Michael McBride Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Violence was the only way to stop Greater Nordland - that nobody can deny. That you fault someone for taking the only action to defeat a great evil shows a biased eye. Did we deny that violence was needed to stop Nordland? No. We only said that expansionism brings violence, in the case of Greater Nordland. "I have a few points regarding that. First of all, as New Zealand mentioned, it was the only way. Secondly, that had nothing to do with expansion whatsoever. Thirdly, you yourself opposed Greater Nordland. Also, if you use that example as an example for violent expansion, you declared war on the United States. Using your logic, that would mean disexpansionism, or whatever you wanted to call it, leads to violence." Except that said violence was brought about because of the expansionist policies of the United States, including plans to declare war on Xaristan for little to no reason. Xaristan declared war on the United States in defense of itself, not as an aggressive move. No, it is you who need to learn how to read. You are assuming several things we never said. We never said the Imperium was not part of the US when war was declared. What we said was they withdrew from the US before the US was defeated, before any fighting actualy took place in their own territory. The United States was defeated the moment nations, such as the Imperium of Man, started withdrawing and surrendering. Therefore, they were a part of the United States when it was defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 The United States was defeated the moment nations, such as the Imperium of Man, started withdrawing and surrendering. Therefore, they were a part of the United States when it was defeated. Your resoning is circular. They withdrew because they wanted no part in the actions of the US, not because of threat of war. If you had pursued war with them, you would not exit right now as a nation. They did not surrender, they were not a part of the US when it finally surrendered, therefore they were not a part of the US when it lost the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Your resoning is circular. They withdrew because they wanted no part in the actions of the US, not because of threat of war. If you had pursued war with them, you would not exit right now as a nation.They did not surrender, they were not a part of the US when it finally surrendered, therefore they were not a part of the US when it lost the war. We never said the Imperium of Man surrendered. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and learn to read. The Imperium of Man was in the United States of America when the war began, and it was only at the urging of Louisiana that they were not declared on as well. If they had wanted no part of the actions of the USA, they would have withdrawn before war was declared, not after. Further, the United States never technically finally surrendered. All the member states left. Any nation who was a part of the United States when it was declared on lost the war, since they were part of the United States when it started, and the United States lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 We never said the Imperium of Man surrendered. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and learn to read. The Imperium of Man was in the United States of America when the war began, and it was only at the urging of Louisiana that they were not declared on as well. If they had wanted no part of the actions of the USA, they would have withdrawn before war was declared, not after. Further, the United States never technically finally surrendered. All the member states left. Any nation who was a part of the United States when it was declared on lost the war, since they were part of the United States when it started, and the United States lost. TheUnited States as a collective lost. the individual states did not. And you completely missed our point. If the Imperium did not surrender, did not have to fire a shot, they did not lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 TheUnited States as a collective lost. the individual states did not.And you completely missed our point. If the Imperium did not surrender, did not have to fire a shot, they did not lose. So the UAS, whom did not fire a shot and did not surrender, did not lose the UAS-Louisiana-Xaristan war? You must be delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Except that said violence was brought about because of the expansionist policies of the United States, including plans to declare war on Xaristan for little to no reason. Xaristan declared war on the United States in defense of itself, not as an aggressive move. "I concede that point but the rest remain uncontested." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 So the UAS, whom did not fire a shot and did not surrender, did not lose the UAS-Louisiana-Xaristan war? You must be delusional. It is debatable whether they surrendered or not, whether they ever said it or not. The fact is, you would not have been able to force any terms they did not want on the Imperium. The same could not be said of the UAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 It is debatable whether they surrendered or not, whether they ever said it or not. The fact is, you would not have been able to force any terms they did not want on the Imperium. The same could not be said of the UAS. Your original terms as to whether someone lost or not never included anything about being able to force terms on them. You are now changing your argument when faced with a superior one. Good day to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Your original terms as to whether someone lost or not never included anything about being able to force terms on them. You are now changing your argument when faced with a superior one. Good day to you. OOC: Eh? How is my argument changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 OOC: Eh? How is my argument changed? OOC: You went from saying that someone did not lose if they did not surrender or fire a shot. I brought up the UAS, and suddenly it changes to being able to impose terms on a nation to whether they lost or not. Your argument changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 OOC: You went from saying that someone did not lose if they did not surrender or fire a shot. I brought up the UAS, and suddenly it changes to being able to impose terms on a nation to whether they lost or not. Your argument changed. OOC: Oh. that. I thought you meant that I had contradicted something I said earlier. 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.