enderland Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 But it seems that you think that war can happen for reasons other than those mentioned above, what would they? Fun? For the lulz? Sounds good to me dey zee me raidin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Generally to survive and thrive in the modern Cyberverse you need power, and to have power you need to engage in power politics. As such, every war is an example of power politics. There are only two reasons that an alliance would need to engage in power politics, and that is if you're looking for more power and/or domination or if you become a target. Otherwise I'd argue most alliances can thrive and survive without needing to resort to the power politics game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 There are only two reasons that an alliance would need to engage in power politics, and that is if you're looking for more power and/or domination or if you become a target. Otherwise I'd argue most alliances can thrive and survive without needing to resort to the power politics game. Well, some alliances can survive, yes. However, at the most basic of levels, just about every alliance takes part in power politics. Look at your own alliance as an example. I'm sure you're friends with other members of Citadel, but the Gremlins' position within that bloc also provides them with security and firepower. Power politics provides security, not just in an aggressive manner to put down enemies, but in a defensive manner to discourage attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Am I the only one getting nose bleeds when Buller posts? Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 By Jove I think he's got itAnd it only took 2 pages!There are only two reasons that an alliance would need to engage in power politics, and that is if you're looking for more power and/or domination or if you become a target. Otherwise I'd argue most alliances can thrive and survive without needing to resort to the power politics game.Question: How do you prevent the domination of your alliance by another?Answer: Attain enough power to make it infeasible. Question: How do you attain enough power to make the domination of your alliance by another? Answer: Play power politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 My point was that NpO provoked the war and was planning our demise.It would be nice if you could define power politics because i'm sure someone could spin every CN war into a power politics war. Provoked, maybe, planning your demise, seriously you continue to over rate your importance time and time again. Polaris was not planning, had never planned, will never plan the demise of TOP. In fact right now, I could say you are doing a fine job of planning it all by yourself and I will sit and watch, not participate, but watch, to see what happens from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then. If I could I would not leave home. You are straying into a fairly dangerous position now my friend, hardly gracious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The notion that Polaris was in any position to plan against TOP, let alone actually pose any significant threat to TOP or any of her allies at the time of the Second Great Patriotic War, is ludicrous. We all know that the aggressors attacked Polaris because you did not like Polaris, and that was the only reason behind the war. Now let's accept this and move on, as to say otherwise is about as pointless as Vladimir attempting to argue that NPO won GW1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Well, some alliances can survive, yes. However, at the most basic of levels, just about every alliance takes part in power politics.Look at your own alliance as an example. I'm sure you're friends with other members of Citadel, but the Gremlins' position within that bloc also provides them with security and firepower. Power politics provides security, not just in an aggressive manner to put down enemies, but in a defensive manner to discourage attacks. It depends on your intentions. If you're signing a defensive treaty to discourage attacks in general then I wouldn't call it power politics, that would give the term a broad meaning and you could pretty much apply it to all alliances. If on the other hand you sign a defensive treaty to send some sort of signal to a particular alliance you have in mind, then yeah you can say you're engaging in it. Power politics is aggressive in nature, even if you engage in it for defensive reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then. This is not the way to get people to agree with your already horrendous posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Emperor Burka Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then. real nice on topic: i'd go with canceling the OoO or ofs surrendering to gato Edited June 11, 2009 by Grand Emperor Burka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 This is not the way to get people to agree with your already horrendous posting. Thanks for the flame buddy, and of course Polaris people aren't going to suddenly agree with me months after a war that everybody already has made their minds up about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Grub, I know we (Grämlins at least) have sorted this issue with you guys long since now, but we believed at the time that Polar were a serious threat to us. As we discovered when talking to you afterwards, we made a misjudgement there. Every war is a power politics war ... to some extent. The thing that the NPO has shown is a willingness to conduct those wars, aggressively, without any other reason, and in the case of this latest war, to attack an innocent alliance that is connected to their main target in an attempt to start a war by proxy. (You could argue that Valhalla/GGA did this by attacking Hyperion, too; I consider those to be dangerous alliances as well.) That makes (ok, made) them dangerous to everyone, and the loss (temporary I'm sure if they were given a quick peace) of their allies did not take that away if you were smaller than them – which everyone was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Thanks for the flame buddy, and of course Polaris people aren't going to suddenly agree with me months after a war that everybody already has made their minds up about. That could never compete with "Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then" in terms of flaming. Try reading your own posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Grub, I know we (Grämlins at least) have sorted this issue with you guys long since now, but we believed at the time that Polar were a serious threat to us. As we discovered when talking to you afterwards, we made a misjudgement there.Every war is a power politics war ... to some extent. The thing that the NPO has shown is a willingness to conduct those wars, aggressively, without any other reason, and in the case of this latest war, to attack an innocent alliance that is connected to their main target in an attempt to start a war by proxy. (You could argue that Valhalla/GGA did this by attacking Hyperion, too; I consider those to be dangerous alliances as well.) That makes (ok, made) them dangerous to everyone, and the loss (temporary I'm sure if they were given a quick peace) of their allies did not take that away if you were smaller than them – which everyone was. That only works as a theory if their alleged target also lost its allies too. Incidentally, who do you think their main target was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 That could never compete with "Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then" in terms of flaming. Try reading your own posts. A swear hardly makes for a more offending post than saying you make bad posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Grub, I know we (Grämlins at least) have sorted this issue with you guys long since now, but we believed at the time that Polar were a serious threat to us. As we discovered when talking to you afterwards, we made a misjudgement there.Every war is a power politics war ... to some extent. The thing that the NPO has shown is a willingness to conduct those wars, aggressively, without any other reason, and in the case of this latest war, to attack an innocent alliance that is connected to their main target in an attempt to start a war by proxy. (You could argue that Valhalla/GGA did this by attacking Hyperion, too; I consider those to be dangerous alliances as well.) That makes (ok, made) them dangerous to everyone, and the loss (temporary I'm sure if they were given a quick peace) of their allies did not take that away if you were smaller than them – which everyone was. Dangerous alliances, of and by themselves, are no real threat to anyone. No single alliance can do whatever it wants to do, not ever, if others dont want them to do it. Dangerous alliances are ones with allies who will follow them regardless of what they are doing, allies who have MADPs who have no choice but to follow or allies who are just as dangerous. One could argue that right now there are few alliances capable of doing anything at all without reprisals, in the past however the check and balances were definitely skewed because most of the ''power'' alliances were both allied to each other, allied with anyone who might have said no, and basically uncountered. Every single alliance who has been allied to the ones you call dangerous are just as much to blame for the situation. Also, I know Gramlins and Polaris are cool, I know that TOP and Polaris are coolish, but it hurts my eyes when I read crap being posted over and over again like it was delivered as a message from God. The notion that Polaris was dangerous post isolation is crapola, for all the reasons mentioned. We didn't have the mandate in sufficient numbers to hurt anyone, without reprisals... guess what, we were sitting on our hands for a long time once 1V +++ ended for us. The OOO cancel confined future actions to diplomacy for some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 A swear hardly makes for a more offending post than saying you make bad posts. Off-topic, take it to PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Emperor Burka Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) nvm i've got to stop posting and studying at the same time Edited June 11, 2009 by Grand Emperor Burka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 itt, Buller turns into Sponge, Vilien turns into Ardus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Incidentally, who do you think their main target was? SF and C&G. There's only one reason to go after OV, and that's because they were connected to both (and VE, which was probably a bonus kill since they had just stuck two fingers up at the hegemony). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 axtually yes it does come across a lot worse, him telling you you are making bad posts is just some criticism you telling some one to go $%&@ themselves is just insulting and proves you don't really have any proper arguments to refute hizzy. edit spelling He insulted me what do you want me to argue against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Incidentally, who do you think their main target was? I am pretty sure this has been covered in depth elsewhere as to why OV was the target chosen to start the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Hopkins Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 OFS surrendering to GATO while GATO was being pounded by One Vision, still epic to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why dont you go $%&@ yourself then. wow, way to make TOP look even worse than they already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.