Open Source Alliance declares war

[mattski133]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296762775' post='2618005']
I'd just like to let you know, GOONS has been bragging rather vocally about their plans to extort funds from defeated alliances at the end of their war of aggression, and by supporting GOONS, you support that. I just want to let you know.
[/quote]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296763073' post='2618011']
No, I'm calling it extortion because that's what it is. GOONS was not wronged. GOONS is the aggressor.
[/quote]

Reperations are a way of making up for losses in a war. You see, it doesn't matter who the aggressor is, it matters who wins. The victor places a figure on the damages caused (often much, much lower than the actual damages if anything at all) and if the defeated thinks it's better to pay that number than keep getting pounded, you arrive at a surrender. You have fallen into error here by using your definition of extorsion (which is wrong).

Anyway, in this case it is because, in my opinion, we were so overwhelmingly attacked (with cries of disbandment and zi all around) by such a hodgepodge of nations while the three main damage-dealers were left alone, that our government came out early and stated you will pay out your ass for this, at which you scoffed, for the most part, being on some crusade or another. It's not exactly new policy. There's not a person here who was unaware of the consequences of losing to GOONS in a war, big or small.

I think we might be "extorting" reps from someone if we threaten them with violence and demand money...that's...how that works. Or demand money for their "protection" or something. Wartime reperations are an entirely different story.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296766178' post='2618075']
Thank you for that stunning revelation. As for hearing the sounds of our own voices, look at you mr. pot. [/quote]

I actually thought he was Mr. Kettle. My mistake.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296766178' post='2618075']
Right. So is this the point where you and I join hands and walk off into the sunset?
[/quote]

Maybe if you shave the beard.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296766221' post='2618076']
Correct -- at a base level.

The difference lies in the distinction between bandwagon and not.

When GOONS entered it was through an oA. But the reason was four alliances entering at the same time in order to cover NS ranges.

When ASU and most of the others entered it was through oAs, [i]several days[/i] afterward, about half even several days after other declares, on a target that already had ten alliances on them.

So if you [i]only[/i] look at the oA part and ignore the rest of the details, then yes. It's the same. If you're however [i]not[/i] an idiot, and compare these two situations:

* Four (4) alliances attack at the same time
* Eleven (11) alliances attack over a period of several days

You start to see where the bandwagoning part shows up. Alliances entered after the fact, after tons of alliances were already engaged, when they had no real reason to.

Maybe you get it now?
[/quote]

I never made any statement with regard to ASU, bandwagoning, or otherwise. I simply pointed out the treaty that gave 64Digits a legitimate point of entry to the conflict. I also made a snappy (and technically accurate) rejoinder to Tamerlane when he was disparaging, by inference, both TPF and 64Digits. I have not accused GOONS of bandwagoning; you rolled with your bloc. The fact that I believe, with some cause, that your bloc's aggressive action is not justified is another matter entirely.

Edit: with regard to claims that GOONS is being bandwagoned, I believe that this [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97975&view=findpost&p=2615577"][b]post[/b][/url] addresses that point rather well.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Joe Izuzu

[ktarthan]

If the alliances who attacked us didn't want to face the possibility of reps, they should have had us sign a prenup.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296765430' post='2618055']
I also think they are declaring because they are allied with GOONS.
[/quote]

Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.

[MD Hammer]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767396' post='2618117']
Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.
[/quote]

It was none of the above.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296767205' post='2618109']
If the alliances who attacked us didn't want to face the possibility of reps, they should have had us sign a prenup.
[/quote]

The fear that they might come after you again at some point in the future, should they not finish the job this time, is palpable. Putting them under terms won't change their desire to pay you a return visit, only delay it.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767396' post='2618117']
Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.
[/quote]
We are not in the business of forcing our allies to fight for something they don't believe in. We did no arm twisting.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1296766900' post='2618101']
...Anyway, in this case it is because, in my opinion, we were so overwhelmingly attacked (with cries of disbandment and zi all around) by such a hodgepodge of nations while the three main damage-dealers were left alone, that our government came out early and stated you will pay out your ass for this, at which you scoffed, for the most part, being on some crusade or another....
[/quote]


I think that virtually all threats of disbandment, zi, etc., have come from your side of the conflict.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767679' post='2618131']
The fear that they might come after you again at some point in the future, should they not finish the job this time, is palpable. Putting them under terms won't change their desire to pay you a return visit, only delay it.
[/quote]
The only thing GOONS fears is a future with no war. As such we will charge reps accordingly.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296763073' post='2618011']
No, I'm calling it extortion because that's what it is. GOONS was not wronged. GOONS is the aggressor.
[/quote]
GOONS was the aggressor against NPO only. The other wars were against us. Some direct MDPs. Some just bandwagoned in through oAs and oDs. I believe you'll find -- eventually -- we've considered all of these facts.

If you don't want to pay reps, don't attack us. That goes double for people with no MDP clause requiring their action.

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1296768022' post='2618149']
I think that virtually all threats of disbandment, zi, etc., have come from your side of the conflict.
[/quote]
It's harder to threaten when you're losing. But threats are just threats. Not promises.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Beefspari

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767679' post='2618131']
The fear that they might come after you again at some point in the future, should they not finish the job this time, is palpable. Putting them under terms won't change their desire to pay you a return visit, only delay it.
[/quote]

Big. Whoop.

[AirMe]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767396' post='2618117']
Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.
[/quote]

I beg you to attempt to twist OSA's arm and tell me how it turns out. OSA isn't an alliance that can have it's arm twisted so to speak. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know them very well. OSA is a group of some of the most intelligent people in the world.

Edited February 3, 2011 by AirMe

[nippy]

The amount of e-lawyering in this thread from both sides is disgusting. I thought this is the kind of horrible crap we're trying to avoid?

Also, I was beaten horribly by Lamuella on the OPP thing. Damn you, Lammy.

[Andy P]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296764466' post='2618034']
A better analogy, is that your friend is beating up kids for their lunch money, when he goes after someone who is just a little too big for him. So you help him beat up the kid and steal his lunch money.

As you stated, you did not have to enter because there was a clause in your treaty freeing you from any such obligations. Because of that, you are just as responsible for GOONS actions as GOONS themselves.
[/quote]
Can you link me to said clause?

[Nolissar]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767396' post='2618117']
Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.
[/quote]
If there was any SM play from the GOONS going on, I'm going to be very disappointed that none of us in OSA got invited.

[sperry2442]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767396' post='2618117']
Which then calls to question whether they are just that slow in making a decision to go to war or if there was behind the scenes arm twisting necessary to make it happen. Given the length of his speech (and I realize he's unlikely to admit it) the latter is the most likely scenario.
[/quote]

Arm twisting lol, its osa. this is all im going to say to that post

Edited February 3, 2011 by sperry2442

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Andy P' timestamp='1296768865' post='2618185']
Can you link me to said clause?
[/quote]
No, but I can quote your own OP for you:
[quote]OSA's treaties are non-chaining for a reason, and this is it.[/quote]

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296754581' post='2617885']
It very much is true. I remember being on IRC on the day of the declaration how pissed Andy was with it. [/quote]

A non sequitur. You may very well have been on IRC, and Andy may well have been "pissed" and so what? He is still claiming two contradictory positions simultaneously, his emotional state and the IRC activity you and he share have nothing to do with it.

[quote]Your doubletalk is equally amusing. You all cried bloody murder when it looked like RoK were not going to honour their treaty obligation to NpO. [/quote]

You make three errors here. First, as a matter of fact, I did nothing of the sort.

Second, Ragnarok actually *had* a treaty obligation to defend NpO. OSA has, according to the statements they have made in this thread, no obligation to goons in this situation.

Finally, even setting all that aside, this amounts to another non sequitur anyway, as it isnt responsive at all to my post that you are pretending to reply to. I simply pointed out that they are attempting to take two contradictory positions simultaneously, and you appear to be trying to change the subject. Which is quite a strange thing to be doing - it would be much more effective simply to ignore me, rather than summoning me back with a specious reply that only encourages me to reply again.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1296766900' post='2618101']
Reperations are a way of making up for losses in a war. You see, it doesn't matter who the aggressor is, it matters who wins. [/quote]

Umm no, actually it does matter who the aggressor is. When an aggressor is defeated and pays for its crimes, it pays reparations. When an aggressor is victorious, and demands money from its victim, that is extortion. The words have well-established meanings already, there is no need to try and redefine them.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296768378' post='2618170']
I beg you to attempt to twist OSA's arm and tell me how it turns out. OSA isn't an alliance that can have it's arm twisted so to speak. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know them very well. OSA is a group of some of the most intelligent people in the world.
[/quote]

Fine, they can cure cancer with a pencil, 4 tabs from old Foster's cans, and a flashlight battery. They will also chose the chicken burrito at the drive through in the face of demands being made they eat the beef, in spite of a 120mm howitzer being pointed at their brain case.

They also took far too long making a simple decision. They are very reluctant GOON allies at best, recognize that GOONS doesn't have a CB beyond "we don't like you", and should have stayed home. It is a natural assumption, valid or invalid, that something beyond the existence of a treaty and a misplaced sense of duty pulled them into this shooting match.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296772358' post='2618265']
Fine, they can cure cancer with a pencil, 4 tabs from old Foster's cans, and a flashlight battery. They will also chose the chicken burrito at the drive through in the face of demands being made they eat the beef, in spite of a 120mm howitzer being pointed at their brain case.

They also took far too long making a simple decision. They are very reluctant GOON allies at best,
[/quote]
I have nothing but respect for OSA, and I do not consider them "reluctant allies" in the least.
[quote]
recognize that GOONS doesn't have a CB beyond "we don't like you",
[/quote]
I'd rather not debate this yet again but we have our reasons, you might not like them, but they are valid.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296772905' post='2618277']
I have nothing but respect for OSA, and I do not consider them "reluctant allies" in the least.

I'd rather not debate this yet again but we have our reasons, you might not like them, but they are valid.
[/quote]
Your reasons [i]exist[/i], I am sure, if that is what you mean by 'valid.' But are they a [i]valid and just cause for war[/i]? Certainly not.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296772255' post='2618261']
Umm no, actually it does matter who the aggressor is. When an aggressor is defeated and pays for its crimes, it pays reparations. When an aggressor is victorious, and demands money from its victim, that is extortion. The words have well-established meanings already, there is no need to try and redefine them.
[/quote]

No actually, the very definition of reparations is compensation that's paid by a defeated party to another party for damages suffered by the latter. Aggressor status for either is irrelevant.

Now [i]that[/i] is the well-established meaning of reparations (according to a certain Merriam Webster that I won't bother quoting [I really hate the whole "Look it up in a dictionary!" bit, but, well...]) - it is you and other like-minded individuals doing the redefining.

But don't let that stop you, keep spinning!

Edited February 3, 2011 by SirWilliam

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296773298' post='2618290']
Your reasons [i]exist[/i], I am sure, if that is what you mean by 'valid.' But are they a [i]valid and just cause for war[/i]? Certainly not.
[/quote]
This is subjective anyway, and history has shown that the opposing side never "approves" of the CB used against them. But we don't need approval from our enemy to attack them. The CB is valid as we see it, or Doomhouse wouldn't've rolled out in the first place.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296773298' post='2618290']
Your reasons [i]exist[/i], I am sure, if that is what you mean by 'valid.' But are they a [i]valid and just cause for war[/i]? Certainly not.
[/quote]
Maybe not by the conventional definition. What we're doing, while it may seem distasteful, is for the good of us all. If NPO (and their thane alliances)were left unscathed by the VE/NpO conflict, the consequences might be dire. Maybe you forget what the world was like under their thumb, but we don't. They have shown no remorse for their actions in public or private, they have not shown any indication of changing. All alliances deserve second chances, this is a core tenant of my moral philosophy, but NPO has not even shown an inking of wanting to take that chance. They could have apologized to MK and others for their actions in the past, and truly argued that they have changed, but they did not.

The risks of an empowered NPO are not worth suffering. We have the power to prevent it, so we are using it.

[Infidel Israeli]

So you don't support goon's actions, you specifically stated your treaties are non chaining, and the alliance that "bandwagoned" came in just came in with an ally to support them. Interesting.

(I don't really care I just don't understand your logic for coming in) Reguardless, have fun

Edited February 3, 2011 by Infidel Israeli