army over time and knocking those walls down. What do you think GATO would appreciate more? A couple of additional alliances declaring on Pacifica and achieving nothing, or those alliances working assiduously on a strategy that gains GATO the necessary support to win freedom and reclaim their sovereignty?

Can't blame you for looking out for Number One.

Can't blame you for creating strawmen when you lack any other way to refute my argument.

I'm fairly sure that GW1 wasn't planned. I'm fairly sure that it was probably the most haphazard war in the history of CN. I'd like to hear from someone that actually participated in it how much planning by alliances went behind posting an account suicide. I'm sure that others would like to hear that too.

What is more likely? Either i) Alliances that were entirely foreign to one another, with no previous friendships or agreements binding them, spontaneously rising to form a coalition to defend an alliance against the hegemonic power, or ii) There was actually a coherent, logical foreign policy strategy that ensured there would be actually be a coalition should there be a need for it? The First Great War was always going to happen. The only thing that changed from the initial plan was the trigger, i.e. the account suicide.

Edit: Typos galore.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Revanche

[Orkules]

Major irritation has occured in the area. No more of that.

[Denial]

Because it sure worked for FAN supporters . Don't get me wrong, I agree with your post, but I'd wager the NPO not caring what other people think before releasing terms over popular demand. It would be awesome if the world was ran idealistically, but realism always prevails in my mind.

These apparently idealistic goals - for example, GATO regaining its sovereignty and requisitioning its groove back - can be achieved in a realist system. It is simply a matter of ensuring the continued oppression of GATO has more costs than benefits. If the oppressors were indeed realists, they would recognise this and take action.

[Blacky]

To clarify, I don't really care what happens to GATO. Does it affect me? No. I'm not in favour of what is happening, I'm just apathetic to the situation, since although I recognise this as being the "wrong" thing to do, I just view it as another element of the game and who am I to tell others how to play? Don't want to be a hypocrite now >_<

I think you missed the point of this thread. Probably due to the fact that you did not read the OP.

It was a simply worded question. "What excuse is there considering they have done everything required of them?"

The simple answer would be there is no excuse and that they're doing it because they can even though there is no valid justification.

You're probably right in suggesting they don't give a damn and might have a "well if you don't like it stop us" mentality, then so be it. The point is even though the war waged agaisnt GATO was immoral and too few people took a stand (mostly due to the fact that they were diplomatically isolated and made little friends) that does not mean we approved of the actions. Even though GATO weren't the most popular alliance they don't deserve this treatment. NPO is just abusing their power at this point and it's blatantly obvious to anybody who can read this thread.

[Blacky]

If people cared, they would have fought for GATO without a treaty.

Many of GATO's allies took a stand for GATO and as such gained the respect of the CN community, making them an attractive treaty partner due to their honour. Notably, CSN/USN/IAA. Contrary to what you might believe GATO did not fight alone, but they did fight the most brutal parts of the war, and they are still being controlled by a foreign alliance. The fact that the injustice has gone on this long only amplifies it rather than diminishes it.

My idea isn't romantic. If more people had the resolve to fight for what they supposedly believe in, stars could be moved. What have we accomplished thinking like you; that it is pointless to fight because you might lose so you shouldn't even try? Look at Great War 1 in CN. It could have been just another curbstomp but smaller alliance rose up and defeated what was thought to be an invincible enemy.

You have to pick your fights. That is a universal truth.

[Byron Orpheus]

This entire thread is just proof that the only motivating factor for nations is growth. No one sided with GATO because no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to fight NPO.

Just for if someone asks "Why aren't you willing to?": Because I don't care. Those of you who do, though, might eventually realize that you all have enough strength to fight NPO if everyone did. However, being friends with NPO is too beneficial for most of you.

[Orkules]

This entire thread is just proof that the only motivating factor for nations is growth. No one sided with GATO because no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to fight NPO.

Just for if someone asks "Why aren't you willing to?": Because I don't care. Those of you who do, though, might eventually realize that you all have enough strength to fight NPO if everyone did. However, being friends with NPO is too beneficial for most of you.

I didn't side with GATO because I wasn't treatied to them actually. I've fought against NPO and co on 3 seperate occasions (more if you count the BAPS War or Maroon War for some crazy reason).

Edited April 11, 2009 by Orkules

[Byron Orpheus]

I didn't side with GATO because I wasn't treatied to them actually.

Then you still are not treatied with them and it is none of your concern.

[Blacky]

This entire thread is just proof that the only motivating factor for nations is growth. No one sided with GATO because no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to fight NPO.

There are 3 universal truths to the art of combat.

1) You can defeat your enemy if your will to kill is greater than their will to live.

2) Your enemy can never defeat you if your will to live is greater than their will to kill.

3) You will only defeat yourself if your will to kill is greater than your will to live.

Basically, it's as I said above. You've got to pick your fights.

[Byron Orpheus]

There are 3 universal truths to the art of combat.

1) You can defeat your enemy if your will to kill is greater than their will to live.

2) Your enemy can never defeat you if your will to live is greater than their will to kill.

3) You will only defeat yourself if your will to kill is greater than your will to live.

Basically, it's as I said above. You've got to pick your fights.

Yes, and you all did.

[Orkules]

Don't forget:

4) Never march on Moscow.

[Byron Orpheus]

Don't forget:

4) Never march on Moscow.

5) Never fight a land war in Southern Asia

Edited April 11, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Orkules]

6) Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line