Bob Janova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Most of us were doing it to ensure that our friends didn't get beaten down by the Hegemony as so many had previously done, though the NPO had built up enough enemies that there were some 'doing it to get a shot at NPO'. There is no inherent right of alliances being in any sphere There certainly is. The only way to prevent an alliance from being where it likes is through force, i.e. violating its sovereignty. Revoking Moldavi is an extension of telling you that you can't declare aggressive wars without a CB, because that's what it came down to. You remind me of the tech raiders who complain about 'sovereignty' when people argue against their right to pillage other nations. Sovereignty doesn't mean 'your right to do whatever the hell you like', it means 'your right to govern yourself without outside interference'. The Moldavi doctrine was not an internal, sovereign matter, it was a projection of power into the sovereign arena of others. OV was hardly the victim of senseless aggression. There was much sense to the "aggression". Surely you don't really still believe that you were justified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Surely you don't really still believe that you were justified? Surely you don't really still believe that the Karma War was fought in defense of OV? There was only one real objective: get NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Corinan, I'd have thought you would be able to read the first paragraph of the post you quoted from. Essentially, OV's direct allies and their bloc partners entered to defend OV, and the rest of Karma entered to make sure their friends didn't get beaten down by a typical hegemonic isolation of a small part of the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonely Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 If your definition of "opportunistic parasites" comprises of alliances that defend their allies against aggression, I do wonder what that labels NPO, an alliance that systematically killed off its allies whenever they ceased being useful. Please, I don't think anyone here imagines for a moment that things are as simple as Karma defending its ally. Don't try and paint the New Pacific Order as the aggressor, when either side could have been the one to attack the other. Tensions were so high prior to the Karma War that it could have broken out on numerous different occasions. There were two sides and they were out to kill each other. The New Pacific Order lost, due to diplomatic incompetence. I'm not into the whole 'Karma is evil' business, because the New Pacific Order lost and thus deserved to pay reps, but I do think Karma are somewhat hypocritical, and I can certainly understand WorldConqueror's viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Corinan, I'd have thought you would be able to read the first paragraph of the post you quoted from. Essentially, OV's direct allies and their bloc partners entered to defend OV, and the rest of Karma entered to make sure their friends didn't get beaten down by a typical hegemonic isolation of a small part of the web. If this was true, they could have accepted NPO's peace offer - TORN had already been given peace, NPO was trying to negotiate peace, no other alliances had entered the war. Karma did not accept peace. Imagine if the Knights of Ni had behaved similarly to how OV behaved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Just because NPO saw they were about to lose the war doesn't mean they had the right to back out unscathed. (I hold the same opinion for TORN, I wouldn't have let them escape on day 2 either.) Allowing them to do so would merely have postponed the Hegemony's attempt to isolate and destroy someone at a later date. But NPO wasn't met with a flat 'no', negotiations were ongoing until it became clear they were a sham designed to get NPO's nations into peace mode. You could make the same argument that very few alliances would have had to enter for Karma if the whole Hegemony hadn't backed NPO up. Don't try and paint the New Pacific Order as the aggressor, when either side could have been the one to attack the other. I'm afraid that the alliances that start a global war are the aggressors. And you are simply wrong, nobody within Karma ever seriously suggested an aggressive war at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 God, I wish we'd stop jabbering about the legal details of the last war and focus on the task at hand: the next one. Sparta did indeed fight against their former allies only days after cancellation. Should they have cancelled earlier: no. Why? Because it would have tipped the NPO off that they actually had almost no support and were about to get seriously rolled. Don't like that answer? Invite some fairy tale then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I also happened to fight old Bill Wallace in the closing stages, was unaware he is a noob. Old!?!? Okay, I possibly resemble that statement. I'd also like to use this occasion to thank you publicly for nuking the daylights out of me. My nation is still smoking. Ah, good times. Oh and ask anyone in VE - I am a noob. I don't know anything other than from time to time, I like to get the indians hoot'n and holler'n about one thing or another. Fortunately, they just pat me on the head, clean the applesauce off my chin, point me in a direction and give me a little push. B) Anyways, we basically see that NPO has no love for Karma, right? Big deal. Conflict and turmoil are good things and it's the reason most of us are here. The Pacificans have every right to be angry just as Karma has every right to want to keep the NPO down for as long as possible. Someday, NPO will rise up, find some allies, and we'll do it all over again. I truly am looking forward to this and if it's anger and emotion that makes that day arrive sooner than later, then I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Just because NPO saw they were about to lose the war doesn't mean they had the right to back out unscathed. (I hold the same opinion for TORN, I wouldn't have let them escape on day 2 either.) Allowing them to do so would merely have postponed the Hegemony's attempt to isolate and destroy someone at a later date. But NPO wasn't met with a flat 'no', negotiations were ongoing until it became clear they were a sham designed to get NPO's nations into peace mode.You could make the same argument that very few alliances would have had to enter for Karma if the whole Hegemony hadn't backed NPO up. I'm afraid that the alliances that start a global war are the aggressors. And you are simply wrong, nobody within Karma ever seriously suggested an aggressive war at any time. The hegemony was already dead once NPO launched, granting peace wouldn't have changed that. The death of the hegemony is what allowed the Karma War to happen, as much as people like to confuse the causality to say otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 The hegemony was already dead once NPO launched, granting peace wouldn't have changed that. The death of the hegemony is what allowed the Karma War to happen, as much as people like to confuse the causality to say otherwise. If NPO had been granted peace, they might have been able to re-establish the ties they had neglected with the likes of TOP, MHA, and NpO and waited until they have a better position and CB to try to hit our side of the treaty web. At that NPO and it's allies were strong enough that if they had been able to regain the fence-sitters, they could have won a follow-up war. NPO had to be smashed before you could really consider Karma a victory on our end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 If NPO had been granted peace, they might have been able to re-establish the ties they had neglected with the likes of TOP, MHA, and NpO and waited until they have a better position and CB to try to hit our side of the treaty web. At that NPO and it's allies were strong enough that if they had been able to regain the fence-sitters, they could have won a follow-up war. NPO had to be smashed before you could really consider Karma a victory on our end. Continuum was a broken, decrepit bloc, One Vision had been defunct for a good 8 or 9 months, SF/CnG were clearly no longer within NPO's reach under any scenario, Citadel and others were already drifting away and were already clearly upset at how many things had been handled. They wouldn't be as isolated and weak as they are now, but they certainly would not have been in any danger of re-establishing any hegemonic force within say, a year at best. And that would only have been if they played muc better than they had for the last year or two and the opposition went back to being incompetent all of a sudden. No, continuing the war so long and so punitively cannot reasonably be construed as a "defensive" measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 If NPO had been granted peace, they might have been able to re-establish the ties they had neglected with the likes of TOP, MHA, and NpO... Even if NPO had been given a magical lantern with three wishes, I am hard pressed to consider any scenario that would have brought TOP back to the NPO fold. I can't speak for NpO or MHA but I would consider any one of the above three alliances returning to the NPO as an ally nothing short of a miracle in this NPO given peace fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Even if NPO had been given a magical lantern with three wishes, I am hard pressed to consider any scenario that would have brought TOP back to the NPO fold. I can't speak for NpO or MHA but I would consider any one of the above three alliances returning to the NPO as an ally nothing short of a miracle in this NPO given peace fantasy. And could you really blame NPO for not wanting MHA as an ally after they managed to wiggle out of a treaty with a year long cancellation clause? Treaties that are as strongly worded as that one are supposed to mean something and even I would be reluctant to sign something with more than a week long cancellation clause because you never know what could happen. There could be a coup in an alliance and their direction could change or they could do something so profoundly stupid that I could not in good conscience back up. NpO has grounds for not wanting to be allied with NPO again. They have a shared history, sure, but Pacifica treated Polaris terribly last year. Edited November 30, 2009 by Duncan King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Surely you don't really still believe that you were justified? Surely you don't really still believe that the Karma War was fought in defense of OV? There was only one real objective: get NPO. Ya'll are both right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) The capacity of the NPO to continuously provide gossip and intrigue never ceases to amaze. You'd all be bored without them. Edited December 6, 2009 by KingEsus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) If NPO had been granted peace, they might have been able to re-establish the ties they had neglected with the likes of TOP, MHA, and NpO and waited until they have a better position and CB to try to hit our side of the treaty web. At that NPO and it's allies were strong enough that if they had been able to regain the fence-sitters, they could have won a follow-up war. NPO had to be smashed before you could really consider Karma a victory on our end. As someone inside of TOP, i can savely say that this wouldnt have been the case. I know someone brought up trying to get closer to NPO again and he got shouted down by a ton of people. It would need a lot of time and a lot of effort for NPO to reestablish its former position even only partially, and these efforts would have included changing the very nature of their alliance to something less... dominating. And we all know thats not gonna happen. edit: Cant speak for MHA and NpO though, but i doubt their situation was different. Edited December 6, 2009 by HellAngel 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.