+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Discussion] War with the NPO (/showthread.php?tid=484)
RE: War with the NPO - Cormac - 12-04-2018
I've already made my opinion well known on Discord and on this forum, so I'm not going to post a new wall of text about it -- not that anyone else shouldn't have, because all of these posts have been very articulate and have furthered the discussion. I appreciate all of you for putting the effort into them.
What I will do is repost what I've already posted on this forum (here), because not everyone may have seen it, and it sums up my position well:
Quote:I think we should do one of two things:
1) We should lodge a formal diplomatic protest, as New Rogernomics has said is in the works, but it should include clear demands from the NPO similar in nature to Osiris' demands here (though not necessarily similar in detail - we should decide our own demands). In that statement, it should be made clear that if the NPO doesn't meet said demands, the Delegate will request from the Assembly a declaration of war. And then if the NPO doesn't meet our demands, we should declare war.
2) We should just skip all that and declare war, because they're not going to meet our demands.
Under no circumstances should we simply not declare war. Lazarus is the most wronged party here. The NPO has attacked us three times:
1. Once, during the NLO coup;
2. Twice, with Task Force Lazarus, which deliberately provoked a civil war;
3. Three times, with Feux posing as Adytus, trying to seize Lazarus' Delegacy, no doubt for NLO 2.0.
Lazarus simply can't tolerate this. Lazarus has to stop just taking this stuff and being kicked around. Lazarus has to recognize that the NPO is at war with us and has been at war with us for years, and we have to respond by acknowledging their war and declaring war ourselves. Other regions are going to be looking to see how we respond, because we're the most aggrieved party. We have to stand up for ourselves instead of expecting others to stand up for us. We have to stop talking about recovering and decide to be recovered. We have to tell the NPO and anyone else who would bully Lazarus again in the future that we're not going to take it anymore. In the process, we will gain the respect of former allies looking to see what we're made of, as well as the respect of new friends. If we stand up, others will stand with us. So let's stand up and fight for this region, because it's about damn time somebody fights for it.
I remain strongly supportive of war, as the only option for Lazarus that is dignified and would send a clear message that we are standing up for ourselves, and we are not going to tolerate this treatment from the NPO or anyone else in the future. I think it's a message that Lazarus badly needs to send. I think if we don't communicate this message loudly and clearly now, there will be more like Task Force Lazarus, by the NPO and by others, in the future. We need to draw a line.
RE: War with the NPO - Imaginary - 12-04-2018
I'm going to recuse myself from the vote because I'm very biased on this issue, for reasons that I don't think are entirely motivated by wanting the best for Lazarus.
I'll 100% support the decision made by the rest of you. If we go to war with the NPO, I will do what I can to make the order fall. If we opt for peace, I will accept that. Either way, I will never trust the NPO again.
-
Note to Galiantus: Lazarus has no allies at this time. I understand that it might be cool and nice and being a good friend to be in solidarity in this war with other regions, but we have no foreign commitments or duties that demand we take action.
RE: War with the NPO - Domais - 12-04-2018
Go to war! There is an Anti-Pacifican Discord server 20 - 50 people in it, they are from different orgs. If Laz. Doesn't have allies right now it will if we go to war. I say yes.
RE: War with the NPO - Arlo - 12-04-2018
I'm curious really -- what do people think a state of war will achieve?
In all likelihood we will be creating a military for a war that never really eventuates. It's a lot of work to do nothing.
We can send a strong message without wasting our time by proscribing the Order.
RE: War with the NPO - Cormac - 12-05-2018
Arlo;4761 Wrote:I'm curious really -- what do people think a state of war will achieve?
In all likelihood we will be creating a military for a war that never really eventuates. It's a lot of work to do nothing.
We can send a strong message without wasting our time by proscribing the Order.
We need some kind of a military anyway. This has been discussed at length. Regions aren't going to agree to mutual defense treaties with us when those will in reality be one-sided. No one is going to be interested in defending Lazarus when Lazarus can't repay the favor, and isn't interested in doing anything to make sure it can repay the favor. Alliances aren't charity. They're give-and-take. And that doesn't make them a "business transaction" either, as you've implied. It just makes sense that if regions are giving something to an ally, they're wanting something in return. That's what makes it an alliance and a friendship, rather than a parasitic relationship in which Lazarus receives protection and the other region receives nothing in return. We shouldn't be looking for treaties that make Lazarus a protectorate of other regions, both because most regions aren't going to agree to that, and also because how undignified is that for Lazarus? So we need a military either way. It can be a neutral military, heavily restricted in its operations, but we do need one. So "we'll have to build a military" isn't a good argument against war. We're going to need to build one regardless. This idea of a Lazarus that has no military, but does have treaty allies, is ludicrous. We can't have just one or the other. We can either have a military and treaty allies, or no military and no treaty allies. That's reality.
I also want to ask the anti-war folks something here: What do you think the difference is between a proscription and a declaration of war? Do you imagine that the NPO is not going to interpret termination of relations and proscription of the NPO as being just as hostile as a declaration of war? The course of action you're suggesting, proscription with no war, is essentially a suggestion that Lazarus should provoke the NPO to war against us, but should not declare war in return. The NPO is going to treat Lazarus as a hostile region if we proscribe them. They have treated Lazarus as a hostile region for many years now, even during times of peace and ostensible good relations. So there's no question they're going to treat Lazarus as a hostile region if they're proscribed here. The question before this Assembly is whether we are going to passively sit back while the NPO continues its years-long war against Lazarus, or whether we are going to fully recognize that this state of war exists and is going to continue to exist, and make a declaration to that effect. We're not going to be at peace with a proscription. We're just going to be at war without acknowledging it, and without the heightened vigilance that accompanies a state of war. A proscription without a declaration of war is not just every bit as dangerous as a war declaration, it's more dangerous. It invites the NPO's hostility without committing us to a vigilant war effort.
RE: War with the NPO - Arlo - 12-05-2018
I still disagree. I've explained why I find that reasoning for having a military unconvincing. Why do we need mutual defence treaties? Interregional intervention does not end coups. These treaties honestly just provide a false sense of security.
It's not about how the NPO perceives us, it's about how much attention we want to give them. Your war gives them attention and relevance. I'd prefer to isolate them than continually engage with them.
It's also about practical consequences. Proscription allows us to make a strong statement and take action to protect ourselves. War won't achieve anything more than that, because you are not going to destroy the NPO -- not through military gameplay anyway. I think it's silly to join the chorus of people wasting their time yelling at the wind.
I really don't understand this idea that proscription is more dangerous than war, because it's just not. You said yourself -- the NPO will likely see them as the same action anyway. I disagree that declaring war will somehow make us more vigilant. What you're saying sounds good on paper but none of it translates into reality well.
It's about how we want to spend our time. I think we should spend it here, at home, making this community more active and interesting. Not on a wasteful war effort.
Also, just want to restate that we made demands and the Pacific appears to have met them. On what basis would we declare war and how would we reconcile such a declaration with our earlier demands?
RE: War with the NPO - Cormac - 12-06-2018
Arlo;4771 Wrote:I still disagree. I've explained why I find that reasoning for having a military unconvincing. Why do we need mutual defence treaties? Interregional intervention does not end coups. These treaties honestly just provide a false sense of security.
This just isn't the case. It's true that interregional intervention sometimes doesn't end coups, but I personally participated in the interregional intervention that helped end Milograd's coup of the South Pacific in 2013. Interregional intervention could possibly have ended the 2013 coup of Osiris or the 2015 NLO coup of Lazarus, given time. We can't know for sure, obviously, but in both cases it looked promising had the resistance movements kept at it (and neither of those resistance movements had fizzled as quickly as some have, so there's no reason to automatically believe they wouldn't have kept at it). There have been examples other than these earlier in NationStates history.
Now, it's true we shouldn't depend solely on mutual defense treaties. We need to have internal security measures as well. But mutual defense treaties are important weapons in the arsenal against coups, and it would be silly to just surrender those weapons for no reason, just because they haven't always been useful. Maybe they will prove useful next time they're needed, should there be a next time (though hopefully there won't be).
Arlo;4771 Wrote:It's not about how the NPO perceives us, it's about how much attention we want to give them. Your war gives them attention and relevance. I'd prefer to isolate them than continually engage with them.
Just isolating them with diplomatic sanctions has never worked long-term in the past. Why do you believe it would work now?
Arlo;4771 Wrote:It's also about practical consequences. Proscription allows us to make a strong statement and take action to protect ourselves. War won't achieve anything more than that, because you are not going to destroy the NPO -- not through military gameplay anyway. I think it's silly to join the chorus of people wasting their time yelling at the wind.
I really don't understand this idea that proscription is more dangerous than war, because it's just not. You said yourself -- the NPO will likely see them as the same action anyway. I disagree that declaring war will somehow make us more vigilant. What you're saying sounds good on paper but none of it translates into reality well.
You're presenting this as an either/or decision. Of course you're right that we should proscribe them, but we should go further than that. The idea that we shouldn't respond to what is probably the worst act of aggression committed by anyone in the history of this game because it's a waste of time is just a silly argument. This is a game; the entire thing is a waste of time. I also reject the defeatist attitude that the NPO can't be defeated. It's certainly not going to happen in an update operation, but if we keep the pressure on, keep chipping away at their WA population with recruitment and propaganda, keep frustrating their leadership and its agenda, etc., etc., there is a better chance of the NPO falling than if we simply do nothing. I don't understand this mentality that the NPO can't fall because of its longevity. It's not invincible. At the end of the day, it's just a GCR government like any other, and no GCR government is invincible. No GCR government is impervious to defeat.
Arlo;4771 Wrote:It's about how we want to spend our time. I think we should spend it here, at home, making this community more active and interesting. Not on a wasteful war effort.
People say that a lot, that we should spend our time here making this community more active and interesting. And yet how much of that has been happening? Prior to talk of this war, the community was pretty quiet. There wasn't much going on. This whole situation has generated interest and excitement, and more activity than we've had since right after the constitutional convention. I don't believe we should do this on activity grounds alone, but the idea that we would be better served spending time on ambiguous "community development" stuff that no one has actually been doing much of seems pretty dubious to me. Are we actually going to do that, or after we decide not to declare war is everyone just going to go back to being quiet and spending more time elsewhere than they spend in Lazarus? At least this war has brought people's attention back to Lazarus and back to this community. I'm skeptical that we're all going to spend time on whatever it is you're saying it should be spent on. If we weren't before, why will we after this?
Arlo;4771 Wrote:Also, just want to restate that we made demands and the Pacific appears to have met them. On what basis would we declare war and how would we reconcile such a declaration with our earlier demands?
On the basis that they can't be trusted to actually keep the terms we requested. Everything they've done thus far is in no way new or innovative; the Emperor stepped down after the NLO, the Regent was removed from office after the NLO, Senators were dismissed and people were banned after the NLO. Many of those people were quietly reinstated later, even after carrying out further subversive activities here in Lazarus. The NPO simply cannot be trusted to keep any terms, so there's no reason we should accept them. If we do, we'll just end up right back where we started, with the NPO screwing around in Lazarus again. Maybe next time they'll be successful and finally get their permanent puppet regime here.
RE: War with the NPO - Arlo - 12-06-2018
Why did we set terms then, if the response wasn't going to have any effect on our position?
Doesn't seem right to me.
RE: War with the NPO - Cormac - 12-06-2018
Arlo;4776 Wrote:Why did we set terms then, if the response wasn't going to have any effect on our position?
Doesn't seem right to me.
I don't think setting terms was wise, in hindsight. The NPO could never be trusted, so we could never really have any confidence the terms would be kept.
I don't think making a mistake by initially setting terms should prevent us from doing what's best for Lazarus now though. We shouldn't be hindered because declaring war after they met our terms might make us look bad to the NPO or their apologists in the South Pacific and elsewhere. At the end of the day, who cares what those people think about what we do? They are, at best, ambivalent about Lazarus' community and its security, and at worst they are our enemies. If they don't like that we declare war despite our terms ostensibly being met, why should we care? I don't care what the NPO or Glen-Rhodes or Tim think about it. Neither should anyone else. This decision should be made solely on the basis of what's best for Lazarus, not any image or PR considerations.
RE: War with the NPO - DaddyStalin - 12-07-2018
I do believe that setting terms was described more as a delay tactic to organize with other regions before potentially declaring war, but that's just me.
I will fully support war for all the aforementioned reasons Cormac provided. Even the lenient terms presented were dodged through loopholes or outright ignored.