Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mongol Swede

A Response to Belligerence

120 posts in this topic

I speak on behalf of the Terran Commune today, to bring to light a recent development in our burgeoning world, where a wide range of diverse nations and alliances have begun to take shape, and chart their course into the future of a world that itself is barely out of the wetworks...; a development that has personally brought me some amount of disappointment in our neighbors of the Seven Kingdoms, who, in their texts and speeches, proclaiming the virtues of the right of sovereignty of alliances - the self-determination of the peoples of Terra, to live in peace and develop prosperity. When I first came over to their slick forums some time ago to establish a diplomatic presence between the Commune and the Kingdoms, I was met with a pretty intelligent body who was certainly up for lively and informative discussion. All in all, I felt quite at home, and very welcome to be there.

This was even at a time where the Commune was still relatively small, and the Kingdoms a decently-sized alliance in comparison. Yet we were treated respectfully, and they the same, and our two alliances came to be quite fruitful since the Pre-Stable Age, developing into a couple of rather sizable and influential spheres of influence that respected one another’s boundaries, and treated the world at-large with decency and fairness.

As the world began to advance into the Alpha Age, a number of larger alliances began to chart their respective foreign affairs policies, and the Commune was no exception. The decision to enact the Solidarity Doctrine was by no means a vehicle with which to claim dominance over the world, and so these misconstrued connections to any such doctrines which claimed supremacy over any particular sphere of influence were ill-founded. The problem that this doctrine sought out to correct was not a question of ideological supremacy but, rather, to provide a means by which a myriad of techniques and approaches could be implemented to make the game enjoyable not only for those with the ability to raise massive armies and march across the globe and simply seize the right to even exist. but, rather, to avoid such unnecessary hegemonic actions, and help make Terra a world that those who simply wanted to come together in peace - be they a massive, organized and dominating alliance, or a rag-tag band of like-minded friends simply seeking to establish a community of their own, where they could enjoy the game, enjoy one another’s camaraderie and, of course, have a bit of harmless war fun on the side, could expect not to simply be bullied out of the game. The Commune recognized that, having achieved a certain degree of prosperity, that it could lend itself and its resources to the general welfare of like-minded nations and alliances across Terra, all while helping to maintain a general state of peace at the upper echelons. Of course, war was always reserved as an option, but it is never something that the Commune, as a whole, ever sought on a massive scale. Such belligerence runs contrary to our egalitarian principles, exemplified in the remarkable democratic structures we have implemented in our own diverse communities of communists, anarchists, right-libertarians, Muslims, and so on.

Getting back to the main point, I’d like to point out that those who are familiar with common sense and reason should note that the Solidarity Doctrine - indeed, any such doctrine to ever be implemented in this world, could not possibly hope to achieve 100 per cent solvency. In other words, the Doctrine wasn’t meant to declare all alliances off-limits from raids. However, it is reasonable that the Commune would offer support - utilizing a multitude of approaches, as any mature and rational alliance likely would - to those facing undue aggression.

The recent belligerence by the Seven Kingdoms against a micro-left alliance is part of their response to our expression of solidarity through our Doctrine. Their assertion - exemplified in their assault against an innocent micro-alliance - that this violates their ‘sovereign right’ to simply raid at-will. They have demanded that we simply adhere to the legal and ideological precedents that they themselves wish to establish, while simply referring to this as a matter of their own alliance’s sovereignty. And it’s important to make a distinction here. They insist on their alliance’s sovereignty, to go about the world acting solely as they please, with no apparent regard for that of other alliances that they wouldn't get whupped up on. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they meant sovereignty for all alliances. Again, like I said, I’ve had a pretty decent opinion of their noble adhesion to this beautiful concept in the past, that alliances ought to be free to development and prosper in peace, free from undue foreign influence, coercion, and outright belligerence dominating the sovereignty of alliances all across Terra.

