The GATO Lesson?

[Ragashingo]

Next.

You might want to back away from the topic magicninja. You are losing quite badly and look quite the fool.

Is the Karma war about GATO? No. But is it about stopping a repetition of vile actions, including the kind used against GATO? Yes. Was GATO's plight at the hand of the NPO and others one of the more defining and noteworthy examples of their vile actions? Yes. So I see no reason to not reference GATO in regards to the Karma war. And no one, especially not you, has the right to complain when GATO is mentioned.

[Kevlar]

Wow aren't we all high and mighty. This war is about NPOs past crimes, not about GATO. A wifebeater will get arrested even if the wife says that he only does it because he loves her.

Your stockholms syndrome could not matter less to the ones that's actually fighting. If you want to sit on the sidelines and play morally superior then go ahead but don't think for a second that we're doing this for your alliances sake.

You speak of nobody standing up for you in the past yet here you sit critisizing the actions of a group of people and saying that they're only interested in destruction while you're not lifting a finger to help the ones you're so quick to protect with pretty words.

Secondly I think it's funny how all the alliances that actually do get very lenient or no terms in this war never prove anything. Karma is always all about crushing and burning and is "just as bad as them" no matter how many alliances we give white peace to.

I think you missed the point, friend.

It's quite obvious that this isn't a conflict about GATO, nor is GATO particularly at the forefront of the hearts and minds of those on the frontlines. I never suggested as much, either. I do know that GATO is occasionally mentioned, particularly when listed in the past atrocities of Pacifica. The argument isn't so much about whether or not Karma is trying to fight on someone's behalf. I think GATO's past has been sort of lumped into the collective whole of the evidence that war proponents are using, and I think it's wrong to think as much. If you take issue with that, that's perfectly fine. And frankly, morality has little place with me. This wasn't a moral statement and if it is read as such, then it's a blatant misinterpretation.

The point, or at least the higher purpose, is to look at the overarching goal of Karma. While it has nothing to do with the policy of "just as bad as them" (which you're the only one to suggest as far as I can see), it does have something to do with similar actions and policies. It's relatively easy to do similar actions, but paint them up enough so as not to be gratuitously bad. They may not in themselves be "bad" actions, but that doesn't make them good.

And this has nothing to do with defending NPO. You're quite quick to judge, and I think that's why you're missing the point entirely. If the nature of war is inherently the same from the era of NPO hegemony, then what progress has been made in removing them? Sure, no one is questioning the white peace terms offered to other groups (unless you're seeing questions that I cannot see). And no one is suggesting NPO get off with white peace and a slap on the wrist. While Karma claims (or at least according to the quote lebubu provided) to be taking a step back from attempting to reform interactions of war, it seems like they're certainly trying to some extent. So the question is, what sort of precedent should be set? What sort of standard should the world follow?

I'm not offering answers, nor am I pointing any fingers. My own personal take is that forcing nations into a war is an inherently foul practice, but this isn't my war, nor do I care to partake in it. If the policy of might makes right is going to continue, then I think we should all avoid any illusion of this war being anything above a changing of the guard. Or as they say: same !@#$, different day. It seems obvious to me that now is the best time to pursue any sort of dramatic change to the historical leanings of international relations. It doesn't have to be anything grandiose or create some sort of utopian peace.

To paraphrase what someone once said (if I recall correctly, the author has been responding in here ), "Six months from now, we'll either still be talking about where we want to be or we'll be there." A particular set of actions, a culmination of a significant portion of historical global conflicts, is being checked. When the war is all said and done, will we all be hoping that tomorrow doesn't bring another era of the same old practices?

Deflect all you want, but there are higher responsibilities here whether you want them or not. It just seems important to know whether or not the era of convenience and the status quo has come to an end. If not, why bother with the charade?

Thanks,

-Kev

[Cirrus]

It's not a zero sum game, Kev.

[Xiphosis]

Not to be rude, but I'm not taking war advice from GATO. Sorry.

[Nizzle]

It's not a zero sum game, Kev.

It's not?

[Kevlar]

It's not a zero sum game, Kev.

Thankfully by Admin's great glory we are blessed with many pixels.

With that said, I don't see how your point addresses anything.

Xiphosis -- I may be mistaken, but I do not believe this was an address concerning war tactics. I wouldn't take war advice from you either. Can't say I know who 99% of people around here are, so it's just a matter of personal experience and preference, really. The purpose here is to highlight the ends and question the means. I've already alluded to my own personal stands on matters, but those are really nonstarter issues. If people feel they can justify what they do in the context of what they wish to achieve, good for them.

-Kev

[Aurion]

I wouldn't take war advice from you either.

Indeed, I suppose GATO actually winning a war for once would be unacceptable.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Aurion

[Kevlar]

Indeed, I suppose GATO actually winning a war for once would be unacceptable.

Has nothing to do with that, really. Simply put, I don't know GOD very well as an alliance, nor the people within it. If you want to resort to snipes at our character, then I suppose that can suffice as a first impression.

GATO isn't an aggressive alliance, so naturally our engagements on the battlefield tend to lean toward defensive wars. In which case, history will show that we've always been vastly outnumbered. Despite the years of suffering we've had to endure, you won't find too many alliances who can bounce back like GATO

With the cultural digression aside, it would be appreciated if discussion revolved around the topic at hand. While I've come to notice it is a very misunderstood idea, especially so with polarizing ideas that occurs during any wartime period, I think it can still be civilly discussed.

Thanks,

-Kev

[Haflinger]

It's been said many many times but this white peace thing was never ever mentionned when it came to the "core of Hegemony". You can try and pull this PR card but we both know it's !@#$%^&*. I don't have a say in the terms for Pacifica but I believe it's been made clear from the start that they wouldn't be receiving just a slap on the wrist.

You missed my point entirely.

What I was trying to say was that even if they were to get white peace now (which they won't, and I don't think anyone expects them to) it wouldn't be a slap on the wrist. They have suffered far too much damage for that term to make any sense at all.

[Mandrivia_2]

Indeed, I suppose GATO actually winning a war for once would be unacceptable.

Kevlar is only expressing his opinion. I'll admit Kevlar's attitude to NPO seems to be that of a wife to her husband that regularly beats her, yet his post is still a valid argument. There's no need for PMS posts like yours.

[Aurion]

If you want to resort to snipes at our character, then I suppose that can suffice as a first impression.

It was more a snipe at your war track record as opposed to being anything about your character. I've seen nothing that suggests GATO are bad people as a whole.

Technical quibble aside, point taken.

Edit:

Kevlar is only expressing his opinion. I'll admit Kevlar's attitude to NPO seems to be that of a wife to her husband that regularly beats her, yet his post is still a valid argument. There's no need for PMS posts like yours.

PMS post? Heh.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Aurion

[Mandrivia_2]

It was more a snipe at your war track record as opposed to being anything about your character. I've seen nothing that suggests GATO are bad people as a whole.

Technical quibble aside, point taken.

Edit:

PMS post? Heh.

Well, I just don't see how debate should have to lead to immature "character snipes". That's all I'm saying.

[Aurion]

Calling it a "PMS post" was one of the funnier things I've seen this evening, honestly.

Well, I just don't see how debate should have to lead to immature "character snipes". That's all I'm saying.

Messing with GATO over their war performance is a long and time-honored tradition.

For the second time, war performance =/= character.

On the subject at hand - Annoyance over being used as a propaganda point by people is definitely understandable. That said, it's one of the more...blatant examples of power going to people's heads in Bob's history, so it was probably inevitable that it would be something pointed out by many. As for people not objecting at the time... well, some people love them pixels. A lot of people prefer to save the moral rage for when it's convenient for them to do so.

I'm not really going to comment on any morals... except to say that Peace Mode is a tool like any other. Well, that and the typical amusement at people who claimed it was solely a coward's refuge using it themselves. But I'm wandering off topic.

Also, damn you people for making me actually respond with something slightly substantial.

Edit: 1:30 AM and grammar don't mix.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Aurion

[Azaghul]

Few in Karma claim to be pacifists and the world won't be free of violence after this. I think some even hope that a multi-polar world will lead to more violence. The world isn't gonna go from one extreme to the other, and few in Karma have promised to fundamentally change things in terms of morality beyond removing a lot of the excesses of the previous regime.

[Xiphosis]

Messing with GATO over their war performance is a long and time-honored tradition.

This. The day people stop razzing GATO when they post is the day the CN forums turn into bizzaro world.

[BarbulaM1]

I think it would be a major folly for an alliance (if they want to continue asserting their own power) to assume such altruistic principles are shared by their opponent. Beat an alliance half way down and they will surge back with vengeance, unless there is truly a change in mentality over at NPO, which I doubt. Karma comes around and goes around, it is really just the cycle of the game with a new name. But it isn't in the timeframe of just a few months, especially with the growing disparity between new nations and old (though that was fixed a bit with the recent war).

Thankfully no one really dies. But regrettably so for such values as held by GATO, with the endless number of pixels that Admin has blessed us with CN is rather desensitized to pixel death, morality is subjective and justice is altruistic and really only achievable by the one with the dominant power. We stick to them for principle and our own honour, but the belief that they are held universially about the cyberverse is a bit absurd.

Edited May 28, 2009 by BarbulaM1

[Tellos]

So far as I can tell the war is winding down I am not fully in on the talks of peace or such but I think if you want to change the way things go your not gonna get it by a new alliance being the unchecked power house. So far I;ve wtached the old order of NPO and Fark Drop like flys while newer alliances fly upward and I fear this war is merely the begining. I worry more about the next war and what will happen then. Like the end of WWI I think this is just an indicator and the loose ends it seems to be leaving may ferment. So go with your revloution but trust me it will come back to haunt us all I think if the ending of the war is not properly done. Just my 2 cents i admit I do not know alot of what happened prior to my comming here so I could be wrong.

[Kevlar]

It was more a snipe at your war track record as opposed to being anything about your character. I've seen nothing that suggests GATO are bad people as a whole.

Technical quibble aside, point taken.

Edit:

PMS post? Heh.

Point taken here, as well (OOC: The ill-fated sarcastic poke...one day it'll be easier to discern )

As for the continued references toward our relationship with Pacifica, I can only say this: this isn't about salvaging Pacifica. It's mostly about Karma. I'm not defending NPO, nor am I trying to get them an easy out. That is entirely Karma's purview. I may have my own opinions, but I've already stated they're nonstarter in the larger scope of things. So don't misread me that way, please. I just feel that we're in a changing time and it certainly warrants a discussion on how we ought to conduct ourselves and how we ought to view war. With our troubled past in mind, it doesn't seem all that outlandish to me to push for a change in our conduct. For the most part, there has been a positive shift. And it's certainly worth noting that.

-Kev

[neneko]

It's quite obvious that this isn't a conflict about GATO, nor is GATO particularly at the forefront of the hearts and minds of those on the frontlines. I never suggested as much, either. I do know that GATO is occasionally mentioned, particularly when listed in the past atrocities of Pacifica. The argument isn't so much about whether or not Karma is trying to fight on someone's behalf. I think GATO's past has been sort of lumped into the collective whole of the evidence that war proponents are using, and I think it's wrong to think as much. If you take issue with that, that's perfectly fine.

Hence my point that a wifebeater gets punished wether the wife tries to defend him or not. If you think that the GATO from back when these things took place deserved what they got or that pacifica have been punished enough for those crimes that's fine but most people are of a different opinion. What you're saying boils down to that you as a GATO member (one of the groups you say can 'legitimately' talk about your past) disagree with karma using NPOs crimes against GATO as example of their crimes thus implying that we're at least partly fighting this war on your behalf wich is something I strongly disagree with. What NPO did to GATO happened wether you think we can 'legitimately' talk about them or not.

The point, or at least the higher purpose, is to look at the overarching goal of Karma. While it has nothing to do with the policy of "just as bad as them" (which you're the only one to suggest as far as I can see), it does have something to do with similar actions and policies. It's relatively easy to do similar actions, but paint them up enough so as not to be gratuitously bad. They may not in themselves be "bad" actions, but that doesn't make them good.

First of all if you actually mean this you should probably avoid to say things like.

Or as they say: same !@#$, different day.

and (I ran out of quote blocks so I merged these two)

then I think we should all avoid any illusion of this war being anything above a changing of the guard.

I'll start with quoting your original post here.

But with that in mind, I would never wish that upon another alliance—even NPO. I don’t believe they deserve an element of reciprocity similar to what we received. I think if Karma wants to really change the landscape of war, they need to do so with clear and evident intentions. Right now, the only intention seems to be destruction. And as a member of an alliance that believed the very same thing, such a war disgusts me.

Do I completely misinterpret this when I read it as meaning that if we do to NPO what they did to others to any degree we're not going to change how wars will look in the future?

If this is what you mean then that is exactly what the "you're just as bad as them" crowd is chanting.

If you mean something else then you're going to have to explain to me what you want us to do to have "clear and evident intentions" and not just be about destruction.

I think there's a difference betwen beheading the dragon and beheading the princess but of course you're not forced to agree.

If the nature of war is inherently the same from the era of NPO hegemony, then what progress has been made in removing them?

This combined with the very next sentence.

Sure, no one is questioning the white peace terms offered to other groups (unless you're seeing questions that I cannot see).

is fairly

I think the progress of removing the old started with giving alliances only honoring treaties white peace. I happend to think that's a pretty important part of what we're doing here. Regretably not all alliances on the hegemony side that just honored treaties got off with white peace but seeing as how karma is not a bloc or have any central power making deicsions I think we've done pretty well so far.

And no one is suggesting NPO get off with white peace and a slap on the wrist.

If this is not what you're suggesting then I fail to see where karma went wrong here. We shouldn't let them off with white peace but if we give them terms we're only interested in destruction? It seems we're in the wrong either way.

While Karma claims (or at least according to the quote lebubu provided) to be taking a step back from attempting to reform interactions of war, it seems like they're certainly trying to some extent. So the question is, what sort of precedent should be set? What sort of standard should the world follow?

The quote lebubu provided did not say we're taking a step back from attempting to reform interaction of war it says it was never our goal in the first place.

Now I am one of those that hope to see a change in how wars are fought when this is over so I'm going to reply to the rest of that quote anyway.

I think the precedent being set here should be punishment to those that deserve it. It started with white peace or close to white peace to alliances only honoring treaties. If it ended with white peace for all then we'd just make the statement that whatever crime you commit you're not going to be punished for it.

I'm not offering answers, nor am I pointing any fingers. My own personal take is that forcing nations into a war is an inherently foul practice, but this isn't my war, nor do I care to partake in it. If the policy of might makes right is going to continue, then I think we should all avoid any illusion of this war being anything above a changing of the guard. Or as they say: same !@#$, different day. It seems obvious to me that now is the best time to pursue any sort of dramatic change to the historical leanings of international relations. It doesn't have to be anything grandiose or create some sort of utopian peace.

Nobody is forcing any nation into war. If I recall correctly NPO started this war. Any NPO nation not agreeing to the war they started are free to leave at any time. There are no punishment for the nations in peacemode there are however a punishment for the alliance as a whole for avoiding damages by keeping their nations in peacemode. What they're not going to pay for on the field they'll get to pay for in their terms. At no point has karma issued any statement saying that these nations in peacemode don't have the right to the indie surrender terms.

To paraphrase what someone once said (if I recall correctly, the author has been responding in here ), "Six months from now, we'll either still be talking about where we want to be or we'll be there." A particular set of actions, a culmination of a significant portion of historical global conflicts, is being checked. When the war is all said and done, will we all be hoping that tomorrow doesn't bring another era of the same old practices?

Deflect all you want, but there are higher responsibilities here whether you want them or not. It just seems important to know whether or not the era of convenience and the status quo has come to an end. If not, why bother with the charade?

Have we failed to make the world a better place because you don't agree with one of the terms in the npo surrender? You're balancing a pretty big statement on top of a single action when saying that this proves karma won't change the world while blocking out everything they have already done.

Edited May 28, 2009 by neneko

[Tellos]

I'll make a simple but perfectly good few points as to why NPO's surrender can matter even if hindging on one point of contention. It's usualy that one stupid point that can genorate problems namely an angery group who make the next evil Empire worse than NPO ever could be. So neneko the problem is that if all loose ends are not tied up we go into a taispin possibly down the road and it'll make this war look like a grade school sand fight.somealliance are already stock piling nukes in the thousends one even more than the top alliance of Sparta this while their NS's have in most cases dropped rather sharply. But I agree with you that NPO cannot be just left to rebuild and restart this cycle all over but I think it'd be wise to make sure you don't pull a treaty of Versailles which leads to disgrunteled NPO members forming the next great enamy. Just a thought heres to your war hopefuly it ends soon.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Tellos

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

So now that IAA has reformed and Atlantis is mostly free to do so as well, will we be seeing a new Ferocitas?

Edited May 29, 2009 by Magnum T. Gundraw

[kerschbs]

So now that IAA has reformed and Atlantis is mostly free to do so as well, will be seeing a new Ferocitas?

I would love to be MDP partners with CSN again, if they would ever have us. CSN and IAA were and still are two of the best allies someone can ask for, they actually honor their friendships and their treaties. However, I would have to think hard about signing an MDP with Atlantis again. I like most of the members, Pip and Virillus are some of my oldest friends in CN, but that treaty cancellation still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (me winks at pip .)

[Lizardo]

Kev's fleas confuses me as always. I think he's just expressing a frustration that the NPO leadership wasn't reined in about a year ago and that quite a few in Karma were either silent about or joining in our little kurb stomp. It's not inappropriate to note the irony of that.

Neither reciprocity nor destruction is the point, though destruction is a means.

The end for which we fight is freedom from oppression by the NPO empire. The only means by which that end can be achieved is to cause an adequate level of destruction to the machinery of that empire, including the diplomatic, military and economic supports on which it stands. History shows that where the imperial aspirations of NPO are concerned, partial destruction of those supports is not adequate to ensure freedom, thus a more total destruction is necessary, potentially including nations in peace mode.

Except for the grammar this seems reasonable.

I hope that a real alternative to to Alliance ZI or disbandment is available to the NPO focused on leadership and culture change. It is otherwise understandable that, faced with the possibility of a resurgent and vengeful NPO, the Karma alliances feel forced to destroy it.

No one in our community feels any need to defend the NPO, there is no 'Stockholm Syndrome' here, GATO has always advocated the least destructive path, for everyone. We do have a (pre Karma) treaty of mutual respect which I am sure we will honor.

[neneko]

No one in our community feels any need to defend the NPO, there is no 'Stockholm Syndrome' here, GATO has always advocated the least destructive path, for everyone. We do have a (pre Karma) treaty of mutual respect which I am sure we will honor.

The least destructive path for everyone else happends to be very different from the least destructive path for NPO.

[Lizardo]

The least destructive path for everyone else happens to be very different from the least destructive path for NPO.

True, every case is different.

This war is about NPOs past crimes, not about GATO.

I think Kev will agree with that. In fact if you remove 99% of his verbiage that's exactly what he said. I think.

A wifebeater will get arrested even if the wife says that he only does it because he loves her.

What business is it if of the state then if she consents?

Edited May 31, 2009 by Lizardo