A Statement from Doomhouse

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300703746' post='2672119']
Of course they were connected. Pacifica was anticipated from before day one. Pacifica was definitely planned for given it would be the biggest alliance on the other side. So after Polar itself got attacked, Pacifica would definitely be the main event. It would have been dumb not to plan for them.[/quote]
This is where the "preemptive strike" still does not make sense. It was entirely the actions of your side that resulted in NPO being considered by you to be any closer to entering, by simple virtue of the treaty chain initiated by PB's attack on NpO. Based on your logic, you may as well just have attacked NPO at the same time as PB attacked NpO, because there is no clear evidence of any subsequent action or intended action by NPO that brought it closer to entering.

Edit: Just to clarify, it seems like you considered an attack on NPO to be a [i]fait accompli[/i]. In other words, NPO was damned if Legion and NSO immediately activated their treaties and chained it in, and NPO was damned if Legion and NSO did not active those treaties in order to keep it from being chained in. You have argued that NPO should have posted a DoN, but under a preemptive strike the burden of proof is surely on you to demonstrate that NPO intended to enter, rather than on NPO to demonstrate that it did not.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Monster]

In principle, that might have had made sense, but it wasn't a definite that they were going to try to play us by not using their more valuable cards early on while putting more damage on themselves. There's no real reason for Legion not to be in unless they don't want the signal "NPO is coming" to be out early while they were still trying to gain NS for their coalition. Well, there's one possibility and it's not really realistic: that being Polar/co were going to cause themselves to get wiped out along with all of their allies to a greater degree so NPO could stay out and get attacked later. Essentially, throwing all of their allies besides Legion on a funeral pyre to spare NPO the war is what would have had to happen for that to pan out. Same with STA/TPF.

edit: to avoid a preemptive strike when they saw it coming, they could have declared neutrality. They knew they were under danger. If we go with the "they thought TPF was going to get preempted," TPF could have declared neutrality. I guess that's another issue, they saw the preemptive strike before it became an actual ready to go plan and began mobilizing, which caused it to happen for sure.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Sir Humphrey]

I'm still not convinced that there is clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter. However, even if you assume this is the case, it does not necessarily result that NPO would enter also. It doesn't seem that NPO would be motivated to help NpO out, and Legion or NSO may have requested for it to stay out for its own sake (i.e. in the knowledge that its involvement would draw more attacks and be ineffective). Furthermore, as you have noted previously, if you had clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter, then a "preemptive" strike could only be carried out against them. If you want to skip the treaty chain for reasons of strategic convenience, then that attack is no longer a preemptive strike by definition (no matter how smart it might be).

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300706673' post='2672126']
I'm still not convinced that there is clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter. However, even if you assume this is the case, it does not necessarily result that NPO would enter also. It doesn't seem that NPO would be motivated to help NpO out, and Legion or NSO may have requested for it to stay out for its own sake (i.e. in the knowledge that its involvement would draw more attacks and be ineffective). Furthermore, as you have noted previously, if you had clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter, then a "preemptive" strike could only be carried out against them. If you want to skip the treaty chain for reasons of strategic convenience, then that attack is no longer a preemptive strike by definition (no matter how smart it might be).
[/quote]

The destruction of NPO's small network of allies is motivation enough for NPO to fight.

[Monster]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300706673' post='2672126']
I'm still not convinced that there is clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter. However, even if you assume this is the case, it does not necessarily result that NPO would enter also. It doesn't seem that NPO would be motivated to help NpO out, and Legion or NSO may have requested for it to stay out for its own sake (i.e. in the knowledge that its involvement would draw more attacks and be ineffective). Furthermore, as you have noted previously, if you had clear evidence that Legion or NSO intended to enter, then a "preemptive" strike could only be carried out against them. If you want to skip the treaty chain for reasons of strategic convenience, then that attack is no longer a preemptive strike by definition (no matter how smart it might be).
[/quote]

Legion had to enter at some point unless they were going to ignore a direct treaty activation or unless Polar was really intent on burning itself and its allies to a greater degree while sparing NPO the damage.

NSO has already said that they were going to enter on the AZTEC front if NPO hadn't been preempted. The expectation up to that point, based on what leaked, was that they would enter to honor their paperless relationship with STA. The fact that they were unwilling to defend Hydra also pointed out in that direction.

