Empress Theodora Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Sure, but you'd be a total moron for arguing so. As I said before different people see things different ways, but there is always the truth, and your argument wouldn't be even close to that. Truth is subjective to those with the authority to write the laws, and history is written by the victors. For now Karma is on top so their views are 'truth' and they get to write the next chapters in the history books while not long ago NPO was on top so it was their ‘truth’ that was in the history books. One day in the future a different coalition could be in charge and what is considered the 'truth' can once again change. It's all subjective to the times and those in power. And in all times past, present and future there has been and will be those who disagree with what is considered the ‘truth’ by the majority and argue their points. This does not make their points any less valid nor does it imply that what they think is the ‘truth’ is wrong. Now back to the original topic. Good luck to both parties involved it’s always good to do a spring cleaning of old outdated treaties, better late than never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 This Union, a new semi-hegemony based upon a wartime alliance against a hated enemy, will not last forever. We are in a state of transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Truth is subjective to those with the authority to write the laws, and history is written by the victors. For now Karma is on top so their views are 'truth' and they get to write the next chapters in the history books while not long ago NPO was on top so it was their ‘truth’ that was in the history books. One day in the future a different coalition could be in charge and what is considered the 'truth' can once again change. It's all subjective to the times and those in power. And in all times past, present and future there has been and will be those who disagree with what is considered the ‘truth’ by the majority and argue their points. This does not make their points any less valid nor does it imply that what they think is the ‘truth’ is wrong. Now back to the original topic. Good luck to both parties involved it’s always good to do a spring cleaning of old outdated treaties, better late than never. If you weren't so busy putting truth in quotation marks maybe you'd have time to make a rational argument. Truth is only subjective to those who are looking for a way to pretend that what they've done is ok even though they know better. Your view of right and wrong can change, but they are only your views. There is still Right and there is still Wrong and they don't change with the tides, or the seasons, or whether or not your coalition or my coalition is in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 This treaty, as well as the treaties with Fark, Monos Archein and Ragnarok were some of the foreign affairs moves by NPO that have always baffled me. I'm not sure why this was signed to begin with. And why didn't you honour this treaty, RIA? The NPO needed your assistance and you coldly turned away to assist their enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 And why didn't you honour this treaty, RIA? The NPO needed your assistance and you coldly turned away to assist their enemies. To be fair they weren't the only ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyisraelie Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 This treaty, as well as the treaties with Fark, Monos Archein and Ragnarok were some of the foreign affairs moves by NPO that have always baffled me. I'm not sure why this was signed to begin with. And why didn't you honour this treaty, RIA? The NPO needed your assistance and you coldly turned away to assist their enemies. We did honor our end of the treaty.... Article V:The NPO and the RIA shall each endeavor to avoid placing the other in a situation in which this treaty shall come into conflict with any other current or future treaty signed by that signatory. In the event that outside treaty obligations force the signatories into a situation in which they would occupy opposing positions in a larger conflict, neither signatory will take up arms against the other. When something like the Karma war happens the treaty becomes an effective NAP. We did honor it, we didn't attack them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 If you weren't so busy putting truth in quotation marks maybe you'd have time to make a rational argument. Truth is only subjective to those who are looking for a way to pretend that what they've done is ok even though they know better. Your view of right and wrong can change, but they are only your views. There is still Right and there is still Wrong and they don't change with the tides, or the seasons, or whether or not your coalition or my coalition is in power. Right and wrong, good and evil are all subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 This treaty, as well as the treaties with Fark, Monos Archein and Ragnarok were some of the foreign affairs moves by NPO that have always baffled me. I'm not sure why this was signed to begin with. And why didn't you honour this treaty, RIA? The NPO needed your assistance and you coldly turned away to assist their enemies. We did honor the treaty to the letter actually. Had we not honored it we would have attacked the NPO and/or sent aid to those alliances at war with them, which we did not do. Article V:The NPO and the RIA shall each endeavor to avoid placing the other in a situation in which this treaty shall come into conflict with any other current or future treaty signed by that signatory. In the event that outside treaty obligations force the signatories into a situation in which they would occupy opposing positions in a larger conflict, neither signatory will take up arms against the other. NPO government knew what would happen with our treaty before they started the war considering they came to me on April 18 and specifically told me that should the OV situation escalate to war they would honor our treaty which would become a non-aggression pact for the remainder of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Right and wrong, good and evil are all subjective. Short and true. Notable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 If you weren't so busy putting truth in quotation marks maybe you'd have time to make a rational argument. Truth is only subjective to those who are looking for a way to pretend that what they've done is ok even though they know better. Your view of right and wrong can change, but they are only your views. There is still Right and there is still Wrong and they don't change with the tides, or the seasons, or whether or not your coalition or my coalition is in power. That is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. It takes no time to put quotations marks around the word truth, so I fail to understand why you would possibly think that it would have detracted from any amount of time that would have been spent on an argument. I'd recommend, Ragashingo, you spend less time arguing and more time thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Stonewall you are right about revenge not justice. I think all RV is pointing to is that it is revenge, and he is against revenge.Also which alliance as old as NPO has not done wrong by the eyes of it's allies? FAN sure did, and I was there and enjoyed my trip to ZI for FAN, but to say that we hadn't done wrong would be nuts. We attacked a protectorate of the NPO. We cut a deal with NAAC, even though we didn't honor it, as a stalling tactic so that we could focus on Legion. We pushed YN5 and had runins with GOONS and \m/. Gremlins can turn around to TOP and say we did wrong by them on some issues even. And to me they are my closest allies, and I won't go into Citadel. Any alliance past a year of existance has done wrongs, none of us are saints. Ambition, anger, they all come up. You want to hold on to those years of hatred, it's your choice. Me I think it's a waste, and caution against it because someone is bound to hold on to thier hate towards you if you don't work hard to break the cycle. And will it stop the hate if you stop holding on to it? No. But if enough of us do, it will no longer be acceptable. So be careful with revenge, because someone somewhere believes you have wronged him at some point and if you live by it, I'm sure you will one day find yourself at his mercy and he will show none if you have never. On topic, if the treaty became useless it's good to see you cancel it. I wish both the best. Actually, I believe personal grudges and fears get in the way of ultimate success. If the NPO were to start doing real damaga Karma to give Karma a reason to grant peace, then I would think that Karma should grant peace. However, right now the longer Karma keeps NPO down, the greater they weaken a vengeful adversary, so right now, from a realpolitick perspective, Karma is doing right, for the wrong reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Actually, I believe personal grudges and fears get in the way of ultimate success. If the NPO were to start doing real damaga Karma to give Karma a reason to grant peace, then I would think that Karma should grant peace. However, right now the longer Karma keeps NPO down, the greater they weaken a vengeful adversary, so right now, from a realpolitick perspective, Karma is doing right, for the wrong reasons. So what you're saying is that the NPO was justified in keeping FAN at war so long, because they were potentially a vengeful adversary? Thank you. I've been saying that all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anima1111 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The length of this thread is boggling o_o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Empire Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 is this in preperation for a surrender ? finally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 is this in preperation for a surrender ?finally. ...Eh? How could this be in preperation for a surrender? The only way I could think is if one of the terms was to cancel all their treaties, if that were the case and this was an attempt to complete some terms they would have cancelled with more than RIA. No, I think it has more to do with the fact that they were on opposite sides of this war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 ...Eh?How could this be in preperation for a surrender? The only way I could think is if one of the terms was to cancel all their treaties, if that were the case and this was an attempt to complete some terms they would have cancelled with more than RIA. No, I think it has more to do with the fact that they were on opposite sides of this war... That...and RIA are pretty close to those that are responsible for the war still going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The lack of drama in cyberverse [OOC]and in this forum[/OCC] make people still post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George the Great Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 That...and RIA are pretty close to those that are responsible for the war still going on. What? NPO and RIA aren't close, hence the OP. Silly goose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 What? NPO and RIA aren't close, hence the OP. Silly goose. You know what he meant It's arguable as to who's fault the continuing war is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 If you weren't so busy putting truth in quotation marks maybe you'd have time to make a rational argument. Truth is only subjective to those who are looking for a way to pretend that what they've done is ok even though they know better. Your view of right and wrong can change, but they are only your views. There is still Right and there is still Wrong and they don't change with the tides, or the seasons, or whether or not your coalition or my coalition is in power. Truth is actually subjective when two camps have different interpretations of what happened. Facts are facts, however opinions are not facts, and cannot be a source of truth. Truth, in being that which is absolutely factual, is compromised by opinion, and ceases to be truth. You have your opinion of NPO's history, and this puts a certain spin on all the facts of that history. You can call this historical analysis all you like and claim various conclusions, make various predictions on the future and dictate what you believe to be fair, but in order to turn the facts of NPO's history into the aforementioned you need to inject a large amount of your own interpretation of those facts, and so you lose the right to claim these conclusions to be based in truth. They are, simply, your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 What? NPO and RIA aren't close, hence the OP. Silly goose. You know what he meant It's arguable as to who's fault the continuing war is. Yes, he knows exactly whom I mean and no I dont mean Sparta either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yes, he knows exactly whom I mean and no I dont mean Sparta either. Might as well just say it, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Might as well just say it, really. I am sure you could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 So what you're saying is that the NPO was justified in keeping FAN at war so long, because they were potentially a vengeful adversary? Thank you. I've been saying that all along. Why hasn't Sileath hailed any of your posts here? Oh and if I had been in NPO leadership, I would've done the same thing at the time; it's completely logical to be scared of FAN. If I were in NPO at the time, I'd crap my pants at the thought of a rebuilt FAN coming for me. However, they were still a bit naive to think that an alliance can't fight from peace mode, which was their mistake that they paid for on multiple occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Why hasn't Sileath hailed any of your posts here? Oh and if I had been in NPO leadership, I would've done the same thing at the time; it's completely logical to be scared of FAN. If I were in NPO at the time, I'd crap my pants at the thought of a rebuilt FAN coming for me. However, they were still a bit naive to think that an alliance can't fight from peace mode, which was their mistake that they paid for on multiple occasions. Yes, you guys were very active and aggressive with your actions against the NPO that were of a non-conventional means. This situation is different though because your enemy was unified but the NPO's current enemies are not so unified. Despite what the unknowing ones here try to pass off as the truth. 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.