Will your opinion of Pacifica or Polaris change after this war?

[nippy]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298243024' post='2639866']
The new GOONS came back under THEIR protection and avoided BiPolar because THEY worked with them. New \m/ doesn't really care.

\m/ died because it was weak. GOONS died because they abandoned all sense of diplomacy.
[/quote]

Wrong. We were still treatied to NpO when BiPolar started. It wasn't until maybe the third week of the war that that treaty went away. Also, Neutral Shoving didn't "abandon all sense of diplomacy". That fact is that its leadership had become bored and decided to mass-suicide the entire alliance. It worked, for the most part.

[Earogema]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1298271292' post='2640376']
Wrong. We were still treatied to NpO when BiPolar started. It wasn't until maybe the third week of the war that that treaty went away. Also, Neutral Shoving didn't "abandon all sense of diplomacy". That fact is that its leadership had become bored and decided to mass-suicide the entire alliance. It worked, for the most part.
[/quote]
Right, because YOU WORKED WITH THEM. The could have cancelled on you right then and there if they they really wanted to. In addition how is mass suiciding an alliance not abandoning diplomacy? Seems the two go hand in hand imo.

I don't see how anything you said refuted anything I said at all.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Earogema

[General Scipio]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298271927' post='2640385']
Right, because YOU WORKED WITH THEM. The could have cancelled on you right then and there if they they really wanted to. In addition how is mass suiciding an alliance not abandoning diplomacy? Seems the two go hand in hand imo.

I don't see how anything you said refuted anything I said at all.
[/quote]
You forgot the 6 months after the Unjust War where GOONS didn't abandon diplomacy.

[Earogema]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1298274436' post='2640421']
You forgot the 6 months after the Unjust War where GOONS didn't abandon diplomacy.
[/quote]
6 months after working to start a global war and with all the !@#$ that GOONS did just prior to UJW kinda voided that.

Though I will admit that GOONS didn't deserve war for that long.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Earogema

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298235011' post='2639746']
Something like what DT is being told right now then?
[/quote]

There's a finite number with the terms being given to DT (this doesn't mean I agree with the terms themselves either), compared to the "give us tech for the rest of our lives" treatment that \m/ got from polar.

[Joe Izuzu]

I agree that behavioral morality is relative to the society in which it is displayed. What is moral in one society may be anathema in another. So, no, there is no such thing as an absolute morality, or "TRUTH" all in caps that transcends cultural boundaries. However, one must be consistent in one's display of behaviors. What offends me is when a person, alliance, or bloc decries an action when it is taken against them and then endorses the same or similar action when they initiate it against another entity. Be "evil", be "good", be whatever, but just be consistent in your beliefs and behaviors. When you play both sides against the middle, you lose your credibility.

[nippy]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298271927' post='2640385']
Right, because YOU WORKED WITH THEM. The could have cancelled on you right then and there if they they really wanted to. In addition how is mass suiciding an alliance not abandoning diplomacy? Seems the two go hand in hand imo.

I don't see how anything you said refuted anything I said at all.
[/quote]

That's because you choose to remain blind. "Worked with them" and "not cancelling a treaty at first sign of war" are two separate things. "Diplomacy" isn't a word used only in reference to dealings with the opposition. I've now refuted what you've said, twice. Care to take your blinders off?

[Colonel Heinrich]

o/ NPO, the height of awesomeness!

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298271927' post='2640385']
Right, because YOU WORKED WITH THEM. The could have cancelled on you right then and there if they they really wanted to. In addition how is mass suiciding an alliance not abandoning diplomacy? Seems the two go hand in hand imo.

I don't see how anything you said refuted anything I said at all.
[/quote]

Let's not argue over untruths, they canceled on us for not taking their side in biploar when we went in against TFD in defense of Umbrella, which is kind of sad because that war only lasted an update because of the transition to TOP-C&G. it was a shame really, but given Grub's attitude here we decided to let that be the end of our formal relationship with NpO.

As to the suiciding, while the majority of the government did succeed in their suicide, people in that government wanted and deserved a chance to start anew. They were selfishly denied that chance. Government members stayed who could have led the old GOONS to a new age, where they would have walked a new path, but we'll never know now will we.

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298231548' post='2639674']
GOONS deserved it. \m/'s choice was their own, they lasted a week and then disbanded. Genmay I don't recall the details of.

Comparing that to Fark, GPA, GATO, FAN, VE, and even Polar is laughable.
[/quote]
No alliance should be forcefully disbanded. Whether the old GOONS "deserved" it or not is irrelevant.

