Do you think the current war will/had solve anything

[Heracles the Great]

Hey, my question to that member of FCC was an honest one. It was not a leading question. My responses to those who responded to that question are seperate from the question. As of yet neither the one I asked nor any other member of Citadel has actually answered that.

Your point about SF and Chestnut is a very good one though. That would have both sides appearing very much like tC/1V. A bipolar hegemonic world. That ought to be interesting.

Ah - my bad then - I misread it

I think we are looking at a multi-polar world with anywhere from 5-8 beacons of power. The difference in NS from C&G to Citadel is 14m NS and there are 8 blocs in between those two. For example, you have Frostbite who is tied to C&G and they are #4 and #10 (iirc). You have Chestnut and Superfriends who are #2 and #5 (iirc) and then you have Citadel, Posiedon, CDT and a few other MDP+ blocs.

[Tromp]

Certainly you remember the outing of that group by certain personalities of Vox? MHA was heading up the charge to put together an alliance codenamed Bastion. To see who the potential members were to be and to see which alliances jumped ship from the tC is to see near identical lists. That is a rather large occurance to swallow as mere coincedence.

So no, Citadel did not create the idea of Bastion but Gramlins brothers and sisters in MHA certainly were toying with the idea. Also I do believe my statements agreed with your statement about FOK not being a member of Citadel. When one thinks of 1V do you not think of them as an extension of tC? The original idea of Bastion would be similiar. Due to that we may not see it but even then, individual ties still create a similarity. That in itself is not hegemonic, its how those ties that bond are used.

At this point it is indeed just speculation because past intentions can indeed change. If it was a sure thing it wouldnt be as interesting to talk about though.

If I came about a bit offensive, I'm sorry.

As to your post.

I wasn't aware that many Citadel alliances took part in the talks about Bastion. Most of the participators were SF actually. So I don't agree that Bastion could be seen as a Citadel+ or something.

And you asked what bloc FOK was part of, that's what I replied to.

Now go back speculating.

[Tromp]

Your point about SF and Chestnut is a very good one though. That would have both sides appearing very much like tC/1V. A bipolar hegemonic world. That ought to be interesting.

Oh, I do want to comment once more.

Why single yourself (Frostbite) out?

[HeinousOne]

If I came about a bit offensive, I'm sorry.

As to your post.

I wasn't aware that many Citadel alliances took part in the talks about Bastion. Most of the participators were SF actually. So I don't agree that Bastion could be seen as a Citadel+ or something.

And you asked what bloc FOK was part of, that's what I replied to.

Now go back speculating.

No offense taken.

Perhaps you are right about those whom participated in those talks and perhaps that bears some reason why certain alliances took the Bastion name for themselves rather then just having VE join SF outright.

As it stands now though we have Gramlins, TOP and OG whom all used to be card carrying members of the Hegemony and we have FOK, MHA and Sparta whom similiarly have left before hostilities began. All have long time relations and it would be no stretch to believe that such alliances would want to continue relations. There are some other up and coming alliances that could fill in with the second grouping of three and make quite an impressive bloc. This is not me fishing for info from you but with the SF/Chestnut connection just pointed out does that not make a two bloc system based on Citadel and a MHA/FOK/Sparta led bloc seem reasonable? It almost now seems necessary to me where as before I would have balked at calling such a good thing.

Oh, I do want to comment once more.

Why single yourself (Frostbite) out?

Perhaps you could better explain this statement? How am I singling Frostbite out? As far as singling myself out, that is nothing new. I like to bring up subjects that could end up being controversial.

Edited June 9, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Roadie]

Perhaps we could get bipolar with a Citadel+Some Former Hegemony and SF+Chesnut. With a Frostbite+C&G staying clear of getting too close to either.

[Tromp]

No offense taken.

Perhaps you are right about those whom participated in those talks and perhaps that bears some reason why certain alliances took the Bastion name for themselves rather then just having VE join SF outright.

As it stands now though we have Gramlins, TOP and OG whom all used to be card carrying members of the Hegemony and we have FOK, MHA and Sparta whom whom similiarly have left before hostilities began. All have long time relations and it would be no stretch to believe that such alliances would want to continue relations. There are some other up and coming alliances that could fill in with the second grouping of three and make quite an impressive bloc. This is not me fishing for info from you but with the SF/Chestnut connection just pointed out does that not make a two bloc system based on Citadel and a MHA/FOK/Sparta led bloc seem reasonable? It almost now seems necessary to me where as before I would have balked at calling such a good thing.

