I have a dream.

[Francesca]

It's not about definitions, it's about perspective.

At the risk of sounding too pro-NPO, I find it ironic that posts like this one are made now, rather than back when it was convenient for what is now Karma to condemn harsh terms.

[Mathias]

At the risk of sounding too pro-NPO, I find it ironic that posts like this one are made now, rather than back when it was convenient for what is now Karma to condemn harsh terms.

I don't find it ironic at all, considering I've always abhorred harsh terms being handed down to innocent alliances. Now NPO is faced with it's just deserts, and I see it fitting for what could be considered harsh terms to be handed down one last time.

Edited July 8, 2009 by The Mathias

[Francesca]

I don't find it ironic at all, considering I've always abhorred harsh terms being handed down to innocent alliances. Now NPO is faced with it's just deserts, and I see it fitting for what could be considered harsh terms to be handed down one last time.

If harshness is a matter of perspective, then what NPO did doesn't matter.

[SonOfHoward]

By making them militarily useless.

After attacking OV you don't think reducing their nuke counts and military capabilities until the terms are up wouldn't be a possibilty? I've seen many a terms like this from many alliances not just NPO. It's a given on PB whether terms are issued to the aggressor or otherwise.

So in that case, you believe that in some instances, extremely harsh reps are moral?

That comment wasn't about harsh reps or morality. I was agreeing with your point that future vengeance shouldn't play a part in deciding what the terms should be.

[Bill Wallace]

Also, even if we do get rolled, that doesn't make the morality of our actions any less admirable.

This sums up the differences between the bleeding hearts and the realists. Reading some of these posts reminds me of a children's fairy tale filled with unicorns, rainbows, and happy village people. While you dream of a world filled with ice cream cones and puppy dogs, the leaders of Karma are going to do the right thing and meet out the proper punishment for NPO's aggression.

What good is being admirable if you're dead?

[Electron Sponge]

This sums up the differences between the bleeding hearts and the realists. Reading some of these posts reminds me of a children's fairy tale filled with unicorns, rainbows, and happy village people. While you dream of a world filled with ice cream cones and puppy dogs, the leaders of Karma are going to do the right thing and meet out the proper punishment for NPO's aggression.

What good is being admirable if you're dead?

Ask Vox Populi.

[Francesca]

After attacking OV you don't think reducing their nuke counts and military capabilities until the terms are up wouldn't be a possibilty? I've seen many a terms like this from many alliances not just NPO. It's a given on PB whether terms are issued to the aggressor or otherwise.

Oh, absolutely. I think that is a great idea. I said "reasonable terms" not "white peace." But who the hell turns down 9 billion and 300k tech, or whatever it was that NPO counter-offered? From this I must conclude that you didn't merely want to reduce them, but do your best to render them useless.

[Bill Wallace]

I'm not saying that Pacifica will necessarily reform, but I'm saying that the way that we handle terms for this war will influence the actions of alliances and other sides in the political situation in months, perhaps years, to come.

I'm sorry Fran, but this is just wishful thinking. There's no way you can guarantee that if the terms offered to NPO were lightened that it would be the end of harsh terms forever and ever.

[Mathias]

If harshness is a matter of perspective, then what NPO did doesn't matter.

The terms handed down to NPO will reflect the perspectives of their opponents. So yes, what they did matters, because that shapes the perspectives of the leaders of the alliances that make up the Karma coalition.

[Aeternalis]

as the thief so stabbed the father, so shall the father stab the thief to protect his son.

[Electron Sponge]

These allegories about thieves and serial killers are really just appeals to emotion and are fallacious.

[Sargun II]

If harshness is a matter of perspective, then what NPO did doesn't matter.

Actually it's the opposite. If it's a matter of perspective, what NPO did is entirely what matters. If they were nice people who did nice things in their past, these terms would be beyond harsh and I'm sure there'd be ten times as more outrage than there is now. Fortunately, NPO was not full of ice cream cones and puppy dogs (thanks DK ) and these terms are not harsh.

From the perspective of someone who was beaten down and treated like !@#$, these terms aren't harsh.

From the perspective of the man who's being given his just desserts, these are harsher than a whip made of sandpaper being shoved up an unpleasant orifice.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Sargun

[Vilien]

These allegories about thieves and serial killers are really just appeals to emotion and are fallacious.

I'd say that a comparison to a massive empire that butchered and enslaved local populations would be more appropriate.

[Mixoux]

I think that the reps are designed to destroy NPO, but will fail to do so.

This is what still boggles my mind even today, notions like this.

If we wanted to destroy NPO, why would we give them terms in the first place? If we're even giving terms, obviously they're going to be harsh, but it's also because we feel it's worth letting them go for.