The point that the Commune would like to make is that this gross act of belligerence by the Seven Kingdoms - against a small alliance that was minding its own business, and certainly did not warrant such an attack - strikes at the very core of the very argument that the Seven Kingdoms are trying to make. They, while arguing on behalf of alliance sovereignty, and decrying the Solidarity Doctrine as an attack on the aforementioned sovereignty, have themselves, without provocation, and without regard for the sovereignty of an innocent whelp of an alliance, have completely contradicted themselves, all in a gesture of provoking the Commune’s efforts to build a more peaceful and just world by establishing a precedent that smaller alliances would be free from undue aggression, and that sovereignty of ALL alliances would be protected, not simply those who have the military might to enforce their sovereignty over yours.

Rather than respecting the sovereignty of other alliances, it is clear that the Seven Kingdoms not only disregards the sovereignty of others when it doesn’t fully suit their own interests 100 per cent, they have sought to goad others into challenging them by engaging in wanton destruction, and deciding for itself whose sovereignty is worth anything. Is this to be the face of Terra? A hegemony of elites preaching noble concepts for themselves, and denying the same basic considerations to those weaker than them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of words, but you're saying absolutely nothing. What exactly is the point?

If you've come to the big boards to attempt to shame SK into ceasing their entirely legal raids, that is truly shameful.

Look, you guys were having a grand ol' time running your mouths and openly challenging us all in the other thread. What happened to that?

I love this topic so much! :D

And this..

If y'all wish to test this doctrine, feel free to come at us, bro(s). :smug:

And then there's this gem, brought to us today by, oh.. Look! :psyduck:

If you really wanted to test us, you would be attacking am unalliged leftist nation/leftist micro right now, not shooting your mouth off like a repugnant little git.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seven Kingdoms is acting within its long established policy of allowing raiding of unaligned nations, and micros of 5 or less members. This policy is not the business of any other Alliance.

We do not acknowledge your so-called Doctrine of Solidarity as having any standing or legitimacy. If you wish to enforce it, you will have to make us recognise it. As it is, its a lump of text which means nothing for 2 reasons. 1) You have no legitimacy to ask anything of us. 2) You refuse to actually do anything to enforce this supposed policy of yours.

Before you call us cowards, have a look at yourself. You refuse to do anything more than ask us nicely to please stop following our own ethos. You fail to actually act in the way you have prescribed for yourself to act.

Go away and cry to mummy, but don't post such blatant nonsense. Your doctrine is drivel. Your diplomats are dunces. Your members are morons. All in all, I'm not too impressed with the Terran Commune as an Alliance just now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of words, but you're saying absolutely nothing. What exactly is the point?

If you've come to the big boards to attempt to shame SK into ceasing their entirely legal raids, that is truly shameful.

Look, you guys were having a grand ol' time running your mouths and openly challenging us all in the other thread. What happened to that?

I love this topic so much! :D

And this..

If y'all wish to test this doctrine, feel free to come at us, bro(s). :smug:

And then there's this gem, brought to us today by, oh.. Look! :psyduck:

If you really wanted to test us, you would be attacking am unalliged leftist nation/leftist micro right now, not shooting your mouth off like a repugnant little git.

You, sir, are at the very top of the bell curve.

I know it's hard for you lot to understand, but apart from war, diplomacy should first be tried. In addition to that, democracy takes time, and the best course of action takes more than 30 seconds to think up whilst in a state of nerd rage. Unlike our friend Kadin here, the TC is full of people who actually think before they act. Do not rush our perfection, gents. :smug:

This piece more or less hits the issue right on the head; that you lot have argued in favor of keeping your sovereignty by denying it to other alliances. You can choose to ignore the consequences of your positions, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring aforementioned consequences. In after mouthbreathing 17-year-old boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Seven Kingdoms is acting within its long established policy of allowing raiding of unaligned nations, and micros of 5 or less members. This policy is not the business of any other Alliance.

We do not acknowledge your so-called Doctrine of Solidarity as having any standing or legitimacy. If you wish to enforce it, you will have to make us recognise it. As it is, its a lump of text which means nothing for 2 reasons. 1) You have no legitimacy to ask anything of us. 2) You refuse to actually do anything to enforce this supposed policy of yours.

Before you call us cowards, have a look at yourself. You refuse to do anything more than ask us nicely to please stop following our own ethos. You fail to actually act in the way you have prescribed for yourself to act.

Go away and cry to mummy, but don't post such blatant nonsense. Your doctrine is drivel. Your diplomats are dunces. Your members are morons. All in all, I'm not too impressed with the Terran Commune as an Alliance just now.

Refusing to do anything to enforce it? We're just going by what the doctrine says:

... and shall be — at its discretion — availed of its military defense and diplomatic representation in the event they are attacked without provocation...

We haven't heard back from the nations involved yet, and so have no right to, as you say, infringe on their sovereignty by defending them without permission.

You call us morons and dunces, but you haven't actually read the doctrine that is making you so furious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you call us cowards, have a look at yourself.

We're not the ones who decided to try and wage a proxy war against your alliance.

"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you call us cowards, have a look at yourself.

We're not the ones who decided to try and wage a proxy war against your alliance.

"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

We're not saying that voilating the sovereignity of a nation is wrong. We're saying that this doctrine sets a dangerous precedent. SK has always had a raiding-policy and we will not allow another nation/alliance to stop us from carrying that out.

And rofl @ the "diplomacy"-part: What good diplomats you have, calling us cowards while conducting negotiations. :psyduck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

Oh for the love of God. Are you still harping with this phrase? It's quite catchy I'll admit but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You, of course, are a sovereign alliance. You can proclaim what ever doctrines you like. We are also sovereign, we can raid whoever we want. If you don't like who we're raiding, you're of course free to do whatever the hell you want to stop us, it's your sovereign right.

We're not violating your sovereignty or anyone else's.

(Well I suppose you could argue we're violating the sovereignty of the nations we're raiding. But to accept that definition of sovereignty would end all raiding, all wars and just be completely pointless. We're not infringing on their right to play the game at all. They can solicit help from whoever they want, they can attack back, they can engage in diplomatic relations with whoever they want, they can do every single thing that other nations in the game do. Our attacking them in no way stops that. They fact is, they chose to be in war mode. Getting raided is a possible consequence of that. If you didn't factor that into your calculations, well boo-********ing-hoo for you. They fail under our raiding policy and they're in war mode. They don't get exempted because of some unilateral pronouncement by a third party. Neither will any other nation.)

We aren't ceasing the raids. Nor will we in the future curtail our raids because of a laughable doctrine promulgated by you or anyone else. You can make as many threads crying about it as you want, that's not gonna change. Now either do something about it or carry on with you bawwing. I couldn't care less either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

Oh for the love of God. Are you still harping with this phrase? It's quite catchy I'll admit but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You, of course, are a sovereign alliance. You can proclaim what ever doctrines you like. We are also sovereign, we can raid whoever we want. If you don't like who we're raiding, you're of course free to do whatever the hell you want to stop us, it's your sovereign right.

We're not violating your sovereignty or anyone else's.

We aren't ceasing the raids. Nor will we in the future curtail our raids because of a laughable doctrine promulgated by you or anyone else. You can make as many threads crying about it as you want, that's not gonna change. Now either do something about it or carry on with you bawwing. I couldn't care less either way.

You still don't get it, do you? We're not claiming that you're violating our sovereginty. You're violating the sovereignty of a small alliance. That is, the alliance you're raiding.

We're not saying that voilating the sovereignity of a nation is wrong.

If you're not claiming that there is anything wrong with the violation of the sovereignty of an alliance, why so butthurt over our doctrine? I mean, you claim in violates your sovereginty, but when the table is flipped, all of a sudden you're not even claiming that this is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't violating their sovereignty...we're at war with them. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

Every time you click the declare war button are you violating someone's sovereignty?

Sovereignty means self-determination...the right to rule yourself. Not the freedom from attack. That is determined by your military might and political prowess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're not claiming that there is anything wrong with the violation of the sovereignty of an alliance, why so butthurt over our doctrine? I mean, you claim in violates your sovereginty, but when the table is flipped, all of a sudden you're not even claiming that this is wrong?

I think your confusing butthurt with don't give a tinker's damn about. :smug: We are raiding these nations because we don't recognize or care about a non-treaty claim of protection.

And I'm not sure you read my post. Your doctrine doesn't violate our sovereignty. It's an attempt to restrict the raiding pool, but that's cool, that's your right. It's equally our right to ignore it and tell you that we don't give a damn what you proclaim and to get stuffed if you approach us citing it.

