Sanctions as a Weapon

[Bob Janova]

I'm content to disagree (you're wrong after all ) but the timeline Sardonic posted was pretty biased by omitting the one part of the whole affair that is contentious. And I don't particularly enjoy going round in circles either but when your side keeps using the same wrong arguments it's hard not to

And yes, it was a RoH not a DoW. If I say in this post 'I recognise a state of war with GOONS' that doesn't mean I somehow attacked you. He 'recognises' (incorrectly perhaps but so what? it's just words) that GOONS attacked his alliance. It makes absolutely no sense to cite that as evidence that he attacked you (which he didn't).

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Methrage' date='18 April 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1271615874' post='2265115']
I don't want peace until GOONS are destroyed and those who stick by them have been thoroughly beaten.
[/quote]
[quote name='Methrage' date='21 April 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1271899157' post='2269950']
If GOONS admit their mistake and realize they were wrong, I would be willing to put an end to this.
[/quote]
[quote name='Methrage' date='22 April 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1271923184' post='2270502']
You guys can have peace with me if you want, we can just white peace if no one sees reason to continue.
[/quote]
Sory bro, but even if you ask really really nicely, I'm pretty sure that sanction is going to stay right where it is.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1271954791' post='2270797']
I'm content to disagree (you're wrong after all ) but the timeline Sardonic posted was pretty biased by omitting the one part of the whole affair that is contentious. And I don't particularly enjoy going round in circles either but when your side keeps using the same wrong arguments it's hard not to
[/quote]
I omitted it because it is not an issue. You and methrage are trying to make an issue out of nothing. What are sanctions for if not nuclear rogues? I would think that your alliance, much like every other alliance of value, would sanction a nuclear rogue, were the option available. To not do so would be ridiculous.

Either challenge our "wrong arguments" or stop blathering.

Also it doesn't matter if we attacked first or not, because his aid started it, and our cause is just in the eyes of the international community. So stop harping on it as it matters little to the overall discussion.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Sardonic

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1271954791' post='2270797']
And yes, it was a RoH not a DoW. If I say in this post 'I recognise a state of war with GOONS' that doesn't mean I somehow attacked you. He 'recognises' (incorrectly perhaps but so what? it's just words) that GOONS attacked his alliance. It makes absolutely no sense to cite that as evidence that he attacked you (which he didn't).
[/quote]
Where exactly do you draw the line of probable cause? If a citizen of Canuckistan walked up to one of our police officers with drug paraphernalia in hand and announced that he had illegal drugs in his backpack, we consider that probable cause to search and subsequently arrest the citizen. If Methrage had come out of anarchy, declared a literal war on one of our nations, but could not buy nukes until the next day, would that be enough reason to have him sanctioned? What about if he had nukes but had not used them yet?

There are many separate points up until the moment the defining nuclear attack is actually made, and probable cause must be assessed at any point one wishes to act at any of these points. In our situation, as a result of Methrage's words and actions, we judged that there was probable cause to sanction him and Umbrella, the ones with the senate seat and accordingly the ones with the authority to judge said probable cause, agreed with us.

Edit: See Sardonic's post.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[Cormalek]

Hm, I'm having strong déjà vu as far as "but he said..." goes.

Funny how some apparently encouter jamais vu as far as "oh noez, aid" is talked about.


But for casual observer: how a nation that get's attacked is being a rogue?

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='22 April 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1271957721' post='2270835']
Hm, I'm having strong déjà vu as far as "but he said..." goes.

Funny how some apparently encouter jamais vu as far as "oh noez, aid" is talked about.


But for casual observer: how a nation that get's attacked is being a rogue?
[/quote]
The action of aiding an enemy of another alliance is a rogue action. That makes him a rogue. He also nuked our member, that makes him a nuclear rogue.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Sardonic

[Jakome]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='22 April 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1271957721' post='2270835']
Hm, I'm having strong déjà vu as far as "but he said..." goes.

Funny how some apparently encouter jamais vu as far as "oh noez, aid" is talked about.


But for casual observer: how a nation that get's attacked is being a rogue?
[/quote]
So guys I can't be bothered to read even the past 2 pages, could you catch me up so I can make an uniformed but strongly worded post.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Where exactly do you draw the line of probable cause?[/quote]
At declaring a war with intent to nuke.

We've just had a major global war fought and reparations demanded because probable cause through words and preparatory actions are not sufficient evidence to go to war, and you supported that side of the TOP/IRON v C&G front, so presumably you agree with that.

[quote]I omitted it because it is not an issue.[/quote]
That's clearly not true since it is [i]the[/i] issue about which this thread was created.

[quote]Also it doesn't matter if we attacked first or not, because his aid started it[/quote]
Aiding someone doesn't immediately put you at war. That's why CSA are in a defensive war against GOONS, and why Methrage is. If you don't believe me, check out the thread about people aiding Grämlins where people are trying to bait them into an aggressive war against people aiding IRON. So yes, it does matter that you attacked first, in fact that is the absolute core of the issue (the 'wrong argument' you wanted me to address), because many people agree that you shouldn't sanction in an aggressive war.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1271958815' post='2270849']

That's clearly not true since it is [i]the[/i] issue about which this thread was created.
[/quote]
Just because he thinks its an issue doesn't make it so.
[quote]
Aiding someone doesn't immediately put you at war. That's why CSA are in a defensive war against GOONS, and why Methrage is.
[/quote]
Well then that's where we disagree, thank you and goodnight. We will respond to all threats to our alliance, diplomacy failing, with maximum force.
[quote]
So yes, it does matter that you attacked first, in fact that is the absolute core of the issue (the 'wrong argument' you wanted me to address), because many people agree that you shouldn't sanction in an aggressive war.
[/quote]
I don't see those people here, all I see is Methrage the rogue sanctioned for spouting off his intention to nuke us. "War" is a misnomer here too as Methrage is not a diplomatic entity, like I said, he is a rogue. As he is a rogue we can do whatever we please with him.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Sardonic

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1271958815' post='2270849']
At declaring a war with intent to nuke.
[/quote]
So then, you agree that a nuke does not have to be launched in order to classify someone a "nuclear rogue". You even used that fun "intent" word. What would you say to those that say a nuke must be actually launched first?

My point is this: You can make your own value judgements, but that does not make them any more correct than ours, especially in a matter that is decidedly not black-and-white. We were at a point where we honestly believed that we would be nuked by Methrage if we did not take preventative action. Declaring a literal war on a nation is a very bold statement of intent, but it is still just intent. I feel that all of Methrage's actions and words provided an equatable level of intent.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1271958815' post='2270849']
We've just had a major global war fought and reparations demanded because probable cause through words and preparatory actions are not sufficient evidence to go to war, and you supported that side of the TOP/IRON v C&G front, so presumably you agree with that.
[/quote]
How do you think that situation would have unfolded if, before the IRON/TOP declaration, Archon had said in any thread "I recognize a state of war to exist between IRON/TOP and MK"? That is an example of an alliance/alliance war, so it really is a very poor example, but even ignoring that fact, it is still far from an analogous situation.

Edit: Sardonic's posts explain our official position - I am just having a good time debating.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Jakome' date='22 April 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1271958396' post='2270843']
So guys I can't be bothered to read even the past 2 pages, could you catch me up so I can make an uniformed but strongly worded post.
[/quote]

I've read all 46 of them actually, but I assumed there's more to this than OWF babbling, especially timeline-wise. And for the record - just because they are rooted in foreign language, doesn't make them curse words.

Anyhow, while I wouldn't classify one as a rogue on the basis of aid alone - GOONS did, and this is what matters here. Since there is no clear definition of rogue with list of do's and don't's, and war-time aid is often considered as act of war (view that I'm sharing)... well it seems the sanctions were declared within the common understanding of senators boundaries.

Still, the funny thingies I mentioned seem relevant

[edit: apostrophe in "well"... D'Oh!]

Edited April 22, 2010 by Cormalek

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='22 April 2010 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1271961190' post='2270884']
I've read all 46 of them actually, but I assumed there's more to this than OWF babbling, especially timeline-wise. And for the record - just because they are rooted in foreign language, doesn't make them curse words.
[/quote]
Don't take Jakome too seriously - there have been several visitors to this thread that don't bother to read or understand the situation, and then make strong assumptions in one direction. I don't think he interpereted your french as cursing.

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1271958815' post='2270849']
Aiding someone doesn't immediately put you at war. That's why CSA are in a defensive war against GOONS, and why Methrage is. If you don't believe me, check out the thread about people aiding Grämlins where people are trying to bait them into an aggressive war against people aiding IRON. So yes, it does matter that you attacked first, in fact that is the absolute core of the issue (the 'wrong argument' you wanted me to address), because many people agree that you shouldn't sanction in an aggressive war.
[/quote]
OK. Let's say that you guys get your wish in the near-future and get into a conflict with the GGA. Let's say I think VE is being a bunch of tools over this, and I begin to send money and tech to GGA nations. According to the logic you've used in this thread, this is totally cool and in no way an act of war.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Jakome' date='22 April 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1271958396' post='2270843']
So guys I can't be bothered to read even the past 2 pages, could you catch me up so I can make an uniformed but strongly worded post.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]He has a point. I have been here the entire time and I still fail to see how either GOONS or Umbrella can label Methrage a rogue. Is there any logic to this nonsense or are you simply resorting to arbitrarily applied labels in a feeble attempt to justify yourself?[/color]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='22 April 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1271961666' post='2270889']
OK. Let's say that you guys get your wish in the near-future and get into a conflict with the GGA. Let's say I think VE is being a bunch of tools over this, and I begin to send money and tech to GGA nations. According to the logic you've used in this thread, this is totally cool and in no way an act of war.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I for one would actively encourage it. Far too few are willing to stand up for what is right these days. Even fewer are willing to make a stand. More people need to be like Methrage and myself. Only then shall the armies of the right be filled and a better world can be made, its fields watered with the blood of the wicked.[/color]

Edited April 22, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1271962074' post='2270900']
[color="#0000FF"]He has a point. I have been here the entire time and I still fail to see how either GOONS or Umbrella can label Methrage a rogue. Is there any logic to this nonsense or are you simply resorting to arbitrarily applied labels in a feeble attempt to justify yourself?[/color]
[/quote]
If you have been here the entire time, you must not have been actually reading the posts. I'm sure we've gone over this a half dozen times by now.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 April 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1271962376' post='2270907']
If you have been here the entire time, you must not have been actually reading the posts. I'm sure we've gone over this a half dozen times by now.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]And you are wrong. I still do not accept your explanation. Now, give me a rational reason why I should tolerate this behavior. I would hate to be forced to take more extreme measures in dealing with your alliance.[/color]

[Jakome]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1271962074' post='2270900']
[color="#0000FF"]He has a point. I have been here the entire time and I still fail to see how either GOONS or Umbrella can label Methrage a rogue. Is there any logic to this nonsense or are you simply resorting to arbitrarily applied labels in a feeble attempt to justify yourself?[/color]

[/quote]
actually he explained it very nicely in his next post.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1271962745' post='2270911']
[color="#0000FF"]And you are wrong. I still do not accept your explanation. Now, give me a rational reason why I should tolerate this behavior. I would hate to be forced to take more extreme measures in dealing with your alliance.[/color]
[/quote]
If you disagree, then argue your point. Do not simply dismiss our reasons as nonexistant and call our decision "arbitrary" as you just admitted that we do have reasons, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Thus, not arbitrary.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Jakome' date='22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1271962772' post='2270912']
actually he explained it very nicely in his next post.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I do not see a satisfactory explanation anywhere. I am not satisfied. I demand satisfaction. You have failed to satisfy me with provisions of reason. You instead provide drivel and empty rhetoric. That does not satisfy me.[/color]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 April 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1271962967' post='2270916']
If you disagree, then argue your point. Do not simply dismiss our reasons as nonexistant and call our decision "arbitrary" as you just admitted that we do have reasons, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Thus, not arbitrary.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You do not have reasons. I have never acknowledged your having reasons. As such it can only be concluded that you are doing this without reason, and I do not approve. Now, you will either provide an acceptable justification I shall be forced to take further action in regards to your alliance. This will be your last warning.[/color]

Edited April 22, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1271963068' post='2270917']
[color="#0000FF"]I demand satisfaction.[/color][/quote]
[img]http://sites.google.com/site/quippish/GloveSlap.jpg[/img]

Did you just challenge GOONS to a duel?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1271963068' post='2270917']
[color="#0000FF"]You do not have reasons. I have never acknowledged your having reasons. As such it can only be concluded that you are doing this without reason, and I do not approve. Now, you will either provide an acceptable justification I shall be forced to take further action in regards to your alliance. This will be your last warning.[/color]
[/quote]
I do not acknowledge that you have not acknowledged us having reasons. As such it can only be concluded that you are posturing without reason, and I do not approve. Now, you will either provide an acceptable refutation of our reasons or I shall be forced to assume that you have absolutely nothing of worth to say. This will be your last warning.

[OrangeAvenger]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 April 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1271963603' post='2270930']
I do not acknowledge that you have not acknowledged us having reasons. As such it can only be concluded that you are posturing without reason, and I do not approve. Now, you will either provide an acceptable refutation of our reasons or I shall be forced to assume that you have absolutely nothing of worth to say. This will be your last warning.
[/quote]

Goon sir, I acknowledge your lack of acknowledgment for their lack of acknowledgment.
And now...

DANCING FROGS!

[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img]

[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img]

[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img][img]http://i45.tinypic.com/ibifbk.gif[/img]

[lamuella]

oh look, it's Rebel Virginia offering to love (well, hate) us long time in exchange for attention. Let us all read his posts and engage him in discussion because he is Very Very Important

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='22 April 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1271961666' post='2270889']
OK. Let's say that you guys get your wish in the near-future and get into a conflict with the GGA. Let's say I think VE is being a bunch of tools over this, and I begin to send money and tech to GGA nations. According to the logic you've used in this thread, this is totally cool and in no way an act of war.
[/quote]
You clearly didn't read any of my posts, including the one you quoted, because I've been very consistent on this: sending aid to an enemy is a CB – so we would be totally justified in applying diplomatic pressure to your alliance and rolling you for it – but it does not in itself start the war, so if we chose to do that, it would be us attacking you and not vice versa.

E: [quote]We were at a point where we honestly believed that we would be nuked by Methrage if we did not take preventative action[/quote]
You would never have been nuked by him if you didn't declare a war on him, unless he attacked you (at which point he's clearly a rogue against you by any normal definition and a sanction would be uncontroversial).

And yes, my value judgement is just a subjective position, but it's one backed up by logical argument from precedent involving the way alliances deal with these issues, including GOONS against CSA in this very issue! Your argument appears to be 'well he's one nation so the rules are completely different', which is, well, not really based on anything.

Clearly you don't agree that an aid packet immediately means an aggressive war because you haven't sanctioned whoever it was that sent a pack of soldiers to GOONS.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Bob Janova

[lamuella]

who sent a pack of soldiers to GOONS?