Well, MHA/Sparta/FOK have different interests. Take a look at our treaties and I'm sure you'll notice what I'm referring to.

As someone mentioned earlier, I don't think Citadel has Hegemonial intentions, so even if this would happen nothing would change.

Why should it be Citadel to oppose SF, especially when you take Citadels' defensive policy into account? There are other blocs that could be far more influential or form opposition to SF/Chestnut if they'd want to. Purple Unity, Duckroll or Frostbite for example.

Perhaps you could better explain this statement? How am I singling Frostbite out? As far as singling myself out, that is nothing new. I like to bring up subjects that could end up being controversial.

You were referring to Citadel and Sf as the two dominant blocs am I right?

I don't think that is the complete truth. Sure both are influential but as stated above there are other blocs around that can easily become more influential. And I think Frostbite is one of the blocs most likely to succeed, if not the only one.

[Roadie]

Well, MHA/Sparta/FOK have different interests. Take a look at our treaties and I'm sure you'll notice what I'm referring to.

As someone mentioned earlier, I don't think Citadel has Hegemonial intentions, so even if this would happen nothing would change.

Why should it be Citadel to oppose SF, especially when you take Citadels' defensive policy into account? There are other blocs that could be far more influential or form opposition to SF/Chestnut if they'd want to. Purple Unity, Duckroll or Frostbite for example.

You were referring to Citadel and Sf as the two dominant blocs am I right?

I don't think that is the complete truth. Sure both are influential but as stated above there are other blocs around that can easily become more influential. And I think Frostbite is one of the blocs most likely to succeed, if not the only one.

Given the histories of some Frostbite members, I wouldn't disagree with the possibility, but if they did so, I would expect them to take their time and let the other blocs fight it out for a while.

[HeinousOne]

Well, MHA/Sparta/FOK have different interests. Take a look at our treaties and I'm sure you'll notice what I'm referring to.

As someone mentioned earlier, I don't think Citadel has Hegemonial intentions, so even if this would happen nothing would change.

Why should it be Citadel to oppose SF, especially when you take Citadels' defensive policy into account? There are other blocs that could be far more influential or form opposition to SF/Chestnut if they'd want to. Purple Unity, Duckroll or Frostbite for example.

Purple Unity is not large enough nor will it likely become but they do have some ties into atleast one of the two large groups. Duckroll....is not a bloc. In fact its largest "member" IRON could be lumped in with MHA. They still seem to get along pretty well and we all know Orange is going to want to see a rejuvinated IRON. As far as Frostbite goes it is not a very offensive bloc and if you look at NpO, NSO and STA you see three proven defensive alliances.

You were referring to Citadel and Sf as the two dominant blocs am I right?

I don't think that is the complete truth. Sure both are influential but as stated above there are other blocs around that can easily become more influential. And I think Frostbite is one of the blocs most likely to succeed, if not the only one.

Well, I personally appreciate your compliments towards Frostbite as I do indeed like the bloc make up very much. One of the things I like about it is how it is a non-chaining bloc. Meaning outsiders cannot expect to have the entire bloc come to their aid just because one of the bloc members is entitled to through an individual treaty.

As far as us succeeding I agree but I dont agree that we must become equals in power with the other blocs for us to succeed. That is a good thing because I am not so sure if I would agree that there is going to be a mass exodus of nations moving from other places to frostbite alliances.

[Tromp]

Purple Unity is not large enough nor will it likely become but they do have some ties into atleast one of the two large groups. Duckroll....is not a bloc. In fact its largest "member" IRON could be lumped in with MHA. They still seem to get along pretty well and we all know Orange is going to want to see a rejuvinated IRON. As far as Frostbite goes it is not a very offensive bloc and if you look at NpO, NSO and STA you see three proven defensive alliances.

So the only bloc left to compete with SF would be CnG. I doubt they hate each other at this moment though.

Well, I personally appreciate your compliments towards Frostbite as I do indeed like the bloc make up very much. One of the things I like about it is how it is a non-chaining bloc. Meaning outsiders cannot expect to have the entire bloc come to their aid just because one of the bloc members is entitled to through an individual treaty.

As far as us succeeding I agree but I dont agree that we must become equals in power with the other blocs for us to succeed. That is a good thing because I am not so sure if I would agree that there is going to be a mass exodus of nations moving from other places to frostbite alliances.

It's not only the power you have with combined nation strength. Frostbite's influence reaches far further than that within its borders. This ofcourse applies to other major blocs. Frostbite has just been formed but has already established itself and gained a good spot in this arena.

We'll see where this leads up to.

(I hope more conflict. )

[Heracles the Great]

As far as Frostbite goes it is not a very offensive bloc and if you look at NpO, NSO and STA you see three proven defensive alliances.

Well to be fair, NSO is only a few months old so it's hard to judge their position. However if you look at their leader and his track record, you can infer what you want about what their future may hold. Then you have NpO who isn't exactly known as a "defensive alliance" - the only one I would agree with that is a "proven defensive alliance" is STA. But that's just my personal opinion and I might be misguided.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Heracles the Great

[Lord Brendan]

As far as Frostbite goes it is not a very offensive bloc and if you look at NpO, NSO and STA you see three proven defensive alliances.

Well, I personally appreciate your compliments towards Frostbite as I do indeed like the bloc make up very much. One of the things I like about it is how it is a non-chaining bloc. Meaning outsiders cannot expect to have the entire bloc come to their aid just because one of the bloc members is entitled to through an individual treaty.

What? Polar probably holds the record for second most aggressive wars in history and NSO has declared more wars in like two months than most alliances do in two years.

As for the bolded part: it sounds nice on paper, but would you really stand by while your bloc-mates burned alone to defend an ally?

[HeinousOne]

Well to be fair, NSO is only a few months old so it's hard to judge their position. However if you look at their leader and his track record, you can infer what you want about what their future may hold. Then you have NpO who isn't exactly known as a "defensive alliance" - the only one I would agree with that is a "proven defensive alliance" is STA. But that's just my personal opinion and I might be misguided.

The NSO is not pacifist but they certainly are not about building up to the top at the expense of others. Remember that little operation and how they were hailed for their moderation during such?

As far as the NpO goes I realize no one will ever let them move past their past but its obvious to me since Grub has taken over they they are an entirely different alliance when it comes to aggression.

What? Polar probably holds the record for second most aggressive wars in history and NSO has declared more wars in like two months than most alliances do in two years.

As for the bolded part: it sounds nice on paper, but would you really stand by while your bloc-mates burned alone to defend an ally?

Who was running Polar at the time? Who runs it now?

What were the reasons for NSO declaring those wars and did they not show moderation in such? Were they not widely hailed for such? They made their point and then moved on without trying to cripple anyone but only defending their sovereignty.

Your last question I cannot really answer fully as each situation must be assessed at the time. Every political puzzle is different. Would I like to stand by and watch a blocmate taking part in a very ugly fight? Hell no I wouldn't. If they were told by the leaders of the other alliances in the bloc that their participation in such was frowned upon by the rest of the bloc and yet they still went forth then is there a possibility that there is an instance of such in which I would have to watch them do such without helping? Yes, that is a possibility. It really depends upon the situation. Without even a hypothetical situation to go on its damn near impossible to actually answer such.

Now, please do not mistake the above statement for STA policy. It is my own personal opinion and as a non gov member of STA that is really as far as it goes. Whether I am correct or not matters not as you would have to get an official response on this from our actual government.

[Heracles the Great]

The NSO is not pacifist but they certainly are not about building up to the top at the expense of others. Remember that little operation and how they were hailed for their moderation during such?

As far as the NpO goes I realize no one will ever let them move past their past but its obvious to me since Grub has taken over they they are an entirely different alliance when it comes to aggression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are aggressive, just pointing out that they don't exactly have a proven track record for being non-aggressive.

[Roadie]

The NSO is not pacifist but they certainly are not about building up to the top at the expense of others. Remember that little operation and how they were hailed for their moderation during such?

As far as the NpO goes I realize no one will ever let them move past their past but its obvious to me since Grub has taken over they they are an entirely different alliance when it comes to aggression.

Who was running Polar at the time? Who runs it now?

What were the reasons for NSO declaring those wars and did they not show moderation in such? Were they not widely hailed for such? They made their point and then moved on without trying to cripple anyone but only defending their sovereignty.

Your last question I cannot really answer fully as each situation must be assessed at the time. Every political puzzle is different. Would I like to stand by and watch a blocmate taking part in a very ugly fight? Hell no I wouldn't. If they were told by the leaders of the other alliances in the bloc that their participation in such was frowned upon by the rest of the bloc and yet they still went forth then is there a possibility that there is an instance of such in which I would have to watch them do such without helping? Yes, that is a possibility. It really depends upon the situation. Without even a hypothetical situation to go on its damn near impossible to actually answer such.

Now, please do not mistake the above statement for STA policy. It is my own personal opinion and as a non gov member of STA that is really as far as it goes. Whether I am correct or not matters not as you would have to get an official response on this from our actual government.

I dunno, the Frostbite alliances declaring on DOOM probably didn't help the alliances in Frostbite look like they weren't aggressive.

Though I do agree that an alliance shouldn't always be measured by the actions of it's previously leaders. We here at TPF fully understand the unfortunate position Polaris finds itself in with regards to public perception.

[HeinousOne]

I dunno, the Frostbite alliances declaring on DOOM probably didn't help the alliances in Frostbite look like they weren't aggressive.

Though I do agree that an alliance shouldn't always be measured by the actions of it's previously leaders. We here at TPF fully understand the unfortunate position Polaris finds itself in with regards to public perception.

How it is that the same arguments come up again and again no matter how many times they are explained I do not know.

DOOM jumped into the fray, not the other way around. Look at the ANS of both STA and of NSO and you will see that the higher end DOOM nations, yes they have/had some rather high NS nations, were not going to be hard pressed as most of ours were already engaged. Thus, our professed closest allies came to our aid. Now, is that aggressive? Sure, I suppose you can paint that picture but it is aggressive in coming to the aid of their ally. I guess if you want to consider that bad you go right ahead, that is the kind of aggressive I like. There is far too much e-lawyering going around these days about trying to get alliances to not help their allies.

To me that is a different kind of aggression then forcefully going out and pushing your will upon other sovereign alliances. Responsive aggression is meant to state that if you come at us we will defend ourselves and our friends to the utmost of our ability. True aggression in pressing your will upon others, even if you think it is just a proactive means of self defense, is an entirely different situation.

Edited June 10, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Roadie]

How it is that the same arguments come up again and again no matter how many times they are explained I do not know.

Here is the fact, NSO was attacked by DOOM. Look at the ANS of both STA and of NSO and you will see that the higher end DOOM nations, yes they have/had some rather high NS nations, were not going to be hard pressed as most of ours were already engaged. Thus, our professed closest allies came to our aid. Now, is that aggressive? Sure, I suppose you can paint that picture but it is aggressive in coming to the aid of their ally. I guess if you want to consider that bad you go right ahead, that is the kind of aggressive I like. There is far too much e-lawyering going around these days about trying to get alliances to not help their allies.

To me that is a different kind of aggression then forcefully going out and pushing your will upon other sovereign alliances. Responsive aggression is meant to state that if you come at us we will defend ourselves and our friends to the utmost of our ability. True aggression in pressing your will upon others, even if you think it is just a proactive means of self defense, is an entirely different situation.

You don't have to defend any actions to me. Whether the actions taken were right or wrong generally is not what seems to matter most when it comes to the general impression left behind to the masses.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Roadie

[Ebony Wings]

Oceana had an opportunity to rebuild, so I'd say that at least one wrong has been righted. I might be a bit biased in this department, though.

[enderland]

How it is that the same arguments come up again and again no matter how many times they are explained I do not know.

DOOM jumped into the fray, not the other way around. Look at the ANS of both STA and of NSO and you will see that the higher end DOOM nations, yes they have/had some rather high NS nations, were not going to be hard pressed as most of ours were already engaged. Thus, our professed closest allies came to our aid. Now, is that aggressive? Sure, I suppose you can paint that picture but it is aggressive in coming to the aid of their ally. I guess if you want to consider that bad you go right ahead, that is the kind of aggressive I like. There is far too much e-lawyering going around these days about trying to get alliances to not help their allies.

To me that is a different kind of aggression then forcefully going out and pushing your will upon other sovereign alliances. Responsive aggression is meant to state that if you come at us we will defend ourselves and our friends to the utmost of our ability. True aggression in pressing your will upon others, even if you think it is just a proactive means of self defense, is an entirely different situation.

By that regard, the only aggressive wars in this past war were NPO/TORN.

[HeinousOne]

By that regard, the only aggressive wars in this past war were NPO/TORN.

I suppose you are correct. Correct in that I would not point at any others as being overly aggressive.