HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688412' post='2671977'] I'm pretty sure this is the stated reason in the DoW. A pre-emptive strategic attack to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us, plus as a deterrent to keep the VE-NpO front from becoming complicated further by NPOs manipulations by giving them something else to worry about. I won't pretend to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but as I understand it NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security, so we're out here taking care of it right now. [/quote] Look, the new guy, repeating everything that he was instructed about back in "Paranoia 101" at Thugz4Lyfe Academy for Learning Goons. Tell me, did you get used to the funny taste in the kool-aid yet? Edited March 21, 2011 by HeroofTime55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Penguin' timestamp='1300688542' post='2671979'] I should probably be asking this to VE, but maybe they already answered and I missed it (and someone can point me to it ). Does VE want the NPO front to conclude in the manner presented by the opening post? [/quote] Actually an amazing question, but my guess is they're going to fall in line and support whatever ridiculous demands MK wants. Under the rationale that they're "supporting GOONS/Umb, who support MK" of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyaris Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300688682' post='2671983'] Actually, that is not what Roq is arguing. And it definitely does not constitute a preemptive strike. Edit: However, the fact that you interpreted it the way you did is quite revealing. [/quote] Revealing of what exactly? Also how is that not a pre-emptive strike? We viewed them as a threat to our security and a possible combatant on the NpO front. Sounds like a pre-emptive strike to me. Edited March 21, 2011 by Kyaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300688391' post='2671976'] Nope. VE-Polaris was simply an opening you saw for you to finally roll NPO, something you have been trying to do for the past year, ever since Pacifica came out of their Karma terms. They paid up, and when the money stopped flowing, your sole mission was to drag them into a new war. Yet another reason you can't be trusted. There's no reason to expect this war will quench your thirst for Pacifican blood if the last one didn't. [/quote] You realize that it being an opening doesn't preclude it being related even if I were to say it was true despite never getting any NPO reps? In addition, if you look at Kyaris' join date, it's pretty obvious he won't know everything well. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300688871' post='2671987'] Actually an amazing question, but my guess is they're going to fall in line and support whatever ridiculous demands MK wants. Under the rationale that they're "supporting GOONS/Umb, who support MK" of course. [/quote] Jesus. Why do you keep insisting MK is this supreme driving force? Edited March 21, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688931' post='2671988'] Revealing of what exactly? [/quote] It is revealing (a) that you interpreted the DoW in a way that was consistent with the way that many of us interpreted it, and (b) that the general membership of the Doomhouse alliances has a different understanding than the public justification provided by its leadership of why this war is occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688412' post='2671977'] I'm pretty sure this is the stated reason in the DoW. A pre-emptive strategic attack to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us, plus as a deterrent to keep the VE-NpO front from becoming complicated further by NPOs manipulations by giving them something else to worry about. I won't pretend to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but as I understand it NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security, so we're out here taking care of it right now. [/quote] Well, since you don't know, let me help you with that. When you attack someone who is NOT AT WAR, you are the AGGRESSOR and they are the DEFENDER. See how that works. The reason for this, and why MK, Umb and friends have been attacking without DoW's and such is to avoid activating certain treaties. If your treaty partner is attacked, then Defensive clauses are activated. If you are the Attacker, then their Defensive clauses are activated. That is why MK refused to post a DoW on TPF and told us to go ahead and post one if we wanted. They wanted thier D clauses to activate, not ours. That is why TOP has only attacked a few small allainces, they were the only ones to actually post DoW's on MK. It is all in the wording. But no matter how you word it, YOU are the aggressor in this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300688871' post='2671987'] Actually an amazing question, but my guess is they're going to fall in line and support whatever ridiculous demands MK wants. Under the rationale that they're "supporting GOONS/Umb, who support MK" of course. [/quote] Well, if the front was opened to help VE then I'd have to guess it would be VE's call to determine when they've received enough help. It's best not to assume anything though, and I imagine someone more in the know will answer my question shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300689018' post='2671989'] You realize that it being an opening doesn't preclude it being related even if I were to say it was true despite never getting any NPO reps? [/quote] Who needs money to take up precious tech dealing slots, when you can just demand that they let their entire upper tier perish, and stifle their rebuilding for the next two years that way? [quote]In addition, if you look at Kyaris' join date, it's pretty obvious he won't know everything well. [/quote] On the contrary. He just hasn't yet learned how to lie through his teeth and pretend there is justification for this war, and as such his brutal honesty is a brilliant look behind the facade of the arguments that the more seasoned folks have put forth. Read his one post, where he describes how his alliance has led him to believe in the extreme paranoia of the NPO boogeyman. Kyaris is just about the biggest PR asset currently available to this side, and we thank him for his service. Edited March 21, 2011 by HeroofTime55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300689610' post='2671995'] Kyaris is just about the biggest PR asset currently available to this side, and we thank him for his service.[/quote] That's probably a really bad sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688931' post='2671988'] Revealing of what exactly? Also how is that not a pre-emptive strike? We viewed them as a threat to our security and a possible combatant on the NpO front. Sounds like a pre-emptive strike to me. [/quote] Seeing you edited this post, I'll have another go: You referred to a "pre-emptive strike to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us", and stated "NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security". Sorry, but that is not a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war"]preemptive strike[/url]. You can call it a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war"]preventative war[/url] if you want, but that would mean you abandon any pretentions regarding the war's purpose and, possibly, its legitimacy. Edit: [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300689018' post='2671989']In addition, if you look at Kyaris' join date, it's pretty obvious he won't know everything well.[/quote] I am sympathetic to that, but what is he doing posting a [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display§ion=blog&blogid=668&showentry=2839"]blog[/url] and contributing to your PR if he doesn't understand? What proportion of the general membership of the Doomhouse alliances actually understands why you claim they have gone to war? In fact, why is it left only to you to provide the intellectual justification for this war? Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Good thing he probably just read the wiki and gleaned off stuff in his limited time here. Well, he probably did it because he wanted to make a blog. Most people aren't interested in intellectual justification when it won't make a single difference. Edited March 21, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyaris Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300689880' post='2671997'] Seeing you edited this post, I'll have another go: You referred to a "pre-emptive strike to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us", and stated "NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security". Sorry, but that is not a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war"]preemptive strike[/url]. You can call it a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war"]preventative war[/url] if you want, but that would mean you abandon any pretentions regarding the war's purpose and, possibly, its legitimacy. [/quote] "A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes." We gained a strategic advantage in a conflict we were already in by pre-emptively attacking you. Sounds like it fits the definition to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Penguin' timestamp='1300689837' post='2671996'] That's probably a really bad sign. [/quote] Oh, I say that lightly. It still needs to be handled by our caring hands and molded into usable material, but he gives us an simple and honest source inside the minds of Doomhouse. We don't even have to read much into what he says, it's all right there to be taken at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1300689147' post='2671992'] That is why TOP has only attacked a few small allainces, they were the only ones to actually post DoW's on MK. [/quote] Wait, so TOP didn't declare on us because we were so scary? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyaris Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300690131' post='2672000'] Oh, I say that lightly. It still needs to be handled by our caring hands and molded into usable material, but he gives us an simple and honest source inside the minds of Doomhouse. We don't even have to read much into what he says, it's all right there to be taken at face value. [/quote] You're not even really involved in this war. I don't understand you at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300690359' post='2672004'] You're not even really involved in this war. I don't understand you at all. [/quote] OK, I take it all back. He's just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyaris Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300690441' post='2672006'] OK, I take it all back. He's just dumb. [/quote] No seriously you're the leader or spokesperson of a really really insignificant Micro-AA and you've been ZI'ed for basically the entire time I've even been a nation. Why do you bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688412' post='2671977'] I'm pretty sure this is the stated reason in the DoW. A pre-emptive strategic attack to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us, plus as a deterrent to keep the VE-NpO front from becoming complicated further by NPOs manipulations by giving them something else to worry about. I won't pretend to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but as I understand it NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security, so we're out here taking care of it right now. [/quote] I am pretty sure that if NPO ever attempted to become hegemonic again, there would be plenty of alliances that will ensure that never happened. So to claim that NPO will suddenly arise once more as the Hegemony is quite ridiculous. Not only do many alliances outside of DH not trust NPO much, most have no want of NPO as the Hegemony. I would think NPO knows this and most likely knows that if they try to make themselves the Hegemony, they will meet with another Karma. So, to claim that NPO is some huge threat is ridiculous. The only way NPO could come close to becoming the Hegemony would be to somehow isolate PB/DH from CnG and SF. Not to mention being able to ensure that Duckroll, Synergy, AZTEC, and Polaris/allies are in their sphere. Now can you honestly tell me that that would ever have been possible? Even if NPO managed the second portion, I highly doubt- nay I am 100% sure, they would never separate CnG/SF from PB/DH or going further PB from DH. So don't shove that load of crap down out throats anymore. It is utter !@#$%^&* and quite frankly laughably stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300690128' post='2671999'] "A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived [b]inevitable[/b] offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an [b]impending (allegedly unavoidable) war [/b]before that threat materializes." We gained a strategic advantage in a conflict we were already in by pre-emptively attacking you. Sounds like it fits the definition to me. [/quote] I have emphasised the relevant words for you, in relation to the quotes in my previous post. NPO's assumed "re-rise to Hegemony" and "threat to our operational security" are also not related to the PB/NpO war. You also missed this: "The term: 'preemptive war' is sometimes confused with the term: 'preventive war'. The difference is that a preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of an enemy, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned, while a preemptive war is launched in anticipation of [b]immediate enemy aggression[/b]." And, yes, I realise that the source is not necessarily authoritative. But it is consistent with my understanding, and I welcome a more authoritative definition if one is available. Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300690535' post='2672007'] No seriously you're the leader or spokesperson of a really really insignificant Micro-AA and you've been ZI'ed for basically the entire time I've even been a nation. Why do you bother? [/quote]Leader, we're at war with you, and only insignificant stats wise, I'm an infamous loud mouth with many years under my belt. Now you're up to speed. Edited March 21, 2011 by HeroofTime55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300689880' post='2671997'] I am sympathetic to that, but what is he doing posting a [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blogmodule=display§ion=blog&blogid=668&showentry=2839"]blog[/url] and contributing to your PR if he doesn't understand? What proportion of the general membership of the Doomhouse alliances actually understands why you claim they have gone to war? In fact, why is it left only to you to provide the intellectual justification for this war? [/quote] I'll shed further light on this. I don't know about MK and GOONS but everyone in Umbrella knew why we were attacking NPO before it happened. It's up to me since I have the most knowledge and most people don't want bother because it's not a winning battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300690760' post='2672013'] I'll shed further light on this. I don't know about MK and GOONS but everyone in Umbrella knew why we were attacking NPO before it happened. It's up to me since I have the most knowledge and most people don't want bother because it's not a winning battle. [/quote] This is what leads me to believe that the other alliances in your coalition have different objectives to the simple preemptive war that you claim this to be. They leave it to you to justify it, because your explanation provides them with the legitimacy that they seek. You deserve a pay rise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1300688500' post='2671978'] So anyone, no matter what alliance they are in, who remains in Peace Mode for an extended amount of time is a coward and such conduct is not acceptable?? [/quote] The issue isn't one person being in peace mode. If it was just one or two NPO members who were in peace mode and the rest were actually engaged with us, there wouldn't be an issue. It becomes an issue when it is a large part of an alliance. OOC: No matter what side of the war you find yourself on, or what you think about IC politics, I would find it hard to believe that people think that an alliance hiding away in peace mode when there is a war is good for the health of the game. Edited March 21, 2011 by Ryuzaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300690760' post='2672013'] I'll shed further light on this. I don't know about MK and GOONS but everyone in Umbrella knew why we were attacking NPO before it happened. It's up to me since I have the most knowledge and most people don't want bother because it's not a winning battle. [/quote] Damn right it's not a winning battle, it never is when you're in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300690693' post='2672011'] we're only insignificant stats wise [/quote] you're not significant in any way whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts