The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='The Lonely Man' date='24 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269424152' post='2235104']
[OOC] Nevermind that the Soviet Union used the same justifications for the imprisonment and mass murder of political dissidents, of course. [/OOC]
[/quote]

and the OWF was outraged when certain alliance leaders were supposedly compared to fanatical leaders of a cult. where's the outrage now?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='25 March 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1269493676' post='2236153']
And Mr Aros..I don't think anyone here said the Federation never fought.
[/quote]
Well then why would that term for peace (two weeks without peace mode) have existed?

EDIT:
[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='24 March 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1269488228' post='2236050']
This was pretty much common knowledge.

But FAN chose to stay in peace mode rather than swiftly end the war with 2 rounds of war and take moderate damage at most from this then rebuild in peace with no reps to pay.

So they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their decision.
[/quote]
I'd say that the aggressors were more responsible for the damage that they and FAN both took, especially since they offered and kept offering terms that they knew FAN wouldn't take. If moderate damage was all that was going to be taken to FAN, why didn't they (WUT) stop after moderate damage was taken? They wanted to crush FAN's pride. Didn't work then, and now FAN has the longest war record of any alliance, a record they will probably keep for a really long time.

I mean, trying to reason with FAN was already laughable. They attacked an alliance for no reason on D-Day because they could and didn't even know it was the protectorate of an ally. If you didn't think they wanted to do as much damage as possible, well you don't know FAN. NPO lost a huge number of members as a result of FAN's war (a lot of which they claim were just ghosts, but that was around 500 ghosts if memory serves).

tl;dr - Both were entirely responsible for the outcome of that war.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Earogema

[Aurion]

[quote name='The Lonely Man' date='24 March 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1269424152' post='2235104']
[OOC] Nevermind that the Soviet Union used the same justifications for the imprisonment and mass murder of political dissidents, of course. [/OOC]
[/quote]

Quit while you aren't but so far behind.
[i]
Please.[/i]

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Earogema' date='24 March 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1269472303' post='2235706']
To the people saying FAN didn't fight-

You are full of it. Almost every single nation of FAN was engaged (if not all nations of FAN). I fought in the second VietFAN during their first blitz on TORN. Many, MANY FAN nations came out of peace mode.

I think the fact that FAN was around 600 members the first time, down to 200 members, then 200 to 70 is more than enough proof of that.
[/quote]
They didn't really fight after that, since they weren't capable of doing any damage (their blitz on us did nothing but make people have fun). In the days before Manhattan Projects, there isn't much an alliance under the boot could do.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='24 March 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1269488228' post='2236050']
This was pretty much common knowledge.

But FAN chose to stay in peace mode rather than swiftly end the war with 2 rounds of war and take moderate damage at most from this then rebuild in peace with no reps to pay.

So they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their decision.
[/quote]
I'm not sure I would have taken that offer without a whole bunch of legalize describing all the possible edge cases to make sure it would really be just 2 weeks.

[Valerius]

[quote name='Letum' date='26 March 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1269556383' post='2236659']
It is always regretful when the pride of some party gets in the way of both their and our interests.
[/quote]
Unless you're talking about the Karma War. That was beautiful.

[Letum]

[quote name='President Kent' date='27 March 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1269649065' post='2237897']
Unless you're talking about the Karma War. That was beautiful.
[/quote]

I am not quite sure what you are referring to.

[neneko]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='24 March 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1269454276' post='2235385']
and the trap that was laid for them (and which they walked into)
[/quote]
Wait you're still trying to claim it was a trap? I thought we were past this.

First of all it'd be the dumbest trap ever. The success of the trap would be based on two of the biggest alliances on bob attacking a uninvolved party in a global conflict. It'd take some hardcore pressuring to make any alliance leader do that or possible a very very gullible government.

Nobody forced you to make that move. Honestly I very much doubt anyone outside your ministry for brilliant plans (my spies report that this ministry is led by lm) even suggested that it'd be a good idea. If it was a trap it was either iron that set up top or vice versa because you two dug the hole together and both managed to get stuck down there.

Edited March 27, 2010 by neneko

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='neneko' date='27 March 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1269719975' post='2238521']
Wait you're still trying to claim it was a trap? I thought we were past this.

First of all it'd be the dumbest trap ever. The success of the trap would be based on two of the biggest alliances on bob attacking a uninvolved party in a global conflict. It'd take some hardcore pressuring to make any alliance leader do that or possible a very very gullible government.

Nobody forced you to make that move. Honestly I very much doubt anyone outside your ministry for brilliant plans (my spies report that this ministry is led by lm) even suggested that it'd be a good idea. If it was a trap it was either iron that set up top or vice versa because you two dug the hole together and both managed to get stuck down there.
[/quote]

To be fair, they had only one other option (that presumably could/would have amounted to the same exact thing except in reverse) or non involvement.

Still, going with the preempt had the some outcome in level of damage as the other available route, and was far, far worse of a decision in regards to future implications and politics, etc. To this day the decision baffles my mind.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Monster]

I think he(WN) was talking about NPO in Karma falling into a supposed trap.

Your(neneko, Impero) points are solid with regards to TIDTT though.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='neneko' date='27 March 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1269719975' post='2238521']
Wait you're still trying to claim it was a trap? I thought we were past this.

First of all it'd be the dumbest trap ever. The success of the trap would be based on two of the biggest alliances on bob attacking a uninvolved party in a global conflict. It'd take some hardcore pressuring to make any alliance leader do that or possible a very very gullible government.

Nobody forced you to make that move. Honestly I very much doubt anyone outside your ministry for brilliant plans (my spies report that this ministry is led by lm) even suggested that it'd be a good idea. If it was a trap it was either iron that set up top or vice versa because you two dug the hole together and both managed to get stuck down there.
[/quote]


[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='27 March 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1269732821' post='2238632']
To be fair, they had only one other option (that presumably could/would have amounted to the same exact thing except in reverse) or non involvement.

Still, going with the preempt had the some outcome in level of damage as the other available route, and was far, far worse of a decision in regards to future implications and politics, etc. To this day the decision baffles my mind.
[/quote]

Try actually reading my post. Like Roquentin apparently did.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='28 March 2010 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1269739374' post='2238729']
Try actually reading my post. Like Roquentin apparently did.
[/quote]

Well I was responding to neneko, not your post, so no matter

[neneko]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='28 March 2010 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1269739374' post='2238729']
Try actually reading my post.
[/quote]
Never.

Fake edit: This is more than one word.

[Bob Janova]

A trap [i]was[/i] laid for TOP/IRON – they were 'forced' into attacking Fark, which would provide a convenient avenue for pushing Harmlins and C&G onto them. The fact that they saw the trap and decided to walk straight up to it and trip it by attacking the people that were going to counter them was unexpected, but the trap was definitely there.

But yeah, WN was talking about Karma there.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 March 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1269775991' post='2239093']
A trap [i]was[/i] laid for TOP/IRON – they were 'forced' into attacking Fark, which would provide a convenient avenue for pushing Harmlins and C&G onto them. The fact that they saw the trap and decided to walk straight up to it and trip it by attacking the people that were going to counter them was unexpected, but the trap was definitely there.

But yeah, WN was talking about Karma there.
[/quote]
They weren't any more forced to enter the war than fark was or cng would have been if they had attacked fark. Does that make it a trap for fark and cng too? or is the losing side automatically the trapped one?

[Bob Janova]

That's why I used quotation marks. Of course they were not actually forced, but they were given a Hobson's choice – abandon your allies to a losing war (again), or engage on the people that attacked NSO and get rolled with them.

This is rather like saying that MK was 'forced' into noCB – they weren't, but the political damage of staying out and deserting your friends was less than the military damage of fighting.

It does not make it a trap for Fark/C&G because they were part of the coalition whose plan is being successfully followed through, or at least a war which is sufficiently similar to that plan that it might as well be. You could say C&G had been trapped if Polar hadn't switched sides and you were being rolled by TOP's brilliant () plan. So yes, being trapped does imply that you're losing – if you overcome a planned trap, you sprung the trap, you're not trapped.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='neneko' date='28 March 2010 - 08:00 AM' timestamp='1269777607' post='2239101']
They weren't any more forced to enter the war than fark was or cng would have been if they had attacked fark. Does that make it a trap for fark and cng too? or is the losing side automatically the trapped one?
[/quote]

Did you actually expect them not to attack? Or are you crying because they didn't do what you wanted them to?

Either way its a silly argument. Although I will agree on the lack of considering future implications when making their decision, it is hard to argue that MK and friends were uninvolved. I find it very hard to believe you guys were not sitting in coalition channels, or were not planning to attack IRON and TOP. At which point does it become aggression? I do not know, but it is not nearly as black and white as you'd like us to believe.

[Lord Brendan]

Making plans to counter an attack on your allies is not aggression.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='28 March 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1269788373' post='2239167']
Making plans to counter an attack on your allies is not aggression.
[/quote]

So it was certain. So how were they dragged into a war in which they were not going to participate?

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 March 2010 - 06:33 AM' timestamp='1269775991' post='2239093']
A trap [i]was[/i] laid for TOP/IRON – they were 'forced' into attacking Fark, which would provide a convenient avenue for pushing Harmlins and C&G onto them. The fact that they saw the trap and decided to walk straight up to it and trip it by attacking the people that were going to counter them was unexpected, but the trap was definitely there.