If we want to destroy them then we'll just keep fighting. Which atm is what's happening since they've been turned down.

[Aeternalis]

These allegories about thieves and serial killers are really just appeals to emotion and are fallacious.

really? So after the NPO got done pummeling the !@#$ out of some alliance and then demanded insane reps, they deserve to be let of easy to set a precedent? We need to set a precedent for other alliances that actions like the NPO's will be dealt with with a punch to the face (as they did to the innocent alliances who did nothing) and not a slap to the wrist. Alliance leaders have a duty to protect their members from what the NPO is capable at the height of their power.

[Doitzel]

If they are going to destroy each other, it probably isn't us they should be worrying about.

You didn't stop worrying about FAN and Vox Populi as the world moved inexorably towards destroying you, now did you? It is possible to be under threat on more than one front. Unwise, maybe, but you know that and are banking on it; it's not always something that can be helped, either. 'Divide and conquer' has always been the Pacifican tactic of choice.

Oh well.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Elyat

[SonOfHoward]

Oh, absolutely. I think that is a great idea. I said "reasonable terms" not "white peace." But who the hell turns down 9 billion and 300k tech, or whatever it was that NPO counter-offered? From this I must conclude that you didn't merely want to reduce them, but do your best to render them useless.

Just to be clear you first stated the reps were designed to destroy the NPO. Then you claimed the terms did so because they rendered them militarily useless. However now you agree for the length of the terms this is justified, so I don't what you are in disagreeance with.

Now, from your latest statement the tech and money in the original reps was less than the NPO counter offer. From this argument alone how does that make you conclude the original terms, which were less than the counter offer, designed to render them useless? There is something missing in your statement which I will assume is the 4K infra cap on rep paying nations.

The NPO offered made their counter offer as a means to possibly reduce the time it takes them to repay the reps (To get around the 4000K infra cap on the rep paying nations.). I'd say it was refused because it the amount of time it would take NPO to pay reps under the original terms was fair in the eyes of the negotiators on the Karma side. I wasn't involved in the negotiations so I'm only going by what I see here.

So from my point of view the issue between the two sides seems to be more about the length of time to pay the reps not about destroying the NPO. I think roughly 3 months is fair for attacking OV(The terms aren't 11 months or however long the GPA terms lastet for.) The NPO will retain all their current wonders and have enough nukes etc to deal with rogues and will be under the protection of the signatories for the duration of them term. This is not destroying them or rendering them 'useless'. May I note at this point I'm assuming by useless you are refering to them as having zero means of defending themselves as opposed to having the ability to be the aggressor towards other alliances.

If you're argument is about the length or reps then you should state that clearly at the begining instead of using terms as 'destroying' or 'useless'. Or at least define your terms so we know what you are talking about.

Edit:grammer and spelling

Edited July 8, 2009 by SonOfHoward

[Vladimir]

That is not quite correct, SonOfHoward. The counter-offer removed the demand that large NPO nations (ie. the ones that would pay the reps) would go through 2 weeks of nuclear war beforehand, and it was this that allowed us to offer more cash in return -- not to pay it off faster, but (in our estimation) to make it payable at all. It is this demand to destroy our top large nations that has been the sticking point, not the length of time over which we will pay the reps -- if that were the case Karma could simply add a 'pay no more than X amount per week' clause.

You didn't stop worrying about FAN and Vox Populi as the world moved inexorably towards destroying you, now did you? It is possible to be under threat on more than one front. Unwise, maybe, but you know that and are banking on it; it's not always something that can be helped, either. 'Divide and conquer' has always been the Pacifican tactic of choice.

Oh well.

You're taking an awful lot away from a throwaway line that merely took your comment to its necessary conclusion. My point is merely that people shouldn't be expecting the Order to be back at 23 million strength next month with hundreds of millions of strength behind us. Whether no terms, harsh terms or utterly destructive terms, it simply isn't going to happen.

[Drostan]

I don't want to destroy the NPO and yet I am completely confident that, though it is a fabrication, many in Pacifica believe the stab in the back myth about Sparta. As such, I fully anticipate that NPO will one day come knocking on our doors, what remains to be seen is who they will be bringing with them.

I think that recent discussion has shown that Pacifica is not nearly as friendless as some people gain by pretending. Their diplomacy may be in a shambles now, but it won't take long after peace before their friends feel they can speak up again. With all the jockeying going on between various alliances in Karma or just spouting slogans from off-side, I suspect that Pacifica won't have to wait more than a few months before being called to choose a side there.

I can already hear the "better the devil you know" propaganda that will pour forth in the wake of this war. Where revolutionary furvor swept over the NPO and they suffered greatly at the hands of a coalition gone mad with power. The power itself corrupted and destroyed Karma because in truth only the Order(s) are fit to possess such strength.