[quote name='Electron Sponge' timestamp='1298270653' post='2640367']
You can't abandon what you never had.
[/quote]
Some of us haven't forgotten the initiative logs featuring you the old goons government shared with the membership, you accusing others of being undiplomatic is laughable, you were just as bad as they were and you know it.

EDIT:

Regarding NPO themselves though, I'll be frank. I want to believe in a better, changed NPO, because I try to see good in all alliances. I believe in alliance redemption. I want to believe that their signatures on the document where I founded new GOONS were not there for some vain attempt to shore up their power base, but something greater. They did pull some strings to help make it happen, and they were willing to give us a chance. The process still should not have taken a month however.

Before the document was signed, Moo said something which stuck with me, "Do not betray us again". I guess in a way we are, though the spirit of the document had been lost a long time ago. Even still, for that I guess I am sorry.

Given their lack of communication with us however, I have no choice but to assume that it really was merely an attempt to increase their power base. While I do appreciate the candor of the lone NPO diplomat in our embassy, a lone non-high-gov diplomat is not going to convince anyone of anything. Real diplomacy requires direct engagement of high government. Because of this, I have no inclination of the "real" NPO, if there even is one truly different from the classic perception.

Also on a personal level, I will always, on some level, blame the then NpO government for assisting in the murder-suicide of the old GOONS, and the then government of NPO for not at the very least not allowing NpO to disband GOONS. My ire in those cases is reserved for the specific government members involved, not the alliances themselves however.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Sardonic

[Earogema]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1298307945' post='2640697']
Let's not argue over untruths, they canceled on us for not taking their side in biploar when we went in against TFD in defense of Umbrella, which is kind of sad because that war only lasted an update because of the transition to TOP-C&G. it was a shame really, but given Grub's attitude here we decided to let that be the end of our formal relationship with NpO.

As to the suiciding, while the majority of the government did succeed in their suicide, people in that government wanted and deserved a chance to start anew. They were selfishly denied that chance. Government members stayed who could have led the old GOONS to a new age, where they would have walked a new path, but we'll never know now will we.
[/quote]
That's not what I'm arguing. You didn't get attacked for the same thing that \m/ did. That would only happen in a situation where Polar didn't see it fit to roll you. In addition, for a war started over tech raiding where Polar sparred you, you didn't even side with them. I think you can see why they were upset. Granted, an alliance doesn't have to be in complete debt to those who made it possible, but really now.

I will concede that all GOONS were not guilty of the same crimes as your leaders, but when the VE-Polar front was an endorsed war by GOONS and that started due to the actions of Polar's second in command, I will hold this and the former GOONS to that standard, ESPECIALLY since the former GOONS used that rhetoric all the time.
[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1298283177' post='2640518']
That's because you choose to remain blind. "Worked with them" and "not cancelling a treaty at first sign of war" are two separate things. "Diplomacy" isn't a word used only in reference to dealings with the opposition. I've now refuted what you've said, twice. Care to take your blinders off?
[/quote]
So you're saying all that huffing and puffing back when BiPolar started about you all working with Polar was !@#$%^&* and that you really didn't attempt diplomacy at all? If so, why did you attempt to appear to be mending things in public? Because that's the goddamn cornerstone of diplomacy. Even if somehow you're going to argue that they didn't work with you, they still didn't roll you for the exact same crimes you committed as \m/ during the same time. Polar back when they voted to have FAN removed from WUT proved they would not only immediately cancel treaties with people they thought were in the wrong, but immediately attack them.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1298307945' post='2640697']
No alliance should be forcefully disbanded. Whether the old GOONS "deserved" it or not is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Who said anything about forceful disbandment? As I recall it was the first GOONS that pushed insistently that militarily forcing an alliance to disband was impossible, that it was always a choice. I simply meant that they deserved to be held to their own standards. It's that golden rule your mother always told you about.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298318394' post='2640856']
Who said anything about forceful disbandment? As I recall it was the first GOONS that pushed insistently that militarily forcing an alliance to disband was impossible, that it was always a choice. I simply meant that they deserved to be held to their own standards. It's that golden rule your mother always told you about.
[/quote]
Yeah sorry, not buying it, a route to peace was not offered. In my view, that is forced disbandment. Just because they did the same does not make it right to do it to them.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298316229' post='2640826']
That's not what I'm arguing. You didn't get attacked for the same thing that \m/ did. That would only happen in a situation where Polar didn't see it fit to roll you. In addition, for a war started over tech raiding where Polar [b]spared*[/b] you, you didn't even side with them. I think you can see why they were upset. Granted, an alliance doesn't have to be in complete debt to those who made it possible, but really now.
[/quote]
You're forgetting that we were also allied to PC at the time, who was also struck by NpO. We couldn't very well choose between two allies, so we stayed out. We only entered later because an avenue opened that did not involve the direct primary conflict, because we did not want to choose between defending one or the other, and we certainly didn't have the manpower to defend both. The treaty was canceled at the onset of the bipolar conflict because grub was mad about the alliance raid, uncanceled due to reaching a diplomatic understanding, and then recanceled by NpO when we entered in defense of UMB.
[quote]
I will concede that all GOONS were not guilty of the same crimes as your leaders, but when the VE-Polar front was an endorsed war by GOONS and that started due to the actions of Polar's second in command, I will hold this and the former GOONS to that standard, ESPECIALLY since the former GOONS used that rhetoric all the time.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Yes we endorse our allies' war?

Edited February 21, 2011 by Sardonic

[General Scipio]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298318394' post='2640856']
Who said anything about forceful disbandment? As I recall it was the first GOONS that pushed insistently that militarily forcing an alliance to disband was impossible, that it was always a choice. I simply meant that they deserved to be held to their own standards. It's that golden rule your mother always told you about.
[/quote]
So say Polar is never offered terms in this war, you're saying that it's ok and you wouldn't complain? I really doubt that.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1298318540' post='2640863']
You're forgetting that we were also allied to PC at the time, who was also struck by NpO. We couldn't very well choose between two allies, so we stayed out. We only entered later because an avenue opened that did not involve the direct primary conflict, because we did not want to choose between defending one or the other, and we certainly didn't have the manpower to defend both. The treaty was canceled at the onset of the bipolar conflict because grub was mad about the alliance raid, uncanceled due to reaching a diplomatic understanding, and then recanceled by NpO when we entered in defense of UMB.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Yes we endorse our allies' war?
[/quote]
PC didn't get hit by Polar though, they came to defend \m/. You had a mandatory reason to defend Polar unless you viewed Polar's actions as absolutely terrible (which you did not, otherwise you would not have tried to maintain diplomatic relations). You had the backing of Polar to survive in the first place, you had a treaty with mandatory defense. PC was purposely NOT hit by Polar.

I'm saying that once you justify that your leaders hold your alliance accountable at all times (even if it's only one leader) then you can't really argue that the members who wanted a "future" matter at all when making war/policy.

[Monster]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298368551' post='2641587']
PC didn't get hit by Polar though, they came to defend \m/. You had a mandatory reason to defend Polar unless you viewed Polar's actions as absolutely terrible (which you did not, otherwise you would not have tried to maintain diplomatic relations). You had the backing of Polar to survive in the first place, you had a treaty with mandatory defense. PC was purposely NOT hit by Polar.

I'm saying that once you justify that your leaders hold your alliance accountable at all times (even if it's only one leader) then you can't really argue that the members who wanted a "future" matter at all when making war/policy.
[/quote]

Non-chaining clause in their treaty. Polar made a big show of putting them in everything when coming out of WoTC terms.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1298212804' post='2639454']Perhaps so, but we had a CB grounded in definite and discrete action taken by Polar. We maybe chose to take it to the level of war for similar reasons (although I think there's a good chance we'd declare on anyone for spying on us where it didn't immediately affect our strategic position to do so), but we didn't just roll them because the opportunity came up.[/quote]This is more than a little contradictory.

[quote]What's wrong with attacking someone [i]just[/i] for being a future threat – and yes, this applies to TOP/IRON in Bipolar too, though to a lesser extent as the threat there was definite and imminent – is that you can apply it to anyone. [b]1.[/b] GPA? By re-accepting Valid they were clearly setting up to be a threat to NPO. [b]2.[/b] GATO? They'd always been opposed to NPO and hadn't changed, they deserved to be rolled! In addition, an alliance which you're rolling for that reason is not going to like you and will be a threat in future anyway (see Polar and TOP after BLEU War) so if you think attacking someone for being a threat is justifiable, then you open up a justification for eternal war.[/quote][b]1.[/b] Valid was nothing to NPO, anyone who was in GPA for as long as I was know that the charges against him were completely trumped up, amoral etcetcetc. Although, as I say, as a former GPA member, it was hi-larious.
[b]2.[/b] They did change. They were totally subservient and were still rolled for maybe possibly letting someone who might've been Chris Kaos back into the alliance.

