Why the war is worth fighting

[lebubu]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1265722801' post='2170488']
Sigh ... C&G people still claiming they weren't lined up to counter TOP and IRON I see.
[/quote]

It was nothing more than a possibility. Countless other things could have happened, had the war kept its natural course.

[Balkan Banania]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='09 February 2010 - 07:04 AM' timestamp='1265691850' post='2169859']
The war's spark was stupid, but this question is important, and this war will determine the outcome of our world's most basic freedom, the [b]Freedom To[/b] unrestrained expression.
[/quote]
I suppose the attacks on KoN were artistic expressions by the artists of Athens, as was the intention to obliterate TPF using a 6 months old CB . I think there is a distinct difference between freedom of expression and imposing your will to the weaker, but whatever.

I will quote Moridin's opinion, as I am really sick of this discussion about morals.
[quote name='Moridin' date='09 February 2010 - 08:32 AM' timestamp='1265697122' post='2170163']
Can we please not pretend this war is at all about ideology or freedom or any of that,... This is a war where there are two sides fighting for dominance, it's not TOP wanting to infringe on your free speech or C&G valiantly fighting for the oppressed.
[/quote]
People overplayed the moral card during the Karma war, but then it was easy as we were the embodiment of every evil, thus an easy target even for low quality propaganda. Now in order to play it you will need some more effort and I don’t see effort in the OP, but I may be wrong, or just grumpy.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Balkan Banania' date='09 February 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1265724035' post='2170505']
People overplayed the moral card during the Karma war, but then it was easy as we were the embodiment of every evil, thus an easy target even for low quality propaganda. Now in order to play it you will need some more effort and I don’t see effort in the OP, [b]but I may be wrong, or just grumpy.[/b]
[/quote]
Neither, but I still don't regret being on Karma's side back then.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='lebubu' date='09 February 2010 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1265720877' post='2170456']
It was not. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
[/quote]
There is the text I bolded in my previous post of this thread, as well as many posts where CnG makes your side clear early on, before TOP/IRON declared on you guys.

Vanguard supporting Nemesis attack on Valor (Beating up Valor for who now?),

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='27 January 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1264622450' post='2134195']
Good luck to you Nemesis. Enjoy beating up Valor for us.
[/quote]

MK supporting Guru Order when they declare war on the NSO and encouraging them to destroy our little nations,

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='27 January 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1264618893' post='2134001']
Go Guru Order!

Destroy their little nations~
[/quote]

ODN sad to see UPN on the other side in their declaration of war against RnR,

[quote name='Lenex' date='27 January 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1264629726' post='2134591']
Good luck to our purple friends in UPN, have fun out there! Even if we end up on opposite sides.
[/quote]

ODN further clarifying their side when UPN declares on RnR,

[quote name='Chaoshawk' date='27 January 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1264632950' post='2134790']
Opposite sides again. Good luck out there UPN.
[/quote]

MK member telling RnR to obliterate them in the UPN+Invicta DoW on RnR,

[quote name='Nick1a' date='27 January 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1264637480' post='2135020']
Obliterate them RnR.
[/quote]

All these before you guys claim CnG had picked a side or were planning to get involved, although you guys didn't try very hard to hide it before you got declared on. Many more posts as well from CnG...

[Bob Janova]

[quote]What is wrong with the hegemony-era arguments employed? Can you provide examples? When have we conducted perennial warfare?[/quote]
I am referring to the prevailing trend of C&G posts that you are fighting TOP/IRON/etc 'until they are no longer a threat', which is straight out of VietFAN II or the noCB war, and in the case of TOP is indefinite since they will always have the military power to be a threat (particularly as your own strength falls).

If that's not C&G policy then that would be good, but I haven't seen any indication that a quick peace is being discussed.

[quote]It was nothing more than a possibility.[/quote]
If you didn't counter TOP, their top tier would have rolled through your coalition's alliances one by one, so I don't really buy that.

[Letum]

Freedom?

Firstly, I should point out that the division of "to" and "from" you highlight is highly artificial. The freedom to act in a certain manner is impossible without a corresponding freedom from any intervention in such a sovereign act. Likewise, any freedom from some negative event is chosen with the goal of enabling a freedom to adopt a certain lifestyle.