I don't know if I agree with the definition, but the point was to declare on NPO because we thought they were coming in, rather than because we thought they weren't.

[Geoffron X]

Having ANY sort of terms for doing absolutely nothing is ridiculous. Immediate white peace for us, AND our allies. Or nothing.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1300708144' post='2672142']
Having ANY sort of terms for doing absolutely nothing is ridiculous. Immediate white peace for us, AND our allies. Or nothing.
[/quote]

Thank Admin we're avoiding all sort of extremist positions at the beginning of negotiations, right? Otherwise it may take a while til we get there.

[Sardonic]

EDIT: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually they made that joke of a counter offer last night, though after we were all done laughing we moved on to discussing the actual preconditions to peace, so it wasn't entirely a loss for the night.

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1300708144' post='2672142']
Having ANY sort of terms for doing absolutely nothing is ridiculous. Immediate white peace for us, AND our allies. Or nothing.
[/quote]
I find your bargaining position highly dubious.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sardonic

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300707083' post='2672132']I don't know if I agree with the definition, but the point was to declare on NPO because we thought they were coming in, rather than because we thought they weren't.[/quote]
And again, that may reflect that there is a difference between a strict definition of a preemptive strike, and the definition given to it by this community (you'll probably win this particular dispute because your side will likely write the Wiki). My problem with you labelling it as a "preemptive strike" is that it allows you to blame NPO as being somehow responsible for the war (e.g. I think Lusi asserted in this thread that NPO "initiated" the war), when you can point to no clear evidence that this was the case. IMO, you forfeited any right to consider NPO the aggressor or responsible by not waiting for clear evidence of its intentions (even though it may make perfect sense strategically). You have also conceded, I think, that you applied a lower threshhold for a preemptive strike on NPO because of other greviances/objectives, which further distorts the justification for entering.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Alterego]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300702230' post='2672107']
That's nice, Alterego. You make a good point though that with Polar rolled, Pacific was going to be weakened, so it made the most sense for them go in on the Polar side. The Polar-VE conflict was shaky when Ragnarok renegged on not entering and AZTEC switched from possible VE side to Polar side.
[/quote]
You assumed NPO were going to regain their power. You assumed NPO would then go back to their old ways. You assumed they would enter this war because their allies did. You assumed they would enter this war because with Polar rolled NPO would be more weakened. What will you assume tomorrow?

Thanks to this thread you cant deny you are trying to be the world police anymore.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Alterego

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300679311' post='2671865']
Right, though I would assume that TheTrail would know more of what was going on in IRON than you.[/quote]
When you want to know official position of IRON, you talk to its Council, not its individual members and/or there opinions, same goes for DuckRoll, you talk to ALL DR .gov. I dont need to be a former councilor and in IRON for 3+ years to tell you that, thats how stuff is. Even the President of the Republic cannot speak for IRON without being authorized by the majority of the council to do so, let alone a general member. Also, with a known fact that there is atleast one spy, (remember that Vox wannabe?) are you sure you're not running around after the red herrings coming out of IRON? We werent born yesterday...that we'd go around posting opsec on lowest security levels for the Vox wannabes to leak all around?

Edited March 21, 2011 by shahenshah

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300664706' post='2671560']
A good point. I had not considered military aid. Still, an argument can be made about 1/3 of the attacking force (GOONS) receiving aid is a bit different than one of the "dozen or so alliances" on the defending side receiving aid. But we're wandering a bit from the main point (as most arguments tend to do ).
[/quote]

The type of aid received is different, yes. Other than that they're relatively comparable (at least with regards to general scope of aid received; billions in financial aid for one party, and a dozen or so alliances in military aid for the other in use originally against primarily one opponent).

Either way, whether via warriors or via aiders there's been no shortage of external assistance received from alliances on both sides this war (and in fact most wars), and I'd hardly view it as a sign of weakness for any parties involved. It would not be wise for one to not make use of available resources to their advantage (any imprudence comes with [i]how[/i] the resources are utilized).

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300664706' post='2671560']
While this is true, I was talking more about how it (and a large number of similar threads) all try to call out NPO&Co. This usually isn't necessary if you're winning.
[/quote]

*This usually isn't necessary if things went exactly your way.

(Would be more accurate. )

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300664706' post='2671560']
As to the rest of your post, it's now turned into a "yes we can"-"no you can't" circle, as that wonderful diagram posted a ways back showed. So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. (I suspect we'll cross paths again in a few weeks to dance again ).
[/quote]

Indeed, debate here has a tendency to become circular (often unintentionally). I'd say we're at a bit of an impasse and can leave it at that.

*usual typos

Edited March 21, 2011 by SirWilliam

[Yggdrazil]

Thus it was a masterful counter- strike employed by Doomhouse.
Yet with the reason to counter has ended, the war continues. Somehow the reasoning does not mesh with the actions. Your actions make your motives for this war clear and no amount of rationalizations will mitigate this truth to others.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1300713114' post='2672179']
Thus it was a masterful counter- strike employed by Doomhouse.
Yet with the reason to counter has ended, the war continues. Somehow the reasoning does not mesh with the actions. Your actions make your motives for this war clear and no amount of rationalizations will mitigate this truth to others.
[/quote]
This is about punishing NPO and giving them a slap in the face because DH have the power to do it. They could not rise to power and DH know this so they have decided to smash only their alliance because they have the power to do so and as stormsend said, [u]they [/u]wanted a war with NPO.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300708660' post='2672149']
I find your bargaining position highly dubious.
[/quote]

so being attacked out of the blue means they deserve to pay reps? wait wat?

that's like saying that TOP/IRON & co should have gotten reps from CnG when they pre-empted them (of course there is the argument over that they didnt win that war for various reasons, but still.....also find it funny how it's incredibly deplorable for that pre-empt yet this one is fine )

it's times like this make makes me facepalm that i'm indirectly treatied to some people, the main conflict is over, the rest of the peripheral wars, since thats what everyone's calling this, should end as well.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Lurunin

[potato]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300713999' post='2672186']
This is about punishing NPO and giving them a slap in the face because DH have the power to do it. They could not rise to power and DH know this so they have decided to smash only their alliance because they have the power to do so and as stormsend said, [u]they [/u]wanted a war with NPO.
[/quote]

Are you saying NPO didn't want to fight us?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300708883' post='2672152']
And again, that may reflect that there is a difference between a strict definition of a preemptive strike, and the definition given to it by this community (you'll probably win this particular dispute because your side will likely write the Wiki). My problem with you labelling it as a "preemptive strike" is that it allows you to blame NPO as being somehow responsible for the war (e.g. I think Lusi asserted in this thread that NPO "initiated" the war), when you can point to no clear evidence that this was the case. IMO, you forfeited any right to consider NPO the aggressor or responsible by not waiting for clear evidence of its intentions (even though it may make perfect sense strategically). You have also conceded, I think, that you applied a lower threshhold for a preemptive strike on NPO because of other greviances/objectives, which further distorts the justification for entering.
[/quote]

I didn't assert such. I said that DoomHouse didn't initiate this war and that's all I did. DoomHouse pre-emptive strike was a reaction against the next logical step to be taken to NPO that would be to join the war - before they could choose the terms and timing to do so. That is the definition of pre-emptive attack.

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1300713114' post='2672179']
Thus it was a masterful counter- strike employed by Doomhouse.
Yet with the reason to counter has ended, the war continues. Somehow the reasoning does not mesh with the actions. Your actions make your motives for this war clear and no amount of rationalizations will mitigate this truth to others.
[/quote]

The reasons for the start of the war are irrelevant at this point. We are at war with an alliance with whom we don't have good relations and their upper tier is intact. It is not strategically wise to let them go and then turn on us in a short time period. In the past alliances were kept down with extensive reparations, we just want 1 month of war (4 cycles) to ensure our security.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300714410' post='2672191']
so being attacked out of the blue means they deserve to pay reps? wait wat?

that's like saying that TOP/IRON & co should have gotten reps from CnG when they pre-empted them (of course there is the argument over that they didnt win that war for various reasons, but still.....also find it funny how it's incredibly deplorable for that pre-empt yet this one is fine )
[/quote]

Fyi, we've been very clear that we have no intent to press NPO for reps.

(The analogy doesn't quite hold then.)

As for shifting viewpoints, they do just that - shift. Once upon a time first-strike nuking was deplored, but that, as a military tactic, is all but acceptable these days. So too is preempting seen as a more acceptable tactic these days, even if only by some (hell, I pushed for it when intel first circulated that The Ninjas would be declaring on GOONS; unfortunately, their treaty with VE prevented it).

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300714774' post='2672200']
I didn't assert such. I said that DoomHouse didn't initiate this war and that's all I did.[/quote]
My mistake. I thought you were implying that NPO initiated the war.

[quote]DoomHouse pre-emptive strike was a reaction against the next logical step to be taken to NPO that would be to join the war - before they could choose the terms and timing to do so. That is the definition of pre-emptive attack.[/quote]
Just for accuracy, the next logical step was actually for Legion or NSO to enter the war. I have stated before that your DoW is not consistent with the strict definition of a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war"]preemptive war[/url], but I concede that this community may interpret such a war more broadly.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Lurunin]

that was a mistake on my part, forgot bout the whole "no reps, just full-out war" thing...then again, i still go back to my point that as a "peripheral" war that many of you claimed this war against NPO was, it should have ended soon after the NpO front closed....unless you want this to turn into a GRE/IRON dispute i guess?

how much time did it take to pass for nuke first strike to become the norm then? (i know it was long before i joined Bob) and was it because the people in power saw that it was actually fine or that every other alliance decided to authorize it one day

[Dagrr]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1300714658' post='2672197']
Are you saying NPO didn't want to fight us?
[/quote]

If we had a burning desire to fight you, we would have taken you up on one of the various pieces of bait you put out in front of us over the past few months. NPO's life doesn't revolve around the Mushroom Kingdom. The reverse is still up for debate.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300715266' post='2672208']
that was a mistake on my part, forgot bout the whole "no reps, just full-out war" thing...then again, i still go back to my point that as a "peripheral" war that many of you claimed this war against NPO was, it should have ended soon after the NpO front closed....unless you want this to turn into a GRE/IRON dispute i guess?

how much time did it take to pass for nuke first strike to become the norm then? (i know it was long before i joined Bob) and was it because the people in power saw that it was actually fine or that every other alliance decided to authorize it one day
[/quote]

NPO was never a peripheral front of the conflict. There were 3 main fronts if I recall correctly: VE-NpO, DH-NPO and AZTEC-Sparta/MHA

[potato]

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1300715634' post='2672210']
If we had a burning desire to fight you, we would have taken you up on one of the various pieces of bait you put out in front of us over the past few months. NPO's life doesn't revolve around the Mushroom Kingdom. The reverse is still up for debate.
[/quote]

You're almost as cute as Alterego when you make things up. You wanted this as much as we did. Except, obviously, you wanted to win. You took every opportunity to !@#$ on us (every single official publication, refusing to help our allies with a rogue, editing our diplomats' posts, SirPaul's heir to Archon thing...). We did the same (Red Safari, closing your embassy...). Do us all a favour and don't pretend you wouldn't roll us given the chance.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1300716005' post='2672212']
You're almost as cute as Alterego when you make things up. You wanted this as much as we did. Except, obviously, you wanted to win. You took every opportunity to !@#$ on us (every single official publication, refusing to help our allies with a rogue, editing our diplomats' posts, SirPaul's heir to Archon thing...). We did the same (Red Safari, closing your embassy...). Do us all a favour and don't pretend you wouldn't roll us given the chance.
[/quote]
MK has been on top for 2 years, when are you going to stop having NPO nightmares?

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300714774' post='2672200']
I didn't assert such. I said that DoomHouse didn't initiate this war and that's all I did. DoomHouse pre-emptive strike was a reaction against the next logical step to be taken to NPO that would be to join the war - before they could choose the terms and timing to do so. That is the definition of pre-emptive attack.



The reasons for the start of the war are irrelevant at this point. We are at war with an alliance with whom we don't have good relations and their upper tier is intact. It is not strategically wise to let them go and then turn on us in a short time period. In the past alliances were kept down with extensive reparations, we just want 1 month of war (4 cycles) to ensure our security.
[/quote]
Doomhouse paranoia borders on the absurd. Pre-Karma NPO's stats were at least double what exists now, they were more connected to the treaty web and even given this they lost. The days of NPO's impunity ended with Karma.
The correct action is not to mimic the actions of your adversary because then you become what you deplored. Unless of course you were jealous because they had power and you wished it for yourselves, which in my view is the underlying truth here.