The Gap between Perception and reallity.

[Firkked]

Should the forces labelled as "The Hegemony" be given harsh terms at then end of this war?

That depends on far too many factors and there is no blanket response, thus invalidating the question. Each situation is specific to the circumstances that brought the nation and/or alliance to this conflict, how much they fought and the length of their resistance before coming before the bargaining table.

Is there a difference between a minor alliance that fought bitterly against all comers until the very last battle of this war or the major alliance government member who surrendered at the first hint of tanks rolling across their borders?

I feel that it is true that the "Hegemony" nations are nervous about how the "Karma" nations will handle the terms of the post war environment and that it is up to the participants directly involved that should be making that determination, not public opinion.

Will there be harsh terms meted out? (Yes)

Will there be unfairness in some of the terms? (yes)

Can this be avoided? (No)

Should public opinion guide the process? (No)

For my part in this I expect somewhat harsh terms.

I knowingly exchanged my security at the expense of the freedoms of other nations and alliance both as a member and in the low levels of government of a major alliance.

Although I had left the major alliance several months before this current conflict my new, smaller alliance was still firmly in the "Hegemony" camp. Thus I found myself on the battlefield arrayed against forces nominally under the "Karma" aegis.

They won. My alliance lost, disbanded in fact.

I still remain defiant and unapologetic.

I made my choices and I refuse to surrender to the opponents I have met so far, I will retain my disbanded AA and I will take the wrath of the entire planet before I break.

[Ragashingo]

Will there be harsh terms meted out? (Yes)

Will there be unfairness in some of the terms? (yes)

Can this be avoided? (No)

This is your speculation, nothing more. I think you're wrong, and I think all the white peaces (and one near white peace) support me in this.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Firkked]

This is your speculation, nothing more.

So is your response.

Your point?

[Ragashingo]

So is your response.

Your point?

My point is I have some cold hard facts on my side and you don't.

[Firkked]

Point conceded.

After the war is over I'll make sure to check back with you to see if my speculations were unfounded or not.

[Authur]

Authur, two things:

1. You seem to have a double standard going.

You want Karma to:

Yet you seem to be excusing the NPO's actions saying:

You criticize Karma saying:

But you say of the NPO and its allies:

Choose one side or the other. Either it is ok for an alliance or group of alliances to oppress others in order to ensure their own safety, or it isn't. I hate double standards and I feel you are better than having to resort to them.

2. Karma is doing exactly what you are asking.

You want Karma to:

Well what do you think is going on right now? This is the "fight back where you must" part.

You keep saying that you're afraid that Karma will hold the NPO down. To that I simply ask you to look around at all the NPO's allies who have gotten white peace in this war. All but one of them have!

To me you aren't experiencing a justified fear, you're experiencing unjustified paranoia. The facts so far point to Karma being a much gentler force when it comes to surrender terms. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change when it comes time for the NPO to surrender? The only thing that Karma is trying to do is:

So to sum up. Drop the double standards, and rely on the facts of this war, not what you're afraid Karma might do once the war is finished.

You are really misunderstanding me. I am not excusing the NPO's actions at all.

I was pointing out what the NPO did, why they gave harsh terms and formed large bloc's. They did it for security purposes which is against my idea world.

No double standards, your just reading something that isn't there.

I am not paranoid about what Karma might do. I am a little concerned about what select individuals may do after the war and terms are handed out but that's separate from the terms debate going on. As it relates to terms I'm merely arguing my point with an individual who disagrees. I have no idea what Karma will do. So far their terms have been outstanding, I hope that continues.

So to sum up. Not fear, debate. No double standards, pointing out a correlation.

[Ragashingo]

So to sum up. Not fear, debate. No double standards, pointing out a correlation.

Fair enough.

[Orkules]

So what happens if the NPO rejects the terms? Violates them? Would you be in favor of eternal war ala FAN to ensure the NPO does not get their "gun back"? If your not prepared to back up the terms with war they are meaningless. This really isn't that different then the NPO keeping a member from growing, getting nukes and becoming a threat. Deal with the threat when it comes.

No. If they break terms, we punish them with a war, teach them a lesson, and then let them go. There is absolutely no justification for what NPO has done to FAN. Well there is, but it's a very !@#$%* one. Eternal war is not our way. In fact, it's one of the big things that's led to this day.

Ask yourself why they were aggressive and oppressive? It was for safety concerns. They beat down potential threats. They intimidated potential enemies. Large bloc's are all about safety and friendship.

I'm not asking you to hand back the NPO's gun. I'm asking you to not take anyone's gun away from them. We all have them, every nation and allaince. No one should have to right to take them away from us. Fight back when you must but do not oppress.

Think of it this way. We're taking away their bullets for a bit. They're free to keep the gun and even get a few more. Then we'll give them back their ammo assuming they don't try to break the terms of our agreement (aka surrender terms). We're not neutering them. We may make it so they can't just resign every treaty and have their allies rebuild them and kill us all right after we fracture.

[Ragashingo]

All these analogies are getting a bit silly.

[Orkules]

All these analogies are getting a bit silly.

Agreed. But since he seems to only speak in them, I thought maybe the point would get through.

[Doitzel]

Ask yourself why they were aggressive and oppressive? It was for safety concerns. They beat down potential threats. They intimidated potential enemies. Large bloc's are all about safety and friendship.

That is a bald-faced lie. I fought many wars for NPO, helped orchestrate them, helped build these blocs and I can tell you it never was and never is about "safety" or any of that bull they spew in public. It is about dominance. They want to be #1 and they want to stay there and everyone and everything else can burn for all they care. That needs to stop. They need to be taught that they are not invincible or all-powerful and how to play nice with others. They need to experience just a fraction of the suffering that they have put other communities through. They need to feel the burn again because the last time they did they forgot the lesson all too quickly -- they got right back up and started the same pattern of behaviour right over again.

For practicality's sake I don't think they deserve to ever be given a chance. But I am not a purely practical person, I act on more than just pure self-interest: that is for the NPO to do. So yes, let them get back up. I just hope we're all prepared for that inevitability because they will again start dividing us and conquering us with many little pawns spewing their same old rhetoric of "safety" and "security".

[Authur]

No. If they break terms, we punish them with a war, teach them a lesson, and then let them go. There is absolutely no justification for what NPO has done to FAN. Well there is, but it's a very !@#$%* one. Eternal war is not our way. In fact, it's one of the big things that's led to this day.

That comment was in response to his claim that he was against perma ZI becuase eternal war was pointless. My point was in order to enforce harsh terms you have to be willing to wage eternal war.

(I wish you guys would start reading the quotes I'm responding too better so I could stop having to explain them over and over again.)

Think of it this way. We're taking away their bullets for a bit. They're free to keep the gun and even get a few more. Then we'll give them back their ammo assuming they don't try to break the terms of our agreement (aka surrender terms). We're not neutering them. We may make it so they can't just resign every treaty and have their allies rebuild them and kill us all right after we fracture.

The war itself has injured them pretty badly. It will take months before they can mount a real threat. I just don't see the need to hold them down longer via terms. You guys complained when they did that to the NpO and MK recently, and for good reason. I just don't personally think that how we should treat alliances in this world.

[Authur]

That is a bald-faced lie. I fought many wars for NPO, helped orchestrate them, helped build these blocs and I can tell you it never was and never is about "safety" or any of that bull they spew in public. It is about dominance. They want to be #1 and they want to stay there and everyone and everything else can burn for all they care. That needs to stop. They need to be taught that they are not invincible or all-powerful and how to play nice with others. They need to experience just a fraction of the suffering that they have put other communities through. They need to feel the burn again because the last time they did they forgot the lesson all too quickly -- they got right back up and started the same pattern of behaviour right over again.

It's not a lie, your simply misinterpreting my response.

Yes dominance and power are a part of it and you maintain that by stomping any potential threats and holding them down via terms. If they were not concerned for their own safety there would have been little reason to disarm their fallen victims. I am NOT saying the NPO was innocent or doing all of this for good reasons.

For practicality's sake I don't think they deserve to ever be given a chance. But I am not a purely practical person, I act on more than just pure self-interest: that is for the NPO to do. So yes, let them get back up. I just hope we're all prepared for that inevitability because they will again start dividing us and conquering us with many little pawns spewing their same old rhetoric of "safety" and "security".

They may not deserve it but in this new environment I'd like to see every allaince given that chance. We are just leaving a period where any allaince who fell out of favor or was precieved as a threat was held down. I would just like to see that changed and I think we should start with the biggest threat to that line of thinking.

[pasquali]

The whole idea of KARMA is what goes around comes around.

It's a very old concept, and it tends to hold true. Thus, alliances that have entered due to treaty obligations and rarely if ever bullied others could rightly look forward to a measure of leniency. Alliances that took pride in just how bad they could be should rightly fear karma. What goes around comes around, you get paid in relation to what you gave out.

Anything else isn't karma, it's trying to be a moral police (which is foolish).

Edited May 4, 2009 by pasquali

[Coursca]

Well, I think what Authur and Doitzel have touched on is an important debate not just in the context of NPO but in the "greater" context of the international environment in which we participate.

I will say, though, that Doitzel was around those folks in NPO for quite a while and he has some pretty unique insights there. I do not doubt his analysis. It makes good sense. Though, it may not be reflective of everyone that worked in NPO's foreign affairs apparatus, but rather in entrenched attitudes in other areas of government.

However, I will also say that NPO was a truly neorealist state (I say "was" because there is no knowing what NPO's behavior will be post-war -- I have no way of extrapolating and to do so would be akin to political science quackery). They set out initially for basic security many moons ago, as all new alliances do, and established dominance (okay, okay...hegemony ) in the process. Thus, their policy shifted from survival and power maximization to simply power maximization. They fell off the horse once early on, but rose again to a position of dominance not soon afterward. It was not until recently that the other great powers of the world decided to push back. It is the classic story of a neorealist hegemonic state -- they rise, they dominate, then they fall at the hands of the rest of the world. Kenneth Waltz would be proud.

The great irony is that NPO's hegemony and continued power-seeking behavior is ultimately what created the necessary and sufficient conditions for other great powers to push back and attempt to restore some balance to the world. Karma, perhaps, is appropriately named in that way.

I think you both make valid points in that regard.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Coursca

[Petrovich4]

So yes, let them get back up. I just hope we're all prepared for that inevitability because they will again start dividing us and conquering us with many little pawns spewing their same old rhetoric of "safety" and "security".

We are very aware. Especially those people that have been divided and conquered before.

The war itself has injured them pretty badly. It will take months before they can mount a real threat. I just don't see the need to hold them down longer via terms. You guys complained when they did that to the NpO and MK recently, and for good reason. I just don't personally think that how we should treat alliances in this world.

The war has not injured their material strengths badly enough. NPOs attributes of tenacity, perseverance and 'hunger' would make this 10 day old (I think, I lost track atm) war simply be a broken bone and bruises which they will quickly recover from. It will be similar to NpOs recovery except it will be quicker for various reasons I won't get into.

Authur, that is cool if you do not see eye to eye with some issues, that is your right - even if some people think it is wrong. Just be aware, that the higher echelons of NPO are in the process of using 'verbal meatshields' to fight their battles on these forums to seed doubt and hippy like leniency for them in the minds of others. You, and others, might not be aware, or you might be, but you are part of this verbal meatshield. 'Karma' people are not stupid, nor are we vicious. When we feel certain balances have been restored, you will know, until then, you and others who have good intentions or are simply blind (not you fyi ) are wasting calories to type these posts.

The foot that has over time stomped and crippled/destroyed alliances and communities has been smashed. We are in the process of breaking as many bones in the body of NPO. We expect a few of our bones to be broken as well. Good times.

Expect this war to last much longer, not because NPO will win, but because NPO are testing how long Karma can hold together. They are unfortunately linking GW1 personalities and a lack of will to contemporary personalities and current attitudes. They are so wrong, and we will happily show them how wrong.

:jihad:

[Electron Sponge]

They set out initially for basic security many moons ago, as all new alliances do, and established dominance (okay, okay...hegemony ) in the process. Thus, their policy shifted from survival and power maximization to simply power maximization.

NPO never set out for basic security. When we first started the alliance we wanted nothing more than to fight a gigantic war. So we went to war with NAAC over some trash talk.

NPO has been a griefer alliance since day 1.

[Chimaera]

The thing is, the alliances who have been given white peace are not the reason the world is at war right now, and they certainly are not the main target. NPO does not deserve, nor will they receive, white peace. That does not mean that Karma is wrong by any sense of the word; they are merely giving back to NPO what they've been getting for the past three years. After all, the whole premise of Karma is that you get what's coming to you. To alliances who fought out of honor and treaty obligations, their karma involved lenient peace terms. NPO and Q? Not so much.

[Bob Janova]

The war itself has injured them pretty badly. It will take months before they can mount a real threat

This is not at all true (yet). They are still the no. 1 alliance, still larger than anyone else, and the remains of the Hegemony (if you include the alliances that have surrendered but would fight with them again in a 'rematch') is still extremely large and threatening.

[Quercus]

I hope that this continues for a good long time. The damage here is every bit as trivial as the damage inflicted in the war in the summer of 2006. What you have here is a pack of coyotes trying to bring down a large bear. If they stay together and work hard, they can just manage it. But if they cease to work as a unit, the bear will eventually get every last one of them.

I have been here since nearly the beginning, I was there at the end of the 1st Great War and two of my brother Knights were the ones that forced the early peace on behalf of the NPO. All it takes is one or two to get tired or overly compassionate and the rest of the pack are forced to follow suit.

You should also remember how the NPO repays compassion. The Legion today only exists as a subjugated appendage of Pacifica and the ODN only exists by exercising a level of moral flexibility that has made any treaty that they sign highly suspect. That leaves GATO, LUE and the NAAC- two of those are history and the other one probably should be.

So if you are Karma, you are in dead space here. You either fight together until you have a decisive victory, or you die later when the most ruthless alliance to ever play this game regains their feet and begins the work of paying you back for all of this.

Edit- But I don't need to tell them that. MK are the heirs of LUE and GR are the heirs of the NAAC. Both alliances have members who remember and understand all of this.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Quercus

[Doitzel]

It's not a lie, your simply misinterpreting my response.

Yes dominance and power are a part of it and you maintain that by stomping any potential threats and holding them down via terms. If they were not concerned for their own safety there would have been little reason to disarm their fallen victims. I am NOT saying the NPO was innocent or doing all of this for good reasons.

Ah, but they wouldn't have that concern for safety in the first place if they didn't kick that alliance down and beat them to a pulp, often for shoddy reasons? It might well have been a guilty conscience that made them so fearful, no? Perhaps they knew they had wronged these alliances and so they sought to keep them down permanently.

I am glad, at least, that unlike many of their defenders you are not trying to assert that they are innocent and were always fully within their "rights".

They may not deserve it but in this new environment I'd like to see every allaince given that chance. We are just leaving a period where any allaince who fell out of favor or was precieved as a threat was held down. I would just like to see that changed and I think we should start with the biggest threat to that line of thinking.

I agree on the whole. I can forgive, but I do not forget. Alas, the decision is not mine to make.

I will say, though, that Doitzel was around those folks in NPO for quite a while and he has some pretty unique insights there. I do not doubt his analysis. It makes good sense. Though, it may not be reflective of everyone that worked in NPO's foreign affairs apparatus, but rather in entrenched attitudes in other areas of government.

It is everyone, because they actively weed out those who dissent and trap them below the glass ceiling or else assassinate their character and kick them out. As a part of said apparatus I frequently spoke out against it and was more often than not chided and/or shouted down (I was used to that thanks to my experience on the IRON Council ) and eventually they found ways to be rid of me. That isn't to say there aren't decent people in there, it's just that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, some of them willingly, and they see the world through a peephole in the bunker door.

However, I will also say that NPO was a truly neorealist state (I say "was" because there is no knowing what NPO's behavior will be post-war -- I have no way of extrapolating and to do so would be akin to political science quackery). They set out initially for basic security many moons ago, as all new alliances do, and established dominance (okay, okay...hegemony ) in the process. Thus, their policy shifted from survival and power maximization to simply power maximization. They fell off the horse once early on, but rose again to a position of dominance not soon afterward. It was not until recently that the other great powers of the world decided to push back. It is the classic story of a neorealist hegemonic state -- they rise, they dominate, then they fall at the hands of the rest of the world. Kenneth Waltz would be proud.

The great irony is that NPO's hegemony and continued power-seeking behavior is ultimately what created the necessary and sufficient conditions for other great powers to push back and attempt to restore some balance to the world. Karma, perhaps, is appropriately named in that way.

I think you both make valid points in that regard.

So what you just said could be summed up with: Sic Semper Tyranis.

Their behaviour post-war will be what it was last time this happened. They will make slight shifts in policy to adapt to the times and appease their vanquishers and then quickly set about resolving what they see to be the issues that ruined their grip on power last time. I'm guessing they'll start with a bunch of treaties to alliances they feel like they can trust, they'll probably go on a "More Lovable NPO" PR campaign, and they'll shake many hands while hiding a knife behind their back in the other. There is no doubt that they can be friendly but they do even this only when it has a purpose: when they're preparing for the fallout of a war (as electron sponge accurately pointed out) or when they're recovering political capital after losing one. Once it's clear who's #1 in both hard and soft power again, which will as always be their ultimate goal, we can expect them to revert to "we're better than you" mode and start stepping on small alliances like ants.