I know it suits one side (bizarrely, not the side you're on) to pretend MK&co are Worse Than NPO, but in the practicalities of this argument it's just wrong. We could've trumped up a "definite and discrete" CB, but for all the difference it makes, why bother? NPO used CBs that hardly anyone actually believed, which to my mind is no better than hitting people for no reason at all. Nowadays we're expected to ~try diplomacy first~ while the other side slips into PM, so the false legitimacy of the Hegemony era has lost any advantage it had. We're held to different standards entirely, so why not pre-empt? Why not fight the war, which is certain to happen anyway if you look at NPO's appalling behaviour in recent months, on our terms?

Any denial of this state of affairs is just smug debating society posturing, no use in the real world.

[Monster]

Yeah, any one trying to make NPO into GATO is grasping for straws. GATO and the other alliances NPO loved to target went out of their way to be not anti-NPO, be it overtly or not. Yet, they still had to deal with them and their cronies telling them they were on their list. Anyone remember Umbrae's GR medal? Getting rolled means you never have to say "I'm sorry," right? Nevermind the fact that both Cortath and Mary were IOs under Moo. During the period of NPO dominance, no one thought to oppose them for most of it. Everyone had a somewhat "NPO is invincible and a fact of life" mentality in their head and they'd bend over because they just wanted to be secure and NPO and co. would still bully them. The question that has been raised in the past is, does the NPO think it was in the wrong when it did those things? The answer is no and we all know it.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[der_ko]

Original GOONS left because they won CN. There was no reason for them to remain.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1298318540' post='2640863']
Yeah sorry, not buying it, a route to peace was not offered. In my view, that is forced disbandment. Just because they did the same does not make it right to do it to them.
[/quote]
Oh I agree, it's an abhorrent practice. My point is that GOONS then couldn't complain and really can't complain in hindsight that their own policies were turned around on them. That was the whole point of that war, hence \m/ getting terms like "become an eternal tech-farm". Regardless of whether those choices were moral or not, I think the lasting effects have been beneficial. The undesirable members of those alliances are long gone thanks to their own self-destructive behaviour, and the valuable ones remained behind with a distaste for excessively punitive war terms.

It might not have been the war to end all wars, but it did close the curtain on eternal wars (unless you were FAN).

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1298323864' post='2640960']
So say Polar is never offered terms in this war, you're saying that it's ok and you wouldn't complain? I really doubt that.
[/quote]
That might have been a relevant question a few years ago, but that would be akin to holding your alliance responsible for its previous incarnation's crimes.

But yes. Certainly I would complain, among other things.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1298376700' post='2641620']
Everyone had a somewhat "NPO is invincible and a fact of life" mentality in their head and they'd bend over because they just wanted to be secure and NPO and co. would still bully them.
[/quote]
Please elaborate on the Co. Co is less letters than NPO but includes 5 - 10 times the NS that NPO had. The way people go on you would swear NPO had 200m NS and ruled over all alliances. The reality was people you are now connected or have fought along side were the Co and not only never said sorry they never got punished in any way shape or form for being the Co that were as guilty as NPO. FOK, Sparta & MHA were all Q members. Combined they were bigger and stronger than NPO, yet they did nothing. Most of the time they were more than happy crushing alliances. They are still happy doing what they did for NPO but under new masters. You want to talk about change?

[potato]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298394265' post='2641743']
But yes. Certainly I would complain, among other things.
[/quote]

I wouldn't expect anything less from you, mon vieil ami.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1298376418' post='2641619']
blah, blah, blah.....Why not fight the war, [b][i]which is certain to happen anyway if you look at NPO's appalling behaviour in recent months[/i][/b], on our terms?...[/quote]


Blatant falsehoods remain false, regardless of how many times you spew them. But I understand your need to make some rationalization, regardless of how empty it may be, for your actions.

[Monster]

Alterego: How were they as guilty when NPO was running the show for the most part? Of course some of them like Slayer99 started some independent curbstomps. And hey guess what, I already explained the mentality of how most people thought and acted during the days of Q. It was a giant pyramid scheme based on fear and people didn't necessarily want to break off to get rolled by the others like VE did when it left the Initiative. I thank SF for the most part for throwing off the shackles and getting the ball rolling in a political sense.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1298396997' post='2641789']
Blatant falsehoods remain false, regardless of how many times you spew them. But I understand your need to make some rationalization, regardless of how empty it may be, for your actions.
[/quote]Right you are, buddy, but you said nothing there.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1298404453' post='2641882']
Right you are, buddy, but you said nothing there.
[/quote]

Since you're apparently too ignorant of the English language (by intent or not), I'll divine it for you... He is insinuating you are a gross liar and exaggerator. There.. make more sense? He's also insinuating you're making up these lies because you lack the honor to war with reason.

In short. You're evil.

What a half-thought one-liner. Is this seriously the only response you could come up with?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex