TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Last time I checked, diplomacy, or any agreement consist of both parties giving up something; In this particular instance Polaris was not willing to concede anything while demanding everything. I see a flaw, here. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. What does Polar need to concede, aside from their privilege to beat the crap out of \m/ over something they find distasteful? Well, I guess \m/ didn't think that was good enough. But see, here's the funny thing, the inherent act of diplomacy is still dictating to another party, and an infringement of sovereignty by your definition. So please, feel free to show otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hey, guess what. Politics is all about enforcing your will on others. Or are you forgetting that your alliance is only on Red Team because a certain alliance's "sovereignty" over that sphere was "infringed" upon by war? I happen to believe that only those who first infringe on others' right to self-governance and independence deserve to be retaliated against. You're spinning wheels! NPO had no sovereignty over Red other than that which other alliances gave it; color spheres are not inately any alliance's property. When NPO was required to give up the Moldavi Doctrine, it was not an infringement on NPO's sovereignty, but a rescinding of everyone else's permission for NPO to treat it as such. \m/'s attack did not stop FOA's ability to self-govern or be independent. And, they may deserve to be retaliated against, but don't wrap a turd in Christmas paper and call it a present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenrpg Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You forced them to accept a protectorate. If you had not attacked FoA, would they have chosen Corp as their protectorate? Would they have gotten a protectorate in the first place? Did you not force them to take a specific course of action in order to avoid destruction? Are you claiming that them accepting Corp. 's offer and you raiding them were unrelated events? If I enclose a cat in a box with a mechanism that has a 50/50 chance of either killing it or sparing it; is the cat alive or dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 "How were those who were raided's sovereignty infringed upon?" Could you expound please. I'm a little stunned.. What was infringed upon? We didn't say who they could ally with, if they should ally, who they can declare war on, what they can buy, or anything else. Everything was FoA's choice, in no way did we force them to act. We provided a reason why they should take action, but we didn't make them take any action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It also weeds out those that might have been an active and contributing member of the community. If you raided my nation within the first two weeks of creation, I probably wouldn't be here arguing with you. Does that mean I was worthless? Well, no. I just never had the chance to see what Planet Bob had to offer when I was two weeks old. Yes, but that's not what \m/ did. They hit an alliance, same as you hit \m/. The only difference is you're trying to beat them into a mentality that it's not Ok to hit alliances. Do you see the double-standard now? And what's more, Grub's point of contention is motive. They went in to grab tech and land, and that's worse than going in to destroy !@#$ just to subjugate people to your viewpoint. This is your guy's argument plus a lot of babbling about how it was always community practice and you're the righteous knights enforcing it. And since no one answered me, pray tell - if most of CN attacks you for this, will you concede you had no mandate from the community to pull these shenanigans? Or will the revisionism train chug on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Nope, all wars in that incident were four ground battles, and then a peace offer. After the four we left what would happen up to FoA, they could either chose to continue the fight, or peace out. What this says to unaligned nations out there is that the existence they partake in is a dangerous one. People will attack them if they are viewed as weak, and as such it is up to the unaligned nations if they wish to join an alliance to avoid the possibility, or stick it out on their own. That argument would work if you weren't the ones making it dangerous for them. In my stay on Planet Bob, I have not seen an alliance the size of FoA get raided until Athens, \m/, PC, and GOONS did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They ended when Grub flat out stated he'd go to war with us. The racial slurs came in response to that and were apologized for. Of course, everything exists in such a vacuum, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLights Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I am glad that TOP considers this situation a good one, and doesn't think both sides are terrible and should feel bad for being this terrible. To "most of MK" Sorry you're so upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Obligatory, do something about it. NpO aren't violating anything anymore than \m/ did. \m/ decided they had the right to attack FoA and did so. Polaris decided that they didn't think that move was acceptable so they attacked \m/. Alliances exercising their own free will and backing up their opinions with force. Kudos to both Yes they are. \m/ did not keep attacking or nuke them until FoA changed the way they operated. Polar intends to do just that. Attacking someone for one day is a LOT less of an infringement on an alliance's sovereignty than waging full out nuclear warfare until someone bows to your orders concerning their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 One member isn't representative of an alliance-wide opinion. Unless it's a gov member, don't take it as an alliance wide viewpoint. I was more trying to see if it was a TOP opinion, and your response has shown me it is not. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 that's a lot of rhetoric for a nearly meaningless post. We'd all be fine with the attacks if they weren't laden with such hypocrisy No you wouldn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hey, guess what. Politics is all about enforcing your will on others. And, with that, we have come to concordance. You and I both know that, but Grub insists this is moral, not political. I'm a friend to you, you can know that, reply if you will, but I won't argue with you further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentFury Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Did FOK wake you guys up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What was infringed upon? We didn't say who they could ally with, if they should ally, who they can declare war on, what they can buy, or anything else. Everything was FoA's choice, in no way did we force them to act. We provided a reason why they should take action, but we didn't make them take any action. This is what you people are defending. :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) You're spinning wheels! NPO had no sovereignty over Red other than that which other alliances gave it; color spheres are not inately any alliance's property. When NPO was required to give up the Moldavi Doctrine, it was not an infringement on NPO's sovereignty, but a rescinding of everyone else's permission for NPO to treat it as such. \m/'s attack did not stop FOA's ability to self-govern or be independent. And, they may deserve to be retaliated against, but don't wrap a turd in Christmas paper and call it a present. You are being literal and impractical. What your assertion boils down to is that alliances can make genuine choices when put under duress -- that is a fallacy. A decision coerced is not a valid one, and any decision made under the application of force (such as the force put on FOA!) is an infringement on their ability to govern themselves freely. Edit: wording Edited January 25, 2010 by Elyat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No you wouldn't... yeah i would, but i'd also still be willing to beat the !@#$ out of NpO either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 This is what you people are defending. :wacko: How was their sovereignty infringed upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 That argument would work if you weren't the ones making it dangerous for them. In my stay on Planet Bob, I have not seen an alliance the size of FoA get raided until Athens, \m/, PC, and GOONS did it. Answer me how are we making them do anything? As far as I see we only provide a reason to act, and we do not force any action to be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 wait I thought I killed \m/ already You did....we killed them together.... @ Grub....if you asked me to scrub Interstate 40 from coast-to-coast with a toothbrush, I would. o/ Polaris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Did FOK wake you guys up?? Actually it was a pleasant morning surprise. However my breakfast's temperature was far more unpredictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And, with that, we have come to concordance. You and I both know that, but Grub insists this is moral, not political. I'm a friend to you, you can know that, reply if you will, but I won't argue with you further. So limited, still? The two are not mutually exclusive. Politics and morality are not permanently divorced, in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I am just ashamed that some of my allies and their friends have such a desire for their own political agenda that they will not look at a slightly bigger picture. You will get what you want, your shot at the title, but it will be at a great cost, one I don't think you can comprehend just yet. If this ends in peace today, there will still be a massive fall out, things will never ever be the same. Reap what you sow, so plant while you may. If ever there was a time to heed this warning, that time is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How was their sovereignty infringed upon? They were declared on? \m/ nations attacked them? Their soldiers were in their territory? What are you trying to get at, because I'm not understanding the ridiculous question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Glory Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And it's my opinion that I don't like your posting, so does that mean it's alright if GOD gets its allies together and threatens to roll you if you don't shut up? Because that's what you're arguing for. You have no clue what your saying here, what you said is in no way the same as he was arguing for...not even on the same page. The way I read what your saying seems to be a round about threat, one I would sincerely tread softly about. GRUB, I agree 100% with what you said, for what its worth I stand with NpO and their decision. I also see no reason why \m/ can't swallow their pride and defate their blown up ego's and surrender to the simplest terms I've seen in some time. I find it funny that the very same people wearing the shoes TPF wore a few weeks ago are now complaining, whining, and throwing temper tantrums...seems its OK to throw stones as long as their the one throwing them, its OK to attack smaller AA's as long as they are the ones attacking, but when the tables are turned there are all kinds of reasons why they have been wronged or what ever they want to call it. I seem to recall posting something weeks ago about this being CN, and sooner or later the same people attacking TPF might just find them selves in the same situation, only difference here is this is actually justified! Next time I think these people should think twice before they are so quick to jump on the lynching team. Just being honest, BG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So limited, still? The two are not mutually exclusive. Politics and morality are not permanently divorced, in my mind. Politics and morality have NO PLACE in the same sentence....nevermind divorce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts