Ragnarok Declaration of War

[shilo]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281967364' post='2417895']
Actually, what it usually means is that you deny him until his war screen is clear.



/me waves hand Jedi-like

Those aren't the two offensive wars you're looking for....



/me waves hand Jedi-like

That's not the defense of a protectorate you're looking for.

(OK, that didn't work nearly as well.)



And finally we agree. You're absolutely right. NSO put themselves in the middle of a situation that was none of their concern, and RoK made that more than clear by telling them that providing aid would be an act of war. And then NSO provided aid and....here we are!



Hey, this is great. I believe we went full circle in less than a page this time.
[/quote]
So master yoda, we finally got down to core of the whole issue:
RoK simply used a chance to start a war with NSO, anything else is a weak excuse for that intent

/me smiles sith like

Edited August 16, 2010 by shilo

[Tautology]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281985682' post='2418123']
RoK simply used a chance to start a war with NSO, anything else is a weak excuse for that intent[/quote]
Ahem. Heft decided to aid the rogue after Hoo had told him it would be considered an act of war.

I'm sure Heft bitterly regrets his decision and I can imagine him howling, "no, not again, please" each time the above fact has to be posted again in this topic. Poor man.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1281954536' post='2417784']
No, but it would seem that wars started after the member was accepted and was wearing the New Sith Order affiliation would be a different story. Are you saying that if somebody attacked one of your members three hours after you accepted them without attempting to peacefully use diplomacy, you wouldn't do anything?
[/quote]

rogues hop AA all the time to try to escape, they keep getting killed anyway. Just yesterday I dealt with a similar issues. It was solved in 5 minutes (it took that long because our boards were down for maintenance) and guess what it ended without a war.

[quote]
I guess being the lot of cowards that you are, you probably wouldn't so long as you weren't going to be on the winning side, but of course VE takes a lot of care to ensure that never happens.
[/quote]

Ohhhh an Ad hominem attack! We've never seen one of those before!

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281962608' post='2417839']
But they didn't. Accepting someone into your alliance doesn't mean you automatically fight the wars that noob starts/started. It means most of the time you try to resolve the issues to allow that noob to become a full member free of the baggage.
[/quote]

No thats pretty much exactly what it means. That's what applicant AA's are for. A holding tank while they guy gets his !@#$ sorted out. Applicants in trouble get denied unless they wish to apply under the Cost of Mercy Act. In which case we [i]Negotiate[/i] their clearance from whatever hit list their are on. We do not provoke wars over it.

[quote]
Now, how NSO had the chance to do that when RoK had already decided to attack him, without a) giving NSO all information on why he wasn't engaged in a defensive war opposed to what ingame information provided b)without actually talking to NSO before attacks commenced at all, is beyond me.
The only pattern obvious to me as outside observer is that RoK simply didn't want to release the guy at all, and had no interest in actually involving NSO in a solution.
[/quote]

Because you skipped a step. The proper course of action is to not actually accept members engaged in wars. You find a diplomatic solution to getting the member free of whatever hes wanted for [i]then[/i] let him in.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281985682' post='2418123']
So master yoda, we finally got down to core of the whole issue:
RoK simply used a chance to start a war with NSO, anything else is a weak excuse for that intent

/me smiles sith like
[/quote]

No so young padawan, had NSO chosen any course of action other than sending the aid they had just been warned was an act of war this would still merely be a diplomatic problem for the Sith, not a nuclear one.

[PotFace]

Yeah well, everyone's entitled to their opinions on how a proper war should be carried out. Even me. So here they are....

If you're going to declare a war, [i]and you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], [u]then have a goal[/u]. That means, surrender terms along with your DoW. Truly, if you're looking to avoid war, and you have failed, then your next objective should be to keep it from being prolonged. "This war will cease if - blah blah blah". After all, you can't be a war-monger if you're trying to keep the war as short as possible. I see no terms here, which means that RoK isn't interested keeping this war short and sweet. RoK and pals have come to the aid of TENE. Mission accomplished. Now what?

Also prior to your DoW, [i]if you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], include your satisfactory effort to avoid war in your OP. Sure, your CB technically authorizes you to declare war if it's proper and legit, but as we all know, if you're war-mongering, then a CB is all you need. If you're the type that tries to avoid it at all costs, then you'll need to demonstrate that. Satisfactorily. I do not see that here. I see heavy focus on the CB. And little more. The DoW was posted less than 24 hours after approaching NSO gov't. This shows extreme motivation to DoW, and little motivation to avoid a DoW. When you DoW, you're asking your supporters to lose infra for your decision. You owe it to them try just a little bit harder than this.

Sure, every alliance has its own policies in how it goes about handling diplomatic affairs (hopefully - some just "wing-it"). But it's those policies that shape public opinion of you and your alliance, and ultimately lead to long-term reactions that directly affect your alliance's credibility, stability, and future. And so while coming out and saying "this is just how RoK handles its business" might explain what's going on here, what it doesn't do, is convince me that RoK and pals aren't war-mongering right now. And while convincing [u]me[/u] that they're not war-mongering might not seem to matter much in the grand scheme of things, convincing the cyberverse does. It doesn't take much effort to read-up on the war against hegemony initiated by Karma just last year and study the consequences of actions such as these.

This DoW is very comparable in both form and motive, to the way NPO's DoWs from 2007-2009 were issued.

Edit: spelling

Edited August 16, 2010 by PotFace

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281994029' post='2418264']
Yeah well, everyone's entitled to their opinions on how a proper war should be carried out. Even me. So here they are....
[/quote]

Opinios are like armpits, everybody has them and everybody thinks everyone elses stink.

[quote]If you're going to declare a war, [i]and you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], [u]then have a goal[/u]. That means, surrender terms along with your DoW. Truly, if you're looking to avoid war, and you have failed, then your next objective should be to keep it from being prolonged. "This war will cease if - blah blah blah". After all, you can't be a war-monger if you're trying to keep the war as short as possible. I see no terms here, which means that RoK isn't interested keeping this war short and sweet.
[/quote]

No, having a goal with the DoW implies a certian amount of premeditation, which would actually show warmongering rather than declaring becuase you were provoked to without plans.

[quote]RoK and pals have come to the aid of TENE. Mission accomplished. Now what?[/quote]

If this is your line of thinking I feel sorry for any alliance you are in (or god forbid leading). You are just riddled with false premises. Coming to the aid of someone is the action, not the goal. Mission is not accomplished until the war ends. What happens now is more nukes.


[quote]Also prior to your DoW, [i]if you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], include your satisfactory effort to avoid war in your OP. Sure, your CB technically authorizes you to declare war if it's proper and legit, but as we all know, if you're war-mongering, then a CB is all you need. If you're the type that tries to avoid it at all costs, then you'll need to demonstrate that. Satisfactorily. I do not see that here. I see heavy focus on the CB. And little more. The DoW was posted less than 24 hours after approaching NSO gov't. This shows extreme motivation to DoW, and little motivation to avoid a DoW. When you DoW, you're asking your supporters to lose infra for your decision. You owe it to them try just a little bit harder than this.[/quote]

Just plain wrong. On all count. Lots of assigning motive to suit a preconception, a few false premises, some outright assumptions, and of course simple opinions.

[quote]Sure, every alliance has its own policies in how it goes about handling diplomatic affairs (hopefully - some just "wing-it"). But it's those policies that shape public opinion of you and your alliance, and ultimately lead to long-term reactions that directly affect your alliance's credibility, stability, and future. And so while coming out and saying "this is just how RoK handles its business" might explain what's going on here, what it doesn't do, is convince me that RoK and pals aren't war-mongering right now. [/quote]

Well that's just because you are operating from a preconception and attempting to fit anything exposed to you into that preconception weather it makes sense to or not.

[quote]And while convincing [u]me[/u] that they're not war-mongering might not seem to matter much in the grand scheme of things, convincing the cyberverse does. It doesn't take much effort to read-up on the war against hegemony initiated by Karma just last year and study the consequences of actions such as these.[/quote]

Not a big student of history are you? Our grievances against the hegemony were for going on wars of aggression with trumped up CB's for nebulous crimes like spying accusations (that require your own spies to confirm), "destabilizing a sphere"(my personal fav), or "threats to our security". They would then extract heinous terms after going on a war of aggression.

What you see here from Rok is an answer to direct provocation in an action that has been universal acknowledge as an act of war by everyone for many years. There is no debate over the CB expect for the deluded crowd that can't form a rational thought to save their lives. Even NSO admits sending the aid was a mistake.

I realize your bias and preconceptions make it hard for you to see the difference between aggressive attacks on trumped up charges and actually defending oneself or answering direct provocation but try hard and it'll make you look less silly.

[quote]This DoW is very comparable in both form and motive, to the way NPO's DoWs from 2007-2009 were issued.[/quote]

In your tidy little world where reality doesn't seep in maybe. Not in the real world though.

You still aren't very good at this.

[PotFace]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281995973' post='2418288']
Opinios are like armpits, everybody has them and everybody thinks everyone elses stink. + a few personal attacks and delusional rationale
[/quote]

Are you seriously trying to convince me that DoWing without any criteria to stop the war, providing the CB and little else to show an attempt to avoid war, DoWing only 24 hours after the first and only diplomatic attempt was made, over something that most alliances can handle without DoWing at all, [b]ISN'T[/b] war-mongering?

Are you seriously trying to show that the aforementioned isn't as petty as, say, NPO's wars against GPA, FAN, GOLD, or Devildogs? You know, the very substance that inspired the ability for the propaganda from Schattenmann at Vox Populi, the formation of an anti-hegemony movement, and the subsequent formation of Karma to even come to be? Are you seriously trying to say that, it's okay to act like war-mongers and say that you're not war-mongers, only because that's just a preconception of what hegemony is or isn't? Despite that enough people here know what hegemony is to found a Karma War?

You're tap-dancing for the spotlight, and let me tell ya.... you'll never make it to Broadway. If you're unsure of what hegemony is, please, go look it up and spare yourself further embarrassment. You can't say that something is something else, because of some kind of a preconception of what it is or isn't. We have words in this language, and words have definitions. I don't get to choose what their definitions are - I just use the words to convey a meaning. And no matter how much you tried to change the meanings of words, I'm sure you'll have millions of others that will disagree with you.

What you're doing here is saying that we're wrong about our own opinions in hopes of directing attention away from the main idea. It's not working. And it's also a typical reaction that I'd expect to see from the old Hegemony as well.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281997392' post='2418313']
Are you seriously trying to convince me that DoWing without any criteria to stop the war, providing the CB and little else to show an attempt to avoid war, DoWing only 24 hours after the first and only diplomatic attempt was made, over something that most alliances can handle without DoWing at all, [b]ISN'T[/b] war-mongering?

Are you seriously trying to show that the aforementioned isn't as petty as, say, NPO's wars against GPA, FAN, GOLD, or Devildogs? You know, the very substance that inspired the ability for the propaganda from Schattenmann at Vox Populi, the formation of an anti-hegemony movement, and the subsequent formation of Karma to even come to be? Are you seriously trying to say that, it's okay to act like war-mongers and say that you're not war-mongers, only because that's just a preconception of what hegemony is or isn't? Despite that enough people here know what hegemony is to found a Karma War?

You're tap-dancing for the spotlight, and let me tell ya.... you'll never make it to Broadway. If you're unsure of what hegemony is, please, go look it up and spare yourself further embarrassment. You can't say that something is something else, because of some kind of a preconception of what it is or isn't. We have words in this language, and words have definitions. I don't get to choose what their definitions are - I just use the words to convey a meaning. And no matter how much you tried to change the meanings of words, I'm sure you'll have millions of others that will disagree with you.

What you're doing here is saying that we're wrong about our own opinions in hopes of directing attention away from the main idea. It's not working. And it's also a typical reaction that I'd expect to see from the old Hegemony as well.
[/quote]

Ohh a pity summary and dismissal of my points instead of addressing them, I haven't seen that before either.

And whats this? Putting words in my mouth. That's totally new on these forums too!

Oh and the always hilarious accusing me of resorting to personal attacks while you do it too!

And whats this? hair splitting and semantics. I didn't see 250 pages of that with the gramlins, not at all!

And of course attempting to draw parallels to past conflicts, That's new too. So is you failing miserably to understand what started each one so the comparisons are just hilariously wrong.

What else do we have here, lets see....

Oh my, it would appear I've overloaded the sarcasm generator. Guess I'll have to let it cool off for a while before I get back to you.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281997392' post='2418313']
Are you seriously trying to convince me that DoWing without any criteria to stop the war, providing the CB and little else to show an attempt to avoid war, DoWing only 24 hours after the first and only diplomatic attempt was made, over something that most alliances can handle without DoWing at all, [b]ISN'T[/b] war-mongering?[/quote]

In reading his reply, I think he is trying to convince you your opinion stinks, like an arm pit, seriously.

[quote]Are you seriously trying to show that the aforementioned isn't as petty as, say, NPO's wars against GPA, FAN, GOLD, or Devildogs? You know, the very substance that inspired the ability for the propaganda from Schattenmann at Vox Populi, the formation of an anti-hegemony movement, and the subsequent formation of Karma to even come to be? Are you seriously trying to say that, it's okay to act like war-mongers and say that you're not war-mongers, only because that's just a preconception of what hegemony is or isn't? Despite that enough people here know what hegemony is to found a Karma War?[/quote]

Are you seriously trying to show that the aforementioned is in the same vein as the NPO wars against GPA, FAN, GOLD or devil dogs? Seriously? If you are, seriously, is your point to illustrate that the DOW by ROK is equivelent to the NPO declerations you mentioned, seriously?

[quote]You're tap-dancing for the spotlight, and let me tell ya.... you'll never make it to Broadway. [/quote]

Are you seriously taking a shot at someone posting an opinion on a current event after your reaction to his comment on armpits, seriously?

[quote]You can't say that something is something else, because of some kind of a preconception of what it is or isn't. We have words in this language, and words have definitions. [/quote]

Did you seriously just make that comment after your comparative to this DOW and the ones cited from years ago? Seriously?

[quote]What you're doing here is saying that we're wrong about our own opinions in hopes of directing attention away from the main idea. It's not working. And it's also a typical reaction that I'd expect to see from the old Hegemony as well.[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting he is wrong in his opinion, about your opinion and drawing attention away from the opinions expressed in the hopes of drawing attention away from the main idea, the DOW on the Sith? Seriously?

Do you struggle responding with redundant subject matter page after page with your head lodged up your $@!? Seriously, do you?

Edited August 16, 2010 by Thorgrum

[PotFace]

See what I just did there? Glad to see you two figured it all out on your own

[kevin32891]

Come on guys let's calm down and keep throwing sky rockets at each other.

[PotFace]

Right. So lets simplify this even further and address those pesky preconceptions:

1. I believe that one single diplomatic attempt to avoid war does not successfully show that you're trying very hard to avoid war. In order to try hard at anything when encountering a failure, it would involve making multiple attempts. In this case, with only one single attempt having been made, all it would have taken is just one more attempt for this to be considered "multiple attempts". In other words, if you don't get back on the bike when you fall off, then you're not trying very hard. I think that most of us would agree with this. At least, anyone that's remotely successful at anything, that is.

2. Having learned that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, we go on to examine the root cause of giving up so soon. If it were a [i]lack[/i] of motivation, then that would seem acceptable to me. Some people just simply don't have it in them to get back on that bike. However, declaring war less than 24 hours later - not even waiting long enough to coordinate an update assault, which is pretty much the standard that most alliances go by - shows me that there's [i]plenty[/i] of motivation here. So it can't be a lack of motivation. Let's look at desire:

3. Now that we know that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, and that when they gave up, they were motivated at the time, we can therefore conclude that the reason they gave up was a lack of motivation to resolve the situation diplomatically, and an abundance of motivation to go to war. Anyone lost yet?

4. If there's a lack of motivation to avoid war, and an abundance of motivation to go to war, then therefore, they [i]wanted[/i] war. We can add weight to this argument by noting that such circumstances as these are handled by alliances all the time without war being the end result in the first place. And we can add even more weight by citing the fact that no way out of this war has been offered yet.



So, they wanted to go to war. Fair enough. There's plenty of us out here that crave war. However, citing a lack of motivation to avoid it and strong desire to engage it does not mean that's a good enough excuse to start one. When you are asked, "why did you DoW?", the answers that we have been given, such as, "we could and we did", or, "we didn't want to try harder to avoid it", or, "they deserved it", simply isn't strong enough grounds for a DoW.

I fail to see how this isn't a textbook example of war-mongering. You can take the facts, spin them, twist them, pick and choose which ones you want to address, challenge us on the basic meanings of words, and do everything else to direct attention away from the issue at hand and to usher out every last bit of common sense from this discussion, but what you cannot do is erase what happened. "It is what it is".

You wanted war and you [u]got[/u] war. You rushed into war. You offered no way [u]out[/u] of war. And you still haven't. Your CB is based on something that rarely [u]results[/u] in war. You have failed to demonstrate more than one single attempt to [u]prevent[/u] war. And after this has been directed to your attention, you fail to see anything [u]wrong[/u] with your war.

Yes, this is hegemony in action. It's not that complicated.

Edited August 17, 2010 by PotFace

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281997392' post='2418313']
Are you seriously trying to convince me that DoWing without any criteria to stop the war, providing the CB and little else to show an attempt to avoid war, DoWing only 24 hours after the first and only diplomatic attempt was made, over something that most alliances can handle without DoWing at all, [b]ISN'T[/b] war-mongering?[/quote]
The warmonger type would certainly capitalize on a situation like this but responding rashly isn't a typically considered a characteristic exclusive to the warmonger type. So I think the issue here is more one of semantics, connotation and how one reads into the tone and speed of action.

Personally I think if Ragnarok wished to warmonger - as in war for the sake of war as I might define it - they wouldn't have given the New Sith Order an out and informed them that an aid drop would be perceived as an act of war. Rather, I get the impression Ragnarok felt hurt, offended, insulted, slighted, threatened, what ever, decided to act on those emotions and lashed out at the Sith via this war without much fore thought.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1282006563' post='2418448']
The warmonger type would certainly capitalize on a situation like this but responding rashly isn't a typically considered a characteristic exclusive to the warmonger type. So I think the issue here is more one of semantics, connotation and how one reads into the tone and speed of action.

Personally I think if Ragnarok wished to warmonger - as in war for the sake of war as I might define it - they wouldn't have given the New Sith Order an out and informed them that an aid drop would be perceived as an act of war. Rather, I get the impression Ragnarok felt hurt, offended, insulted, slighted, threatened, what ever, decided to act on those emotions and lashed out at the Sith via this war without much fore thought.
[/quote]


Well, certainly. And they would have the right to feel that way. But when you fall off your bike, refuse to get back on, and instead, sit there and throw a tantrum, it doesn't reflect on you very well, now does it?

[Heft]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281953348' post='2417778']
No, I'm attempting to point out that wars last longer now than they did 3 years ago.
[/quote]
Curbstomps last as long as the aggressors want them to last, just as they always have.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282007240' post='2418457']
Curbstomps last as long as the aggressors want them to last, just as they always have.
[/quote]

Unless it's not a curbstomp at all. In cases like that, war would simply be an instrument by which something else is to be accomplished, like it ought to be. War just for war is, and has always been, looked down upon by those who are against hegemony in general.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1282006393' post='2418446']
Right. So lets simplify this even further and address those pesky preconceptions:
[/quote]

Reading your follow (and I use the term loosely) 'points' I'd have to say you failed to shed your pesky preconceptions.


[quote]1. I believe that one single diplomatic attempt to avoid war does not successfully show that you're trying very hard to avoid war. In order to try hard at anything when encountering a failure, it would involve making multiple attempts. In this case, with only one single attempt having been made, all it would have taken is just one more attempt for this to be considered "multiple attempts". In other words, if you don't get back on the bike when you fall off, then you're not trying very hard. I think that most of us would agree with this. At least, anyone that's remotely successful at anything, that is.[/quote]

You are right NSO should have tried something other than just sending aid to a nation that they knew would get them a war. They chose otherwise so here we are.

[quote]2. Having learned that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, we go on to examine the root cause of giving up so soon. If it were a [i]lack[/i] of motivation, then that would seem acceptable to me. Some people just simply don't have it in them to get back on that bike. However, declaring war less than 24 hours later - not even waiting long enough to coordinate an update assault, which is pretty much the standard that most alliances go by - shows me that there's [i]plenty[/i] of motivation here. So it can't be a lack of motivation. Let's look at desire:[/quote]

See what he does there folks? He grabs a statement without backing it up and then proceeds to build a premise on it hoping nobody notices that his starting position is wrong to begin with. Clever ain't he? He hopes to get people arguing about point B and not calling him on how wrong he is about point A.

[quote]3. Now that we know that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, and that when they gave up, they were motivated at the time, we can therefore conclude that the reason they gave up was a lack of motivation to resolve the situation diplomatically, and an abundance of motivation to go to war.[/quote]

Your previous attempts to divine motivations of others action have failed miserably up to this point, good to see you are not breaking your streak.

[quote]Anyone lost yet?[/quote]

You are.

[quote]4. If there's a lack of motivation to avoid war, and an abundance of motivation to go to war, then therefore, they [i]wanted[/i] war. [/quote]

The word you are looking for is apathy. A lack of motivation is apathy. Rok had no pressing reasons to avoid a war, this is not the same wanting or looking for a war. It merely shows no desire to do another party any favors.

[quote]We can add weight to this argument by noting that such circumstances as these are handled by alliances all the time without war being the end result in the first place. [/quote]

You can if you want to ignore reality. These kinds of incidents are dealt with all the time without war because neither side does something to provoke war. Most cases of aid to a nation at war are a tech deal in progress, the crime is that of ignorance, the tech dealer being unaware. In this case Heft was specifically warned agaisnt sending aid, and that it would indeed mean war if he did. He sent it anyway.

[quote]And we can add even more weight by citing the fact that no way out of this war has been offered yet.
[/quote]

No we can't, that is a completely unjustified statement by you that has no basis in fact.

[quote]So, they wanted to go to war. Fair enough. There's plenty of us out here that crave war. However, citing a lack of motivation to avoid it and strong desire to engage it does not mean that's a good enough excuse to start one. When you are asked, "why did you DoW?", the answers that we have been given, such as, "we could and we did", or, "we didn't want to try harder to avoid it", or, "they deserved it", simply isn't strong enough grounds for a DoW. [/quote]

Hey look, we're back to false premises!

[quote]I fail to see how this isn't a textbook example of war-mongering. You can take the facts, spin them, twist them, pick and choose which ones you want to address, challenge us on the basic meanings of words, and do everything else to direct attention away from the issue at hand and to usher out every last bit of common sense from this discussion, but what you cannot do is erase what happened. "It is what it is". [/quote]

You fail to see it because your head is firmly lodged where the sun don't shine. You have taken the facts, spun them, twisted you, picked and choosed which you wanted to adressed, played with the basic meaning of words, and anything else you could to distract attention to the fact that you are hideiously wrong in an attempt to usher out every last bit of comon sence from this disuccion, but what you can not do is erase what has happened.

NSO sent aid to a nation at war after being told not to. That aid bought them a war.

[TypoNinja]

Ran outta quote tags!


[quote]You wanted war and you [u]got[/u] war. You rushed into war. You offered no way [u]out[/u] of war. And you still haven't.
[/quote]

NSO wanted a war and got it, they got told exactly how avoid a war and choose the course of action they knew would get them a war. They even admit that sending that aid was a mistake.

[quote]Your CB is based on something that rarely [u]results[/u] in war.[/quote]

Rarity is irrelevant to circumstances. An act of war is an act of war, regardless how often it comes up. Part of the reason it comes up so rarely is that most people aren't that stupid enough to do something that blindly obvious to get them a can of whoopass opened on them.

[quote] You have failed to demonstrate more than one single attempt to [u]prevent[/u] war. And after this has been directed to your attention, you fail to see anything wrong with [u]your[/u] war.[/quote]

False, Hoo's warning that sending aid would be an act of war was exactly that a single warning that such an act would get them war. You only get one warning in these cases. NSO chose to ignore the warning and got the war that they knew full well was coming.

[quote]
Yes, this is hegemony in action. It's not that complicated.
[/quote]

Yes you are a wannabe spindoctor in action, you still aren't very good at it.

[Heft]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467']
NSO wanted a war and got it, they got told exactly how avoid a war and choose the course of action they knew would get them a war. They even admit that sending that aid was a mistake.
[/quote]
No we did not. You've been told this before.

Stop lying.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1282006963' post='2418454']
Well, certainly. And they would have the right to feel that way. But when you fall off your bike, refuse to get back on, and instead, sit there and throw a tantrum, it doesn't reflect on you very well, now does it?[/quote]
Nope, it doesn't but I also wouldn't say they're throwing a tantrum because they enjoy doing so.

[LokiLockpicker]

I was originally thinking that I would have handled this differently in the place of Ragnarok, but realized that I would have authorized the attacks that morning when I heard about the rogue (low probability of getting money for the injured nation being the main reason), probably wouldn't have looked again that day to see if he had joined an alliance (since I wouldn't have been planning on hitting him personally, I'd have no reason to look). When NSO came for discussions, my thought would have been, "sure, we'll send peace to him, as soon as the attacked nation gets money for his actions", and I would have had the same response to aiding a nation we were at war with.

My reasoning and relative lack of caring about the rogue's wellbeing may have been different than Rok's (too tired to read minds today), but it's fairly easy to see a reasonable ruler or alliance proceeding in what would be the same path.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282007702' post='2418470']
No we did not. You've been told this before.

Stop lying.
[/quote]

Dammit. Now I'm gonna hafta read back, I swear I read that you had.

Edited August 17, 2010 by TypoNinja

[PotFace]

It's amazing how you guys can say so much while saying so little. If this is how you address points that people bring to you.....


[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
Reading your follow (and I use the term loosely) 'points' I'd have to say you failed to shed your pesky preconceptions.[/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
See what he does there folks? He grabs a statement without backing it up and then proceeds to build a premise on it hoping nobody notices that his starting position is wrong to begin with. Clever ain't he? He hopes to get people arguing about point B and not calling him on how wrong he is about point A.[/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
Your previous attempts to divine motivations of others action have failed miserably up to this point, good to see you are not breaking your streak.[/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
You are.[/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
Rok had no pressing reasons to avoid a war, this is not the same wanting or looking for a war.[/quote]
(yes it is - you either want it or you don't)
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
No we can't, that is a completely unjustified statement by you that has no basis in fact.[/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
Hey look, we're back to false premises![/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466']
You fail to see it because your head is firmly lodged where the sun don't shine. You have taken the facts, spun them, twisted you, picked and choosed which you wanted to adressed, played with the basic meaning of words, and anything else you could to distract attention to the fact that you are hideiously wrong in an attempt to usher out every last bit of comon sence from this disuccion, but what you can not do is erase what has happened. [/quote]

and

[PotFace]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467']
Ran outta quote tags![/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467']
Rarity is irrelevant to circumstances. [/quote]
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467']
Yes you are a wannabe spindoctor in action, you still aren't very good at it.[/quote]


.... then all you're showing is that you don't have any respectable counter-arguments to the points that I have made, and you are providing nothing valuable to this discussion. What a great way to represent yourself and your alliance !!!

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282007702' post='2418470']
No we did not. You've been told this before.

Stop lying.
[/quote]
Your Emperor says otherwise.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282009341' post='2418509']
Dammit. Now I'm gonna hafta read back, I swear I read that you had.
[/quote]
It was admitted that aid was a mistake. I think what Heft's disputing is the assertion that the Sith wanted war as they've stated multiple times they did not.


[quote name='LokiLockpicker' timestamp='1282009318' post='2418507']
I was originally thinking that I would have handled this differently in the place of Ragnarok, but realized that I would have authorized the attacks that morning when I heard about the rogue (low probability of getting money for the injured nation being the main reason), probably wouldn't have looked again that day to see if he had joined an alliance (since I wouldn't have been planning on hitting him personally, I'd have no reason to look). When NSO came for discussions, my thought would have been, "sure, we'll send peace to him, as soon as the attacked nation gets money for his actions", and I would have had the same response to aiding a nation we were at war with.

My reasoning and relative lack of caring about the rogue's wellbeing may have been different than Rok's (too tired to read minds today), but it's fairly easy to see a reasonable ruler or alliance proceeding in what would be the same path.
[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd agree that a reasonable ruler or alliance would show a distinct lack of care on whether a believed rogue joined an alliance.