Open Source Alliance declares war

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1296773488' post='2618295']
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 doing the whole "Look it up in a dictionary!" bit, but, well...]) - it is you and other like-minded individuals doing the redefining).
[/quote]

Your dictionary may say 'Merriam Webster' but it lacks a Planet Bob section...

According to tradition on Planet Bob, reparations at the nation-level are cash/tech intended to "make whole" what was lost due to an aggressive attack and follow more or less what's in your [s]dictionary [/s] paperweight. At the alliance level however, particularly in large scale warfare, reparations have been used by victorious alliances to keep a defeated alliance on the political sidelines for an extended period time. At their most severe, permanently retard the growth of the defeated alliance relative to the victorious one, and are nothing more or less than a political tool. They by no means are intended to constitute genuine "compensation" for damages.

[Nolissar]

[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. [/quote] Actually we aren't quite that good, we need 5 tabs, but alas, our impulsive sense of charity sees us donate them to charity before we ever accumulate enough of the darned things.
[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296772358' post='2618265']
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.
[/quote]
You are of course welcome to assume what you like, but the only reluctance we've had is not activating the oA to go at NPO with them. Some of us were happy and ready to join GOONS to assit them in the war if that would have been the best and most politic way to assite them because we recognized the difficult position our entrance could place our other allies and friends in. Discussing our plans and opinions with with them before proceeding took some time, but to have done otherwise would have been irresponsible and unfair to them. Similarly, just entering willy-nilly without first discussing with GOONS where we might be of the most use to them would have been a bit silly too don't you think?

Yes OSA and GOONS have a treaty, a rather nice one in fact. But that document is for the benefit of people in CN, not for OSA and GOONS. We know where we stand vis-a-vis each other. Our treaty is just a public manifestation of our friendship, not the bond itself, I don't know why so many people (and I'm not accusing you of this here Hal) seem to be unable to grasp this simple concept. But then again, many people can't grasp the idea that just because don't agree with how GOONS entered the war, doesn't mean we don't want them to win

Edit: evil commas!

Edited February 3, 2011 by Nolissar

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296774295' post='2618311']
Your dictionary may say 'Merriam Webster' but it lacks a Planet Bob section...

According to tradition on Planet Bob, reparations at the nation-level are cash/tech intended to "make whole" what was lost due to an aggressive attack and follow more or less what's in your [s]dictionary [/s] paperweight. At the alliance level however, particularly in large scale warfare, reparations have been used by victorious alliances to keep a defeated alliance on the political sidelines for an extended period time. At their most severe, permanently retard the growth of the defeated alliance relative to the victorious one, and are nothing more or less than a political tool. They by no means are intended to constitute genuine "compensation" for damages.
[/quote]

You've succeeded in debating the exact purpose of reparations (which varies from person to person and alliance to alliance), but failed to address my actual point (that a victorious party seeking financial assets from the defeated constitutes reparations and not extortion as Sigrun Vapneir and others maintain).

(It may have been intentional, I'm not certain.)

[ktarthan]

[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]
Your argument is based on the flawed premise that an aggressor is always in the wrong, so it too ends up being flawed.

Also, it's silly to make a dichotomy between reparations and extortion, because in essense all reps are "extortion" as they involve coersion on the level of "If you do not surrender and pay us reparations we will continue to war you." I think it's much more genuine to simply agree or disagree with the charging of reps in a given situation. "Aggression = extortion = bad" means that you get to bypass any specific argument about [i]why[/i] the reparations are bad.

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296773734' post='2618299']
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.
[/quote]

I can understand trying to use PR in a war, and even overstretching a bit to make a situation conform to suit your purposes, but you really do believe the !@#$ you write don't you.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='The Crimson King' timestamp='1296776915' post='2618350']
I can understand trying to use PR in a war, and even overstretching a bit to make a situation conform to suit your purposes, but you really do believe the !@#$ you write don't you.
[/quote]
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

[Joe32320]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296773734' post='2618299']
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.
[/quote]

So you're willing to be a tyrant for the benefit of the greater good......this should end well

[Glen MoP]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296773734' post='2618299']
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.
[/quote]

I can't tell if you're being funny or if you actually believe this. I'm hoping you're being funny. You should stick with the "We wanted to kick NPO while they were down and this was a golden opportunity, so we took it. This is the sort of thing we do. Deal with it." That at least has the benefit of not being ridiculous.

Have fun with your war and blow each other to smithereens, but, seriously, no one with half a brain is going to think you guys are doing this because you're heroes.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296775558' post='2618327']
Your argument is based on the flawed premise that an aggressor is always in the wrong, so it too ends up being flawed. [/quote]

No, actually, it is not in any way based on that premise, which is indeed "flawed." Quit making stuff up.

Seriously, it's absurd but true that each and every reply here misses my point entirely, preferring instead to impute to me positions I have never taken. It gets tiresome. If you cant be bothered to even try to respond to what I have actually said, you should at least quit quoting me while arguing the unrelated talking points you are prepared to address.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296778382' post='2618383']
No, actually, it is not in any way based on that premise, which is indeed "flawed." Quit making stuff up.
[/quote]
So... okay, let me get this straight. In one post you assert that if an aggressor demands money then it is considered extortion. You also agree that the aggressor is not always in the wrong. So does it then follow that if the aggressor demands money but is also in the right then it is still extortion?

[cs1177]

[quote name='Maleatu' timestamp='1296712146' post='2617253']
The only cowardice I see, is the clear and obvious bait to get an alliance to attack MK or Umbrella so you can call in TOP. As far as Pacifica and her allies are concerned; that's not cowardice. It's called strategy, and it's a subtle art most of you lack in large quantities.
[/quote]

Wow. They figured out our plan before we got to page 2.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296775558' post='2618327']
Your argument is based on the flawed premise that an aggressor is always in the wrong, so it too ends up being flawed.

Also, it's silly to make a dichotomy between reparations and extortion, because in essense all reps are "extortion" as they involve coersion on the level of "If you do not surrender and pay us reparations we will continue to war you." I think it's much more genuine to simply agree or disagree with the charging of reps in a given situation. "Aggression = extortion = bad" means that you get to bypass any specific argument about [i]why[/i] the reparations are bad.
[/quote]But in this case, the aggressors are rather clearly in the wrong, so I do believe his point stands.

[Hereno]

I'm not going to read through 12 pages of "NO U", but I'd like to commend OSA for valuing good, loyal allies. They really can be hard to find.

o/ OSA

[maicke]

You see, Superfriends isn't the only bloc that can fight on both sides of the war

that being said, good luck to my allies in OSA o/

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296779284' post='2618400']
So... okay, let me get this straight. In one post you assert that if an aggressor demands money then it is considered extortion. [/quote]

Correct.

[quote]You also agree that the aggressor is not always in the wrong. [/quote]

Correct again. Aggression is not always unjustified. However justified aggression is still aggression.

[quote]So does it then follow that if the aggressor demands money but is also in the right then it is still extortion?
[/quote]

If the aggressor is justified in his aggression, it would still be extortion to demand payment afterwards, yes.

Now please note that none of this is at all relevant to the point I was making, which is simply that it is contradictory to claim not to support goons in their war, yet simultaneously announce that you are indeed supporting goons in their war.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296774295' post='2618311']
Your dictionary may say 'Merriam Webster' but it lacks a Planet Bob section...

According to tradition on Planet Bob, reparations at the nation-level are cash/tech intended to "make whole" what was lost due to an aggressive attack and follow more or less what's in your [s]dictionary [/s] paperweight. At the alliance level however, particularly in large scale warfare, reparations have been used by victorious alliances to keep a defeated alliance on the political sidelines for an extended period time. At their most severe, permanently retard the growth of the defeated alliance relative to the victorious one, and are nothing more or less than a political tool. They by no means are intended to constitute genuine "compensation" for damages.
[/quote]

Sadly insofar as I like war, I do not like the way harsh reps have been used as a means of retarding growth. It harms the cycle and makes CBs more difficult to pass with the community because everyone is afraid of the outcome (months on months of terms). Anyway, I dunno where I was going iwth this but I do not applaud the chestbeating for reps although I believe given the tactics the other side has decided to take, that GOONS will be right to ask for a *just* amount.

Edited February 4, 2011 by tamerlane

[cs1177]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296781339' post='2618449']

...Now please note that none of this is at all relevant to the point I was making, which is simply that it is contradictory to claim not to support goons in their war, yet simultaneously announce that you are indeed supporting goons in their war.
[/quote]

GOONS have been outstanding allies and friends. Their unwaivering support for OSA (and our other allies to whom they are hardly- if at all- connected) through thick and thin is the base of our DoW. Through all the good they have done for us, we can see past the one action we don't condone and defend our ally.

We support the GOONS in their war. We do not necessarily support how the war was instigated.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296781339' post='2618449']
Correct.

Correct again. Aggression is not always unjustified. However justified aggression is still aggression.

If the aggressor is justified in his aggression, it would still be extortion to demand payment afterwards, yes.
[/quote]
Fair enough, we have different understanding of what "extortion" entails.

[quote]
Now please note that none of this is at all relevant to the point I was making, which is simply that it is contradictory to claim not to support goons in their war, yet simultaneously announce that you are indeed supporting goons in their war.
[/quote]
To me it seemed like you were making more than one point, but if I was mistaken then I'll drop it and let you get back to trying to convince people that they are being contradictory.

[Roosterton]

TL;DR: You guys think it's cowardly to have a strategy.

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296777569' post='2618367']
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.
[/quote]


Great, since you so firmly believe it then you should have no problem expanding on it and explaining how you came to these conclusions.


Like for starters, exactly how was NPO on the cusp of presenting a threat again? Hell you have said yourself they were doing nothing to build foreign relations, and they certainly were not amassing and large number of treaties. Now I know you like to point out the fact that Legion and TPF just acquired new treaty partners but let me ask you something here. Even if your magic tinfoil 8 ball responded with "signs point to yes" when you asked it if the orders were getting back together, you are claiming that NPO would still be a threat unless they got rolled along with Polar in this war. But that would mean that you would have to believe that in a post war landscape where Polar was rolled and under terms, Pacifica and her 5 allies would pose a clear and present danger to the DH/PB/C&G et al portion of the web over there. So I am really interested in understanding how all of the sudden the same political dynamic we have been living in for the past 2 years would magically see Pacifia "empowered" post-war unless they got rolled.

Cause when you break it all down the only way you come up with that post is either you are full of !@#$ and making a miserable attempt at PR (which is the most logical conclusion one would come to after reading it, and the one you refuted with your reply) or you are both delusional and frankly frightened of your own shadow.

The bag of goods you are trying to pass of as your moral crusade for "good of all the cyberverse" (where apparently somewhere along the line by means of a secret ballot all other alliance leaders anointed you their lord protector) comes down to:

1) Unless NPO is rolled right now they will be able to single-handidly take down the combined forces of PB/DH/C&G and allies post war.

2) This cannot be allowed because everyone remembers how they used to roll alliances with no cb's and hand out crippling reps just to stay in power

3) So in order to prevent this we must attack them with no cb and hand out crippling reps so that we stay in power.

4) Wait, yes I know that sounds a lot like what they used to do, but sleep easy, we do not believe in installing viceroys.



Now you may have sold yourself on this, and the kool-aid is strong over there by all accounts, but anyone who steps back for more than 2 seconds and actually looks at what you are trying to pass off as reasoning will see it for the pile of BS that it is. For those unable to do so, I must also recommend leaving your lights on tonight, because the boogeyman is real kids, and he is coming for you.


Also in regards to the OP, my sincerest congrats to OSA and their 2 wars.

Edited February 4, 2011 by The Crimson King

[Dan100]

Good luck

[Maleatu]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1296761822' post='2617990']
I think speed and secrecy can be part of a good strategy but are not critical to all good strategies.

Misdirection is another good one. If you knew it was coming, how is it exactly that we caught you with your pants down? You can be as slow and loud as you want when everyone thinks you're going somewhere else.
[/quote]

The best part is we knew this was coming. Why do you think all of our bank and economic nations are safe? We had tip offs and warnings weeks in advance. Like I said; speed and secrecy. Better luck next time.

[cs1177]

You were warned weeks ago of an attack we planned about 3 nights ago?

[sperry2442]

[quote name='Maleatu' timestamp='1296792745' post='2618805']
The best part is we knew this was coming. Why do you think all of our bank and economic nations are safe? We had tip offs and warnings weeks in advance. Like I said; speed and secrecy. Better luck next time.
[/quote]

Are you saying you have a spy in osa.

[youwish959]

Declaring war in defense of our allies is a very respectable move, a lesson that many people throughout Bob should learn from. It is even understandable to declare war in defense of an ally even though you do not support their actions; such complaints should be brought up in private and discussed thoroughly, as I suspect you have.

However, what is not respectable and in fact can be found to be very disrespectful throughout many parts of Planet Bob is the type of slander found within this initial declaration of war. It is well documented throughout the archives of Bob that the Atlantic Sphere Union holds a MDoAP with the New Sith Order through the [i][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97483"]Terra Cotta Pact[/url][/i] and as such holds what most would consider a "valid" casus belli to enter this war. As such this is possibly one of the furthest things from bandwagoning.

It has also been noted well throughout this declaration that many rulers throughout your alliance seem to think of the mere act of following ones treaties to be [i]honourable[/i]. However, I would counter that not only should the concept of following a treaty not be considered [i]honourable[/i], but rather expected. I would also counter that the entire concept of [i]honour[/i] is dead throughout Bob; best shown by the actions of alliances on both sides of the spectrum as of late. Although, that does not necessarily mean that an alliance in an of itself cannot be [i]honourable[/i], it does mean that no one actually cares about such principles, to include your own allies.