Warning

[Teriethien]

And here are the logs of VE looking at OV's agreement and then ignoring them in order to get a war with us. Clearly not okay with the one week fo war against Sethb.

Really it reads to me like they just decided to stand up to you guys' bullying. I guess its a perspectives thing.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Teriethien

[Vladimir]

The motivation you attribute to the action may be a perspective thing in the absence of mind-reading powers, but the action itself (as I described) is not.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Vladimir

[Delta1212]

That log was regarding ZI. Funny how you didn't find a log of them actually turning down the one week of war they offered.

[Teriethien]

The motivation you attribute to the action may be a perspective thing in the absence of mind-reading powers, but the action itself (as I described) is not.

I have no idea what this means. What I meant was that they turned down an unfairly harsh demand from you, while you think that you were being reasonable.

[Bob Janova]

Cortath, you're going to have to provide some evidence if you're going to come into a thread and drop a statement like that which goes wholly against the accepted version of history. There is nothing in NPO's DoW from Seth admitting spying (receiving information, yes, but remember Moo's quote again).

Yes, at one stage Seth and OV were prepared to give in to your (and TPF and TORN's) intimidation, until they were told that they'd be backed up if they didn't.

[Delta1212]

You know what I think? The war rests squarely on the fact that NPO had no practice negotiating with anyone for whom the ultimate result of the talks didn't have to be either capitulate or die. That's not to say NPO never negotiated with anyone, just that they never had to give up anything unless they wanted to because if they really wanted a particular outcome, they had the force to back their wishes over any opponent's if they wanted to. They'd always get what they wanted and they'd get it sooner rather than later, and this was a state they'd existed in for, more or less, years. That atrophies some skills that the rest of us take for granted at the negotiating table.

Now, I could just be blowing smoke, except that I've been in the exact same position that NPO found itself in. A year and a half ago someone leaked screenshots of a members only area of the RIA forums to MK. Now, for background, this was a point in history when MK and RIA basically hated each other on a membership level (I was friendly with Archon but that didn't really matter). Anyway, the screenshots involved one of my members saying less than nice things about one of MK's members, and out of context (as screenshots tend to be) they sounded even worse. As a result, MK was demanding we kick the member in question and then they'd give us the name of the spy, while we wanted the name of the spy now and then we'd negotiate what to do about my member. This was a time before C&G, so while MK wasn't devoid of allies, a war between us wouldn't have been the knock down drag out fight it would be now. In fact, it probably would have been NoCB come early but a bit messier and with an actual CB. Anyway, the point I'm making is that while we probably could have won had we declared war over it, we were in no position to "roll" MK over it and any fight would have been very bloody.

You know how long it took to resolve? Two months. NPO declared war after not getting their way in a weekend. It took me two months to get the name of the guy who took the screenshots. I wonder how a war didn't break out despite MK's blatant agression.

Incidentally, I got a shiny medal for diplomacy from MK after that and while I wouldn't call RIA abd MK friends, we aren't chomping at the bit to kill each other anymore. I wonder which approach, between mine and NPO's, worked out better.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Delta1212

[Azaghul]

Told them? Another victory for sovereignty.

It wasn't forced on them.

But it actually went further than that; OV were informed that even if they reached an agreement with us (which they had) it would be ignored by their allies and they would attack us using the incident as a pretext.

1 week vs. full ZI. And as Bob Janova said, that was before they were told they would be backed up. SethB seemed to be willing to capitulate at first to save his alliance, even if the demands weren't reasonable. Allies pledging to back him up made that unnecessary.

The argument over aggression reminds me of a sig during the war:

Edited September 9, 2009 by Azaghul

[Delta1212]

Oh hey, I made that sig.

[Yggdrazil]

Ugh, no. Going on the offensive is not the same as aggression. Yes, Karma went on the offensive, we all know what happened. But you then went on to assert that doing so is aggression, without a single thread of logic or reasoning to back up such a statement. It is completely unfounded and an obvious but also very bad attempt at painting the former Hegemony as victims of aggression.

How does one go on the offensive without aggressive action?

[Azaghul]

How does one go on the offensive without aggressive action?

It depends on what you mean by "aggressive action", which can be interpreted to be either going on the offensive or being the aggressor in the situation. The question here is whether going on the offensive makes you the aggressor. The point we (Bob Janova, Delta1212, myself, and others) are making is that responding to aggression by going on the offensive against the aggressor after you have defeated his initial attack does not make you the aggressor.

[Yggdrazil]

It is not the lexicon's fault that "aggressor" has negative connotations.Those anti-hegemony alliances did not take defensive postures they went into offensive mode from the beginning.This is aggression whether you like it are not.My argument is not about justification, wars are won by aggressive offense and by corollary aggressors.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Yggdrazil

[Azaghul]

It is not the lexicon's fault that "aggressor" has negative connotations.Those anti-hegemony alliances did not take defensive postures they went into offensive mode from the beginning.This is aggression whether you like it are not.My argument is not about justification, wars are won by aggressive offense and by corollary aggressors.