I made this point last night, and I just made it in my post above. The fact that you've decided to ignore it, stick your fingers in your ears and go "Nah-nah-nah-nah" doesn't make it any less so.

Anyway, I've already told you all this multiple times, and quite frankly, I don't care what you think. You've said your piece, we've said ours. Enjoy your thread. We'll be enjoying our raids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

Oh for the love of God. Are you still harping with this phrase? It's quite catchy I'll admit but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You, of course, are a sovereign alliance. You can proclaim what ever doctrines you like. We are also sovereign, we can raid whoever we want. If you don't like who we're raiding, you're of course free to do whatever the hell you want to stop us, it's your sovereign right.

We're not violating your sovereignty or anyone else's.

We aren't ceasing the raids. Nor will we in the future curtail our raids because of a laughable doctrine promulgated by you or anyone else. You can make as many threads crying about it as you want, that's not gonna change. Now either do something about it or carry on with you bawwing. I couldn't care less either way.

You still don't get it, do you? We're not claiming that you're violating our sovereginty. You're violating the sovereignty of a small alliance. That is, the alliance you're raiding.

We're not saying that voilating the sovereignity of a nation is wrong.

If you're not claiming that there is anything wrong with the violation of the sovereignty of an alliance, why so butthurt over our doctrine? I mean, you claim in violates your sovereginty, but when the table is flipped, all of a sudden you're not even claiming that this is wrong?

We're "butthurt" over your doctrine because it means you want to infringe on our right as an alliance to raid whomever we want. We will not allow that to happen. For the members of SK, it's about what's best for SK and our allies. If that clashes with small nations, then so be it. It happens in the real world everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We aren't violating their sovereignty...we're at war with them. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

Every time you click the declare war button are you violating someone's sovereignty?

Sovereignty means self-determination...the right to rule yourself. Not the freedom from attack. That is determined by your military might and political prowess.

Being attacked has a way of greatly affecting ones rule over their nation.. just sayin'.

I think your confusing butthurt with don't give a tinker's damn about. We are raiding these nations because we don't recognize or care about a non-treaty claim of protection.

And I'm not sure you read my post. Your doctrine doesn't violate our sovereignty. It's an attempt to restrict the raiding pool, but that's cool, that's your right. It's equally our right to ignore it and tell you that we don't give a damn what you proclaim and to get stuffed if you approach us citing it.

I made this point last night, and I just made it in my post above. The fact that you've decided to ignore it, stick your fingers in your ears and go "Nah-nah-nah-nah" doesn't make it any less so.

Anyway, I've already told you all this multiple times, and quite frankly, I don't care what you think. You've said your piece, we've said ours. Enjoy your thread. We'll be enjoying our raids.

Fair enough. You've handled our doctrine the way you saw it fit. We will handle the remainder of this conflict that we see fit as well.

If that clashes with small nations, then so be it. It happens in the real world everyday

So you really don't give a damn about what is right and wrong, you're just looking out for yourself. Morally inconsistent, but understandable from a political point of view.

Just like the real world, sometimes attacking small nations can backfire.. we'll see how this goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Violating the sovereginty of an alliance is wrong. We have to prove that to them by... well.. violating the sovereginty of an alliance!"

Oh for the love of God. Are you still harping with this phrase? It's quite catchy I'll admit but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You, of course, are a sovereign alliance. You can proclaim what ever doctrines you like. We are also sovereign, we can raid whoever we want. If you don't like who we're raiding, you're of course free to do whatever the hell you want to stop us, it's your sovereign right.

We're not violating your sovereignty or anyone else's.

We aren't ceasing the raids. Nor will we in the future curtail our raids because of a laughable doctrine promulgated by you or anyone else. You can make as many threads crying about it as you want, that's not gonna change. Now either do something about it or carry on with you bawwing. I couldn't care less either way.

You still don't get it, do you? We're not claiming that you're violating our sovereginty. You're violating the sovereignty of a small alliance. That is, the alliance you're raiding.

We're not saying that voilating the sovereignity of a nation is wrong.

If you're not claiming that there is anything wrong with the violation of the sovereignty of an alliance, why so butthurt over our doctrine? I mean, you claim in violates your sovereginty, but when the table is flipped, all of a sudden you're not even claiming that this is wrong?

We're "butthurt" over your doctrine because it means you want to infringe on our right as an alliance to raid whomever we want. We will not allow that to happen. For the members of SK, it's about what's best for SK and our allies. If that clashes with small nations, then so be it. It happens in the real world everyday.

If this doctrine is infringing on the right of your alliance to raid whoever you want, then the existence of every alliance in the game that isn't yours is also doing the same thing. We're not saying you can't raid them, just that we'll be there to back them up if and when you do. Which is what every alliance says to you simply by existing. I expect you'll be quite overstretched if you intend to raid each and every alliance on PT that will attack you for raiding one of it's members. We are simply extending our alliance affiliation protection to leftist nations who haven't started the fighting, who request our help in ending it. There is a huge loophole you could exploit if you wish to raid - pick a target that isn't Supreme Comrade Stalin of Soviet Russialand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only a small fraction of leftist nations ingame, why not raid someone who isn't leftist? Is that too much to ask?

It seems like you're doing it just as a '******** you' to us, for no real reason, seeing as how you were not raiding leftist nations before.

You had no intentions of doing it untill we said that we were offering aid to leftist nations/micro alliances, and that's very petty of you.

To avoid the giant dick wagging contest that went on in the other thread, I'll bow out unless our chatarcter is called into question again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Seven Kingdoms is acting within its long established policy of allowing raiding of unaligned nations, and micros of 5 or less members. This policy is not the business of any other Alliance.

We do not acknowledge your so-called Doctrine of Solidarity as having any standing or legitimacy. If you wish to enforce it, you will have to make us recognise it. As it is, its a lump of text which means nothing for 2 reasons. 1) You have no legitimacy to ask anything of us. 2) You refuse to actually do anything to enforce this supposed policy of yours.

Before you call us cowards, have a look at yourself. You refuse to do anything more than ask us nicely to please stop following our own ethos. You fail to actually act in the way you have prescribed for yourself to act.

Go away and cry to mummy, but don't post such blatant nonsense. Your doctrine is drivel. Your diplomats are dunces. Your members are morons. All in all, I'm not too impressed with the Terran Commune as an Alliance just now.

lol such a simplistic creature

I guess your retardation makes you incapable of grasping basic notions of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Sweet Bro from Sweet Bro and Hella Jeff very loosely,

I warned you about alliances bro!!!! I told you dog! It keeps happening I told you I TOLD you about alliances!

And now in a more serious fashion, I knew this would lead to conflict. I knew it. Thank god I'm in peace mode. Now if you don't mind /popcorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well. The next announcement, if not already obvious, will be one of war. The odds are of course in your favour, otherwise you wouldn't be waving your dicks around the cowards you are. A suicidal act, yes, but unlike some who act only when sure of having larger numbers, I guess we will enjoy this.

We won't abandon our comrades to the wolves. We'll just let the wolves eat us too. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well. The next announcement, if not already obvious, will be one of war. The odds are of course in your favour, otherwise you wouldn't be waving your dicks around the cowards you are. A suicidal act, yes, but unlike some who act only when sure of having larger numbers, I guess we will enjoy this.

We won't abandon our comrades to the wolves. We'll just let the wolves eat us too. Cheers.

You guys stand a chance if no one else is dragged into this war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well. The next announcement, if not already obvious, will be one of war. The odds are of course in your favour, otherwise you wouldn't be waving your dicks around the cowards you are. A suicidal act, yes, but unlike some who act only when sure of having larger numbers, I guess we will enjoy this.

We won't abandon our comrades to the wolves. We'll just let the wolves eat us too. Cheers.

You guys stand a chance if no one else is dragged into this war.

If there even is a war, that is. We will continue to seek the diplomatic road for abit longer.

That being said, if it were to come to blows, I would imagine that SK would be respectable enough to keep it a clean 1v1 war. Especially after the 'lol come at us and stop ********in' routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, if it were to come to blows, I would imagine that SK would be respectable enough to keep it a clean 1v1 war. Especially after the 'lol come at us and stop ********in' routine.

Lol. You put respectable and SK in the same sentence. :detective:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0