Secondly, trying to divide them as separate "goals" of ultimate freedom that must be preserved is an abject failure to recognise the self-limiting nature of such freedom. If an "absolute" freedom to exists, without any restraining international convention, law, or higher power, then every independent actor would, in theory, have the absolute capacity to act as they will. However, the collective actions would result in a chaotic system of interactions, whereby the "freedom to" of one party ends up interfering with the "freedom to" of another. Ergo, immediate de-facto restrictions on what you can do exist. The extend to which a system is anarchic or ordered merely changes the nature of such restriction, not its fundamental existence.

For any individual actor to be able to break this cycle and have absolute freedom to do whatever they want, such freedom must come via a limitation of any actions that would interfere with the actor's desires. This necessitates power on behalf of that actor - power of persuasion, coercion, convention or whatever is appropriate to the situation. The effects of this can range anywhere from protection to outright bullying, depending on what exactly the action that must be acted upon is. You mentioned the desire to "protect" the right of a person to say something, regardless of your agreement with it; in this case, the conflict you are trying to resolve is one's party desire (and possible political advantage) in airing on opinion versus another party's desire (and possible advantage) of it not being heard by a specific group. That, on paper, looks like a fairly noble goal, and I can see why it makes you go around styling yourself as a warrior for "freedom to". But if you are going to fight in the name of unrestrained sovereignty, you have to realise its fullest extent.

As mentioned previously, freedom to do what one wants unrestrained requires the necessary power to remove any possible barriers to those actions. To put it in another way, unlimited power is needed, and a system based on unlimited power means an autocracy. Now, I understand that word has negative connotations, and this is not an attempt characterise you or anyone supporting less restraint on individual sovereignty as evil. The simple argument is that, without external restraint, the "well-being" of other actors in the world would depend on internal restraints, i.e a "benevolent" autocracy. As you can quite rightly guess, it would be quite fallacious to base our world on such a system.

Now, of course, these are extremes. As I mentioned before, without sufficient power in the hands of one actor, limits invariably arise; whether they be imposed on an international scale by people with an agenda to pursue what you call "freedom from" or they come about as part of a chaotic balance by hundreds of clashing vigilantes and sovereigns. Nevertheless, it important to note the circular and interdependent relationship between the two freedoms you mentioned.

Now that that has been elaborated, I have to address one of the central fallacies of your propaganda call to righteous fighting. Even though you cleverly mask it with the popularised concept of "freedom of expression", Sovereignty, the central concept behind your "new found freedoms" and "freedom to" speech, is hardly something new. It has always been the refuge of those with power, and those who desire to use such power to fulfil their goals. As I detailed previously, power is required to escape the self-reinforcing cycle of limits upon an actor's actions, and therefore the stringent proponents of sovereignty will be those that hold such power, and want to reduce any form of interference. It is curious that you would try to single out the "other side" as proponents of "freedom from", as protecting individual sovereignty was one of the key agenda points of the old power structure. Rather than some balance of freedom being changed, what has changed is a balance of power. Case in point, the stated freedom of "your side" to act as their sovereignty wills comes with the inherent limitation of the freedom of others. For example, much of your freedom to do whatever you wants comes at the expense of my freedom to spend a year doing something other than be forced to send tech every 10 days. I will save you from the moral self-justifications, as they serve no purpose in this context. The point is that the freedom you site is built on the back of power to limit the actions of every other sovereign actor out there. Which is why Orange and Purple are getting curbstomped.

Now, returning to your original premise, it is quite clear that you were intending to avoid all these potentially nefarious expansions of your artificial division by focusing solely on one popular concept: freedom of speech. Naturally, your attempt to focus this war on that level fails, given that what sparked the initial confrontation was not words but the act of one sovereign actor attacking another, and in response, a third sovereign actor attacking the initial aggressor - ergo, the "chaotic" self-limits coming into effect; followed by the more "structured" limits of treaty activations. You realise that at this point, nobody truly has an agenda to limit "free speech"; rather each actor has their own self-interest to pursue as a sovereign, and they seek both the freedom to pursue it and the freedom from interference. Should the words of one individual create such interference, consequence will invariably follow depending on the power and internal desires of the actor being interfered with. The more notable and totalitarian example of such that would mean immediate censure, the unpopular and "bad" thing, but that is not the only form of consequence, nor is it the explicit desire of any one "side", and trying to imply as such amounts to no more than propaganda of negative association.

To put it simply, this is not a war about freedom in any way. This is simply two influential groups wanting to pursue their goals, and neither of them having the power to reduce all interference to that, although it must be recognised that their power level is far from equal. Freedom does not factor into the equation, nor can it be split into sides.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 February 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1265726011' post='2170529']
I am referring to the prevailing trend of C&G posts that you are fighting TOP/IRON/etc 'until they are no longer a threat', which is straight out of VietFAN II or the noCB war, and in the case of TOP is indefinite since they will always have the military power to be a threat (particularly as your own strength falls).