The defence against this is to be proactive in ensuring it won't happen. Those of us who've been around the block a bit know how not to fall into this trap, but the more youthful national and alliance leaders are likely to be hoodwinked easily by Dilber's silver tongue. They will be very careful not to make missteps because they know what they can cost. The only answer is constant, unwavering vigilance and the occasional reminder that despite our differences, a New Pacific Order that threatens one of us threatens us all.

[Mogar]

I hope that this continues for a good long time. The damage here is every bit as trivial as the damage inflicted in the war in the summer of 2006. What you have here is a pack of coyotes trying to bring down a large bear. If they stay together and work hard, they can just manage it. But if they cease to work as a unit, the bear will eventually get every last one of them.

I have been here since nearly the beginning, I was there at the end of the 1st Great War and two of my brother Knights were the ones that forced the early peace on behalf of the NPO. All it takes is one or two to get tired or overly compassionate and the rest of the pack are forced to follow suit.

You should also remember how the NPO repays compassion. The Legion today only exists as a subjugated appendage of Pacifica and the ODN only exists by exercising a level of moral flexibility that has made any treaty that they sign highly suspect. That leaves GATO, LUE and the NAAC- two of those are history and the other one probably should be.

So if you are Karma, you are in dead space here. You either fight together until you have a decisive victory, or you die later when the most ruthless alliance to ever play this game regains their feet and begins the work of paying you back for all of this.

Edit- But I don't need to tell them that. MK are the heirs of LUE and GR are the heirs of the NAAC. Both alliances have members who remember and understand all of this.

You're correct, although they also cannot force the disbandment of NPO, since that would make them no better than NPO, the trick is to damage them enough they dont try the unipolar world again, but not enough to upset the factions of Karma that care, although if you wait long enough, I bet we'll see multiple alliances who fought on the Karma side sign treaties with NPO after the war is over, some people never learn.

[shahenshah]

I started this thread not as anti or pro Propaganda as some people have accused me of, they just entered the thread, missed the point, blindly accused of this and that and thats it. I am saddened that the discussion took another turn and went back to the same NPO vs Rest of the world. It is a foregone conclusion IMO that NPO will be getting the terms. How can this be propaganda if I ask people on Hegemony side to judge Karma based on what its leaders are saying and not what every Tom, Dick, Harry and their Grand mothers post, which in many cases even contradicts the stance of their own leaders. Infact if anything, this is something that Karma should have attempted to clarify on its own behalf instead of wondering why the hell is everyone talking about white peace or this or that all of a sudden.

What can I say, the thread has completely gone off-topic. I ask people to not have their visions blurred of each other purely based on blind hatred. Some people it seems simply cant accept objective opinion coming from other side, it may not be completely objective due to perhaps inherent biases but my attempt was to truly find out and judge Karma objectively. They are some how convinced there is hidden agenda, or that I somehow represent a secret Hegemony PR organisation regardless of anything else. It just re-enforces my point that people are judging each other on whatever they can find on *OWF*.

Thread has gone completely off the track, I give this effort up, what can I say, so continue whatever you guys were doing.

Edited May 4, 2009 by shahenshah

[shahenshah]

This is not at all true (yet). They are still the no. 1 alliance, still larger than anyone else, and the remains of the Hegemony (if you include the alliances that have surrendered but would fight with them again in a 'rematch') is still extremely large and threatening.

e

What is your suggestion then? Hegemony is repeatedly beat down every couple months? From your post, one may think that it is what you imply. Not giving NPO white peace is one thing and in your context, well not your context, but in context of some of your allies, makes some rational sense, but beat downs every now and then...that seems to be the new theme that is coming out lately. I hope I am wrong and it is not what you or Doitzel or some of your pals maybe implying.

I apologize for any misinterpretations of your several posts that suggest such a disturbing theme.

[Bob Janova]

That really isn't what I said at all, and I think it betrays your longstanding membership of a Hegemony alliance. I expected IRON members to not have absorbed the 'threat = beatdown' mentality so much, though.

Firstly, I was just correcting a point of fact in Authur's post, not making any sort of statement about what should be done. The fact is simply that if released right now, the Hegemony is still a serious threat.

I believe that one of the aims of this war is to ensure that that is no longer the case. So one 'beatdown' – a significant reduction in military strength for the core hegemony – is a likely outcome of this war, although take note that the peripheral alliances have not been beaten down, as they were by the hegemony in previous wars. But nobody has suggested repeated 'containment' wars. If what is now Hegemony regrows and is peaceful then it will not be attacked; if it starts fights it will of course be repelled but that is in its own hands.