But yeah, WN was talking about Karma there.
[/quote]
Interesting theory. How much of it is true though?

[Lord Fingolfin]

-double post- delete please

Edited March 28, 2010 by Esquire
Esquire note: Never, good sir/madam.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='28 March 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1269789781' post='2239181']
Interesting theory. How much of it is true though?
[/quote]

I recall there being a lot of arguing amongst coalition leadership on whether IRON should attack FARK and the conclusion was reached that attacking FARK would lead to MHA and Gramlins dogpiling IRON, leaving C&G uncovered to come over the top. I remember the night where we put someone else on FARK and IRON didn't go in that several people had FARK/SF leaders querrying them saying "Uh, are you serious? Where is IRON? We were expecting them, you're joking right?", after which LM and I were able to go and say something to the effect "We told you so, we just $%&@ed up their game plan and now we've got them unprepared". But yeah, you could say we later rather foolishly tripped into an even worse trap

20/20 hindsight

[Letum]

To be honest, calling it a "trap" pretty much smacks of politicised speaking. It's rather simple battle planning of treaty chains that happens in every conflict - both sides try to re-arrange their forces so as to have the best fighting arrangement and - most crucially - to encourage "fence-sitters" to join and stay committed to their side.

The amount of word wrangling over this is immense - one side trying to portray it as something more sinister than normal that somehow reduces culpability and the other going in with a thin veneer of denial about ever being involved - playing the victim card in order to, again, reduce culpability, and going on about some faux "freedom" of choice. Honestly, enough is enough. It is evident that the TOP/IRON group and the SF/CnG group were at loggerheads (the TPF conflict displayed that wonderfully), and it is equally evident that one of them would have ended up on one side, and the others on the opposing one. Trying to examine the details of involvement and claim it was a trap or a blindside or anything special has already been done to the death for the past month, so get over it already.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Letum

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='28 March 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1269793116' post='2239211']
I recall there being a lot of arguing amongst coalition leadership on whether IRON should attack FARK and the conclusion was reached that attacking FARK would lead to MHA and Gramlins dogpiling IRON, leaving C&G uncovered to come over the top. I remember the night where we put someone else on FARK and IRON didn't go in that several people had FARK/SF leaders querrying them saying "Uh, are you serious? Where is IRON? We were expecting them, you're joking right?", after which LM and I were able to go and say something to the effect "We told you so, we just $%&@ed up their game plan and now we've got them unprepared". But yeah, you could say we later rather foolishly tripped into an even worse trap

20/20 hindsight
[/quote]
I was simply curious to see how it was being done on their side. Bob J's post basically summed up what we were thinking at the time. I simply wanted to see if anyone else acknowledged it or if it was just Bob's opinion. I'm aware of what was going on our side though.

Also, we didn't walk into a trap, imo. We simply didn't know that the NpO lacked a backbone.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='28 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1269795486' post='2239235']
I was simply curious to see how it was being done on their side. Bob J's post basically summed up what we were thinking at the time. I simply wanted to see if anyone else acknowledged it or if it was just Bob's opinion. I'm aware of what was going on our side though.

Also, we didn't walk into a trap, imo. We simply didn't know that the NpO lacked a backbone.
[/quote]

Ah right, for some reason I totally blanked that you were still Grand Chancellor when the war broke out, not Saber XD.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='28 March 2010 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1269788426' post='2239169']
So it was certain. So how were they dragged into a war in which they were not going to participate?
[/quote]

You have to be more specific, I have no idea who you are referring to.

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='28 March 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1269793116' post='2239211']
I recall there being a lot of arguing amongst coalition leadership on whether IRON should attack FARK and the conclusion was reached that attacking FARK would lead to MHA and Gramlins dogpiling IRON, leaving C&G uncovered to come over the top. I remember the night where we put someone else on FARK and IRON didn't go in that several people had FARK/SF leaders querrying them saying "Uh, are you serious? Where is IRON? We were expecting them, you're joking right?", after which LM and I were able to go and say something to the effect "We told you so, we just $%&@ed up their game plan and now we've got them unprepared". But yeah, you could say we later rather foolishly tripped into an even worse trap

20/20 hindsight
[/quote]

I have seen this "C&G coming over the top" logic several times and I still don't understand it.

Attacking C&G led to MHA and Gramlins dogpiling IRON, leaving Fark and Sparta uncovered to "come over the top". How is that any better than the reverse? The pre-emptive strike had no real effect on who you had to fight, all it did was drive several of the less involved parties onto our side (such as STA and OBR, for example).