I have no problem easing some of the terms being offered to Pacifica, but I want to make sure that we do so with our eyes open. Let us not deceive ourselves into believing that we have a rabbit rather than a wolf by its ears. There is a strong chance that if we let NPO up, they will come looking for a fight down the road. But there is certainly no shame in releasing a foe knowing fully that the fight is not over. Just make sure you are ready for him when he seeks his revenge. In many ways this comes down to whether it is victory or how you gain it that matters most to those alliances involved. Despite the platitudes, that is a difficult choice to make and I don't envy those now deciding that exact gambit. No matter which path they choose to take, there is a high likelihood that Pacifica will be lurking in the distance armed and ready.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Drostan

[Vol Navy]

A few problems the anti-NPO crowd has imo.

They list every war that has happened on PB and blame NPO for the result even when it was driven by others and NPO was either marginally involved or not at all.

They list every war as being the NPO bullying an innocent alliance who was minding their own business when NPO suddenly crushed them. No war that NPO has ever fought was for a just cause and no alliance ever did anything to deserve getting declared on.

Amazingly their propaganda was so effective that many people who never even faced a war on here were constantly worried the NPO was going to show up in their war slots at any second. Like you were not allowed to grow or prosper in the game if you weren't directly tied to NPO or in NPO. That is complete b.s of course but it was eaten up by the masses.

They tend to think that the game is exactly the same now as it was in 2006 in terms of ability to rebuild and catch up to others in strength. It's vastly different. I know for example that my nation will never recover from this. In the year+ it will take me to rebuild others who I was on a level with will be a year ahead of me. This is what happens when war lasts 3 or 4 months instead of 3 or 4 weeks. Then to have to give up all that's being asked from NPO in reps and being asked to trust the jackals that have recently betrayed you to not bite you again, well I can see why they choose extended war with nations who really can't be damaged further. Otherwise rebuilding, if not attacked again, will take 2 years instead of 1.

As to several of those setting these terms, some of the nations on the NPO and the Echelon front are "acting like the Hegemony" because quite simply, they are the Hegemony. It shouldn't be a surprise they are giving out harsh terms. They are doing what they did last war. They just switched sides this time. Now they will have handed out terms and gotten reps in the past two conflicts. They've played both sides in the last 8-10 months. They'll get theirs someday and these very terms will be thrown in their face.

The final problem with this war for those on the Karma front won't be the NPO rising up to get them. It will be from those who have been driven from their homes by this entire conflict, spreading into other alliances and becoming vocally against alliances they have a beef with over this.

It will take a while, maybe a year or two but you will have people that are former NPO, OG, IRON, TPF, Echelon, Valhalla etc that have spread into other alliances and carried their grudges there. Just like former GOONS, \m/, anyone else who lost a war and now blames NPO etc have in this conflict. Then the dislike will spread. This war has very clearly shown that NOTHING is ever forgotten. It's often misremembered, for now NPO takes blame for it all, someone else will have to in the future, and the piper will have to be paid.

[ShinRa]

You're taking an awful lot away from a throwaway line that merely took your comment to its necessary conclusion. My point is merely that people shouldn't be expecting the Order to be back at 23 million strength next month with hundreds of millions of strength behind us. Whether no terms, harsh terms or utterly destructive terms, it simply isn't going to happen.

Then there's no point in Karma being lenient in it's terms.

[Electron Sponge]

Then there's no point in Karma being lenient in it's terms.

Actually what he means there's no point in terms at all, according to what Vladimir actually said. They're beaten to the point where they'll never recover to the level where they'll be able to bring global menace as they once did.

Now, I know better than to completely buy the "poor widdle harmless us" act, but his point isn't completely smoke and mirrors. He's correct that it will be a very long time before they'll be able to do significant damage to anyone.

[Drostan]

A few problems the anti-NPO crowd has imo.

They list every war that has happened on PB and blame NPO for the result even when it was driven by others and NPO was either marginally involved or not at all.

They list every war as being the NPO bullying an innocent alliance who was minding their own business when NPO suddenly crushed them. No war that NPO has ever fought was for a just cause and no alliance ever did anything to deserve getting declared on.

Amazingly their propaganda was so effective that many people who never even faced a war on here were constantly worried the NPO was going to show up in their war slots at any second. Like you were not allowed to grow or prosper in the game if you weren't directly tied to NPO or in NPO. That is complete b.s of course but it was eaten up by the masses.

They tend to think that the game is exactly the same now as it was in 2006 in terms of ability to rebuild and catch up to others in strength. It's vastly different. I know for example that my nation will never recover from this. In the year+ it will take me to rebuild others who I was on a level with will be a year ahead of me. This is what happens when war lasts 3 or 4 months instead of 3 or 4 weeks. Then to have to give up all that's being asked from NPO in reps and being asked to trust the jackals that have recently betrayed you to not bite you again, well I can see why they choose extended war with nations who really can't be damaged further. Otherwise rebuilding, if not attacked again, will take 2 years instead of 1.

As to several of those setting these terms, some of the nations on the NPO and the Echelon front are "acting like the Hegemony" because quite simply, they are the Hegemony. It shouldn't be a surprise they are giving out harsh terms. They are doing what they did last war. They just switched sides this time. Now they will have handed out terms and gotten reps in the past two conflicts. They've played both sides in the last 8-10 months. They'll get theirs someday and these very terms will be thrown in their face.

The final problem with this war for those on the Karma front won't be the NPO rising up to get them. It will be from those who have been driven from their homes by this entire conflict, spreading into other alliances and becoming vocally against alliances they have a beef with over this.

It will take a while, maybe a year or two but you will have people that are former NPO, OG, IRON, TPF, Echelon, Valhalla etc that have spread into other alliances and carried their grudges there. Just like former GOONS, \m/, anyone else who lost a war and now blames NPO etc have in this conflict. Then the dislike will spread. This war has very clearly shown that NOTHING is ever forgotten. It's often misremembered, for now NPO takes blame for it all, someone else will have to in the future, and the piper will have to be paid.

I hope you don't include Sparta in that list as we announced long ago that we are not seeking reps. Though there is truth to much of what you say about much of Karma, your inability or unwillingness to differentiate the force known as Karma obscures your points and their validity. As for your theories about the next war, it's a little too vague for me. Someone is always on the chopping block and that's the nature of politics. To say that NPO played a marginal role in many past conflicts is ridiculous and you know it. To say that they did it alone would also be ridiculous and I know it.

While you've got your crystal ball out, what do you predict for alliances like Sparta who may have been allied to the NPO in the past but also have not demanded high reps from anyone? Will they meet the same fate merely by association with these other more evil Karma alliances you allude to?

I think the pendulum swing of public opinion and allegiances is far more unpredictable and illogical than your account states. In another year or two half of the people won't even remember what really happened here as you've said yourself. And so conflict is not driven by history as you say so much as the blind will of the masses and the current cultural climate that shapes those masses.

I would be surprised if within a year of Pacifica's peace they had not already signed a treaty with someone who previously cancelled on them during the outbreak of this war or actively fought against them. Such is the nature of politics.

EDIT: Sponge: I think you had better specify that it will be a while before they are able to directly do significant military damage to anyone... heh. I am sure NPO will not relinquish the spotlight so easily.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Drostan

[ShinRa]

Actually what he means there's no point in terms at all, according to what Vladimir actually said. They're beaten to the point where they'll never recover to the level where they'll be able to bring global menace as they once did.

Now, I know better than to completely buy the "poor widdle harmless us" act, but his point isn't completely smoke and mirrors. He's correct that it will be a very long time before they'll be able to do significant damage to anyone.

And if when they do come back into power, if we back down, if we drop the terms or we are merciful to them.

Then once the NPO comes back to power, Za'ha'dum or someone like him will state 'well, it was actually a victory for us as...' etc etc.

Personally I want the NPO to change into something less fanatic and fascist/imperialist, and as that is not going to happen any time in the future I want this war to be a certain, undeniable total defeat to the NPO.

Yes they've taken one hell of a pounding, but with almost all their nations for the first ten pages or so of their nation list quite happily biding their time in peace mode and for the war to end so they can rebuild, I don't see any reason to ease up.

Let them have a taste of what they inflicted upon GATO, let them no what it's like to have an unbeatable behemoth run them down when there's no where to run and hiding will only make things worse.

An eye for an eye as they say.

Edited July 8, 2009 by ShinRa

[mhawk]

Terms currently offered are about on the right level for what NPO has done over the past 2 years. It's NPOs arrogance and double standards that have meant they've rejected them, and going to the OWF now puts the alliances they're at war with in the posistion of not wanting to look 'weak' against the minority but incredibly loud and annoying public opinion that the terms are harsh. All in all, NPO are reaping what they sew, and when they had the chance to get out of it, they blew it. Frankly if NPO never get peace it's THEIR fault, not anybodyelses, negotions aren't 'lets keep going until you're happy with it' in a war. They're 'These are our terms, wanna change something, we'll discuss it, if you dont wanna take them, enjoy your war'

Jesus christ you people annoy me.

I presume one of the things NPO had "done over the past 2 years" was take the exact same stance on FAN as you do with NPO. Either accept it was "crime" that was paid for with 75% of their NS or accept that you really don't think it was all that bad a thing since you're justifying the exact same thing the same way.