Aggressively taking offensive actions in a defensive war does not make someone an aggressor in the war. It's still a defensive war even if you go on the offensive in order to win it.

Aggressive =/= aggressor

Edited September 9, 2009 by Azaghul

[Desperado]

I guarantee the next war will start from something non-NPO related. If NPO were growing back into the form they wanted to they would try and reassert themselves to the top ASAP. They are stuck under terms for almost another year and realistically can't do anything while they are still in effect.

I really grow tired of the grammar police. This is an international site with english being a second language to many. Please stop bashing people for lack of knowing your language.

It is disrespectful and based on bad logic.

I would say that the actual numbers, and numbers suggested for the loss of NPO nations by both parties are skewed, probably somewhere in the middle.

When it most likely is, there is a problem. Check the info if you wish.

[HeinousOne]

You know what I think? The war rests squarely on the fact that NPO had no practice negotiating with anyone for whom the ultimate result of the talks didn't have to be either capitulate or die. That's not to say NPO never negotiated with anyone, just that they never had to give up anything unless they wanted to because if they really wanted a particular outcome, they had the force to back their wishes over any opponent's if they wanted to. They'd always get what they wanted and they'd get it sooner rather than later, and this was a state they'd existed in for, more or less, years. That atrophies some skills that the rest of us take for granted at the negotiating table.

Now, I could just be blowing smoke, except that I've been in the exact same position that NPO found itself in. A year and a half ago someone leaked screenshots of a members only area of the RIA forums to MK. Now, for background, this was a point in history when MK and RIA basically hated each other on a membership level (I was friendly with Archon but that didn't really matter). Anyway, the screenshots involved one of my members saying less than nice things about one of MK's members, and out of context (as screenshots tend to be) they sounded even worse. As a result, MK was demanding we kick the member in question and then they'd give us the name of the spy, while we wanted the name of the spy now and then we'd negotiate what to do about my member. This was a time before C&G, so while MK wasn't devoid of allies, a war between us wouldn't have been the knock down drag out fight it would be now. In fact, it probably would have been NoCB come early but a bit messier and with an actual CB. Anyway, the point I'm making is that while we probably could have won had we declared war over it, we were in no position to "roll" MK over it and any fight would have been very bloody.

You know how long it took to resolve? Two months. NPO declared war after not getting their way in a weekend. It took me two months to get the name of the guy who took the screenshots. I wonder how a war didn't break out despite MK's blatant agression.

Incidentally, I got a shiny medal for diplomacy from MK after that and while I wouldn't call RIA abd MK friends, we aren't chomping at the bit to kill each other anymore. I wonder which approach, between mine and NPO's, worked out better.

I personally think NPO's method worked out better. I never knew about the issue between RIA and MK but I sure as hell know about the Karma War. They made history, you erased it.

[Delta1212]

I personally think NPO's method worked out better. I never knew about the issue between RIA and MK but I sure as hell know about the Karma War. They made history, you erased it.

There is that. I've just always found the claim that refusal to capitulate unreservedly to demands is somehow aggression incredibly amusing. MK refused to meet RIA's demands and RIA refused to meet MK's demands and yet somehow there was no war despite two acts of blatant aggression obviously intended to force a war. Not only that, but we refused to meet each others' demands for two months. NPO managed to last all of one weekend before they were forced to defend themselves against OV's aggressive non-compliance.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Delta1212

[Vilien]

There is that. I've just always found the claim that refusal to capitulate unreservedly to demands is somehow aggression incredibly amusing. MK refused to meet RIA's demands and RIA refused to meet MK's demands and yet somehow there was no war despite two acts of blatant aggression obviously intended to force a war. Not only that, but we refused to meet each others' demands for two months. NPO managed to last all of one weekend before they were forced to defend themselves against OV's aggressive non-compliamce.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There was no way that Pacifica was going to recover from three years of arrogance and bullying without being knocked down.

[lordliam]

So... we're in the inter-war between Karma War I and Karma War II? Is some sort of neo-Francoist going to coup MooCowWithGun and start a programme of reconstruction and revenge? The plot thickens.

[BamaBuc]

So... we're in the inter-war between Karma War I and Karma War II? Is some sort of neo-Francoist going to coup MooCowWithGun and start a programme of reconstruction and revenge? The plot thickens.

I doubt the next war will be a continuation of the Karma War. CSM is right that it takes two wars to utterly destroy a foe, but I'm not convinced that that second war will actually happen. I see NPO quietly rebuilding on the fringe for a long, long time, playing only a periphery role in politics.

-Bama

[Qaianna]

I doubt the next war will be a continuation of the Karma War. CSM is right that it takes two wars to utterly destroy a foe, but I'm not convinced that that second war will actually happen. I see NPO quietly rebuilding on the fringe for a long, long time, playing only a periphery role in politics.

-Bama

That might be one of the few things people here would agree on, given the debate over how one can define 'aggressor'. I'd throw in my opinions, but the words 'whelk' and 'supernova' come to mind. Call it self-censorship.

Tho here's a theory: would the Karma war be a way to discourage extensive defensive ties..or help encourage them? Remember, there were a lot of flags knocking on the doors of One Vision and the remainder of the Continuum. As many have commented after the war, sometimes it doesn't take a treaty to convince someone to join in the fight.

[Teriethien]

It is not the lexicon's fault that "aggressor" has negative connotations.Those anti-hegemony alliances did not take defensive postures they went into offensive mode from the beginning.This is aggression whether you like it are not.My argument is not about justification, wars are won by aggressive offense and by corollary aggressors.

Aggression is unprovoked attacks. Karma going on a counter-offensive is by definition not unprovoked. I can understand what you are saying, that wars are won by going on the offensive and/or pursuing a conflict aggressively, but that doesn't make Karma the aggressor except through word plays. The aggressor is the one that started a war of aggression, not the one that won.

[kenny]

That might be one of the few things people here would agree on, given the debate over how one can define 'aggressor'. I'd throw in my opinions, but the words 'whelk' and 'supernova' come to mind. Call it self-censorship.

Tho here's a theory: would the Karma war be a way to discourage extensive defensive ties..or help encourage them? Remember, there were a lot of flags knocking on the doors of One Vision and the remainder of the Continuum. As many have commented after the war, sometimes it doesn't take a treaty to convince someone to join in the fight.

the only problem is that alliances think you need a treaty or be the recipient of aggression to go to war flimsy as some of them are. I doubt we will have a CN where alliances declare war on each other and say its because they just don't like the other alliance rather then some bollocks excuse that shouldn't be needed, it would excite the OWF too much.

The karma war has taught the remaining alliances who practiced mass treaties that they are indeed worthless and ushered the remaining alliances to become more selective of who to ally with. I doubt we will ever see a super bloc again. We enter the era of blocs ganging up and killing other blocs until one emerges far above the others and then recieves a smack down by the cn community.

[Bob Janova]

That's not a problem. An alliance that goes around declaring war on others for little or no reason is either going to die the first time they try it, if they're weak, or be a liability to everyone if they are strong. In fact this is the very reason that there was such a public outrising when the chance came to defeat the Unjust, and then the Hegemony – because these groups were seen to be doing exactly what you're talking about (attacking other alliances with little or no reason) and therefore a chance to defeat them before they chose your alliance should be taken.

The 'bollocks excuse that shouldn't be needed' – an internationally acceptable CB – is what keeps world politics vaguely civilised, instead of being an entirely militarily controlled anarchy, because everyone knows the rules by which the game* is played. A military anarchy may have suited the alliances of the Hegemony in the past, having as you did a majority (or at least plurality) of available military strength, but you would not like it if the world was that way now.

[*OOC: I mean 'game' like 'the political game', not CN = the game]

[bobboman]

has anyone told you what a moron you are, there was no destroying NPO, and NPO will be underterms for a while

as someone who voted to keep his out of the karma war because i saw the karma war for what it was...a war of retribution against the victors of the UJW by those who had allied with GOONS....I really hope NPO rises up the ranks again because this time i will stand by her unlike i did in the past because karma did wrong against her, and speaking of which what is wrong with Color Sphere unity, Orange did it first, then BLEU then Purple(with Poseidon) and even Maroon which for a while was the Balkans of CN is Unified for the most part and now NPO wants to do it with red and someone has a problem with that

seriously Hail NPO and Hail Francoism, and this is someone who spent the first half of his CN Carrer going against the NPO, even getting booted from IRON when i became too much of a pest

[Chalaskan]

has anyone told you what a moron you are, there was no destroying NPO, and NPO will be underterms for a while

as someone who voted to keep his out of the karma war because i saw the karma war for what it was...a war of retribution against the victors of the UJW by those who had allied with GOONS....I really hope NPO rises up the ranks again because this time i will stand by her unlike i did in the past because karma did wrong against her, and speaking of which what is wrong with Color Sphere unity, Orange did it first, then BLEU then Purple(with Poseidon) and even Maroon which for a while was the Balkans of CN is Unified for the most part and now NPO wants to do it with red and someone has a problem with that

seriously Hail NPO and Hail Francoism, and this is someone who spent the first half of his CN Carrer going against the NPO, even getting booted from IRON when i became too much of a pest

Janova is anything but a moron.

This war was not one of retribution from the UJW, but years of the NPO having their way and spitting in peoples faces. You can't blame it on that single even, and if you really believe that your original statement is in fact an oxymoron.

EDIT: old quote hanging

Edited September 10, 2009 by Chalaskan

[bobboman]

Janova is anything but a moron.

This war was not one of retribution from the UJW, but years of the NPO having their way and spitting in peoples faces. You can't blame it on that single even, and if you really believe that your original statement is in fact an oxymoron.

EDIT: old quote hanging

i was talking about the OP, but thanks for assuming things, and i disagree with your assesment if you look at the lineup of the main members of KARMA you are gonna see a lot of the winning alliances on the losing side of the UJW....

now i'm not saying that NPO didn't deserve to fall for the past 3 years, i just feel that a lot of old sour feeling and a whole lot of opportunity seeking alliances came together at the right moment to declare war and bring down the NPO which is disappointing in of its self