If that's not C&G policy then that would be good, but I haven't seen any indication that a quick peace is being discussed.


If you didn't counter TOP, their top tier would have rolled through your coalition's alliances one by one, so I don't really buy that.
[/quote]

There's a huge difference between your examples and our war. They attacked us with the claim that we are a threat that must be pacified. How do you rationally respond to that? Give them a quick peace and pat on the back? It isn't just rhetoric that they are a threat, they actually ARE. The only sane thing we can do is keep the war on until they agree to surrender their technological superiority to us so that they will not be succesful in future attacks. If they refuse to surrender, we must attack until they are nothing and we are something. The perennial war is then on their shoulders, why?

THEY. ATTACKED. [b]US[/b].

And quite frankly, our coalition? We weren't in any coalition as a bloc until [b]they decided to attack our bloc[/b]. Alliances like MK may well have been sitting on the sidelines watching the world burn itself over some stupid !@#$ with \m/ and polar. It's not very likely, but we will never know. There was a total paradigm shift, we were suddenly under direct attack for reasons different from the polar war.

[The AUT]

[quote name='Bjornoya' date='09 February 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1265700735' post='2170249']
Pfft, there can be no freedom without responsibility. This world is becoming void of responsibility...
[/quote]

Either that or you're a humorless s- hello won't go there again.

Good to see MK get out of that one though. [size="1"]It's ok when they do it.[/size]

[lebubu]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1265726009' post='2170528']
*snip*
[/quote]

Members are usually free to hail and support whoever they like. It's no secret that we weren't agreeing with NpO's moves, I'll give you that - doesn't really mean anything, though.

[nippy]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1265693055' post='2169955']
If C&G wanted to show everyone TOP had nothing to fear from them they could offer very light terms or white peace, by demanding harsh terms they just prove TOP right.
[/quote]

Laughable. C&G *is* something to fear if you anger them. If you throw rocks at a hornets' nest, do you consider them mean for stinging you?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='nippy' date='09 February 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1265727503' post='2170553']
Laughable. C&G *is* something to fear if you anger them. If you throw rocks at a hornets' nest, do you consider them mean for stinging you?
[/quote]
Hornets tend to be aggressive in general, wouldn't even need to throw the rock to get stung. (they just need to see you as a threat)

[nippy]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1265727694' post='2170556']
Hornets tend to be aggressive in general, wouldn't even need to throw the rock to get stung. (they just need to see you as a threat)
[/quote]

Throwing rocks at(read: declaring war on) them is a threat.

[FreddieMercury]

Freedom is easy to upheld and praise as some kind abstract and incomprehensible term, but when you look down in the nitty gritty, when you give freedom to one group, you often take freedom from another. You give freedom for racist remarks to be said, you take the freedom away from others from being genuinely disgusted and hurt.

Besides, this war wasn't fought over some racist remarks, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the factional politics at play can see that.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='08 February 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1265693808' post='2169996']
while TOP is fighting for freedom from hateful words of CnG members.
[/quote]

Seriously, if that is their excuse for starting a bogus war then I strongly suggest their eradication as alliance to prevent such thin-skinned individuals from causing more havoc on planet bob. These are truly dangerous people if they can't ignore hateful words that have no real impact on alliances that have combined nation strengths that run in to the millions.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.


Seriously, wipe them out if they are doing this because someone said something mean to them. Wipe them all out without mercy until they are no longer a potent force to be reckoned with.

Show them not one drop of mercy.

However, if this isn't the case, white peace all around, and make it quick as the GNR is raising all sorts of havoc with my nation.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='nippy' date='09 February 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1265727880' post='2170560']
Throwing rocks at(read: declaring war on) them is a threat.
[/quote]
I'd rather use something more effective than rocks, but I would kill the hornets before they sting me. Maybe a toxic spray of some sort...

[nippy]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1265727994' post='2170565']
I'd rather use something more effective than rocks, but I would kill the hornets before they sting me. Maybe a toxic spray of some sort...
[/quote]

Was this a complete collapse of your argument, or are you just trying to be funny?

[The AUT]

[quote name='nippy' date='09 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1265728191' post='2170568']
Was this a complete collapse of your argument, or are you just trying to be funny?
[/quote]

You didn't even make an argument. Just a stupid analogy that has nothing to do with anything then when someone returns with an equally stupid analogy you call it a "collapse of argument." Truly a battle of wits.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='nippy' date='09 February 2010 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1265728191' post='2170568']
Was this a complete collapse of your argument, or are you just trying to be funny?
[/quote]
Your analogy wasn't a real argument, so it didn't warrant a serious response.

However if I understand your analogy correctly your asking if I consider CnG mean for fighting back when TOP delcared, then my answer would be no. I'm sure TOP expected them to fight back.

[lebubu]

Stop comparing us to insects.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='lebubu' date='09 February 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1265728809' post='2170581']
Stop comparing us to insects.
[/quote]
I agree it was a horrible comparison. Blame GOONS!

[HellAngel]

[quote name='The AUT' date='09 February 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1265728282' post='2170571']
You didn't even make an argument. Just a stupid analogy that has nothing to do with anything then when someone returns with an equally stupid analogy you call it a "collapse of argument." Truly a battle of wits.
[/quote]

I have to admit, this made me smile.

[Jerichoholic]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 10:17 AM' timestamp='1265728635' post='2170578']
Your analogy wasn't a real argument, so it didn't warrant a serious response.

However if I understand your analogy correctly your asking if I consider CnG mean for fighting back when TOP delcared, then my answer would be no. I'm sure TOP expected them to fight back.
[/quote]
Your side keeps saying CnG should give white peace to DAWN/IRON/TOP/TORN (henceforth known as DITT, that side really needs a better name) to prove that CnG isn't a threat to them. Yet DITT attacking CnG without provocation proved they [b]are[/b] a threat to CnG. I'm not aware of any treaties that would have brought CnG in in the event of DITT coming in on defense of NSO (which from what I've read in these discussions is what was going to happen), so it was just a sneak attack on somebody uninvolved in the war because they didn't like CnG.

So how does DITT prove to CnG that they aren't a threat to them? They have already attacked without provocation and now only want white peace because they are at a disadvantage. What are the odds DITT would have given white peace if the roles were reversed?

[nippy]

[quote name='The AUT' date='09 February 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1265728282' post='2170571']
You didn't even make an argument. Just a stupid analogy that has nothing to do with anything then when someone returns with an equally stupid analogy you call it a "collapse of argument." Truly a battle of wits.
[/quote]

Oh, silly me...I forgot to break it down for you.

Methrage here was whining about C&G, saying that they're proving TOP and IRON correct in doing the preemptive strike for them being 'a threat'. My analogy points out to the flaw in that stance, as C&G wasn't a threat until they were attacked. I can only hope you're able to wrap your pancake around [i]that[/i] sausage, otherwise I guess you and I will both have to shrug off your apparent inability to grasp pseudo-complex analogies.

Jerichoholic seems to get it.

e: added the extra 'ho' in Jerichoholic.

Edited February 9, 2010 by nippy

[Captain Enema]

I'd like to see white peace for two very simple reasons. One, I think we all know that ToP/Iron now realize the errors of their ways. Two, the motivation for acting in the form of Grub is now gone. Punishing them might be a righteous course of action. It might even make sense. However, showing mercy when the forces aligned with CnG are in a position to do so, could have some long term benefits in the post-war realignment of Bob-lolitics. Things are going to change after the war given the number of mind boggling actions that have been established by various alliances.

This creates an entirely unknown dynamic to the planet bob that is best not entered into after creating another generation of enemies by crippling them with harsh reps. If not white peace then some sort of modest repayment for damages. Nothing so staggering as what some have had to pay in the past, but enough to compensate CnG for some of the damages they have taken in this conflict.

Try to make friends out of former enemies is all I'm suggesting.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]Your side keeps saying CnG should give white peace to DAWN/IRON/TOP/TORN (henceforth known as DITT, that side really needs a better name) to prove that CnG isn't a threat to them.[/quote]
I think Methrage meant this (he'll probably be around shortly to clarify if it isn't the case): [b]if[/b] CnG was to give white peace to TOP-Duckroll, it would probably alleviate the tensions and remove the perception that they are a threat.

He's not saying: "hey give us white peace, pretty please?"


Also, for all the talks about how NPO was evil to impose terms, what is worse? One or two weeks of war* with harsh terms or two months with smaller terms?

If I was TOP's govt, I'd seek out CnG to see what terms they would offer right now. Could be interesting to compare with what was done before.

*: Not including FAN, obv.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov