Comments concerning Raider/Defender Poll

Being neutral is not the same as being an inactive defender military. Sorry. One can hold tight to their neutrality by doing what is in the region's best interest without picking a side. I know you don't like this concept very much, but that's because you find one side morally wrong. Please don't hate me for this comparison, but arguing with you that raiding is acceptable is sometimes like arguing with a military pro-lifer. That's why, in this post, I will not be addressing you.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, I'm arguing a defender army is more inline with TNP's interests then an arbitrary raider army and your....

Stick as one, and do what is best for The North Pacific. Personally I'd suggest doing Abbey/Bel-like raids, and then helping for liberations against big griefs. That way, you really are holding neutral, and you're not harming anyone. Also, you can do stronger raids against targets that NPA finds morally distasteful (Nazi regions, hate, etc.), and work with other allies there. That way you're really getting an active military, but without actually harming anyone, and helping against unfair harm.
Click to expand...

... arguing the army would be better off doing arbitrary tag-raiding plus liberation support.

I find the army is not thinking about the interests of the region when it arbitrarily tag-raids. By arbitrarily tag-raiding, your pissing off people in regions who might have considerable influence and talent -- before you even meet them; that burns bridges down with a cost to the region. Furthermore, you're associating The North Pacific with being a nuisance, basically. It's overall bad diplomacy and I think the North Pacific needs to shake off this notion that being neutral has really helped us, it hasn't helped any feeder, let alone the North Pacific.

Furthermore, I'm arguing for a defender army because it's historically the strongest version of both the NPA and the West Pacific armies -- and when the Rejected Realms was active, the RRA was also a strong and respected defender army. It doesn't make any sense to me why one would argue out of "interests" for a weaker army with a divided vision. I don't need to not be a "moral defender", to be able to form a coherent argument from TNP's interests about why it should return to its defender roots -- you suggesting otherwise is insulting. Frankly, I think it's you who is following an ideology instead of interest, but that ideology is a "neutral" one (neutral for the sake of the neutral), not one grounded in reasonable observations of what will benefit the North Pacific the most.

I do agree with Funk (??) who said the Regional Assembly probably wants the region to remain neutral, but the latest poll suggests the region shouldn't be committing aggressor missions arbitrarily either. I do think there is some problems with the term "neutral", because it seems to mean a different definition to everyone (independent, neutral, centrist blah blah blah). That doesn't mean that a concerned citizen can't argue that the region should consider going defender, even though a majority currently wants neutrality -- I'm not suggesting any sort of circumvention of the RA, I'm simply trying to convince and change minds.

Basically, you want the NPA defender or dead? The only way you'll pick experience up (which is required to train new people - remember) is through people who have largely retired, and will probably still have allegiences to their old regions, and are likely to be dragging in their own agenda anyway... in a sense, it's natural that it is done to a point. But a lot of people do actually have the ability to put aside other commitments and links to do what is in the best interests of TNP when acting as a TNP citizen or NPA member. For example, I've put WA on my TNP nation on a couple of occasions, despite this stopping me from raiding.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think anyone has a choice in the matter, actually. :P

I'm arguing a "neutral" army is a failed idea, that continually fails with inactivity and lack of interest (defender armies go inactive too, but neutral armies hardly seem to even have any extensive periods of activity at all) and that's one of the reasons why I think we should consider defenderism.

Why should the NPA get involved where it doesn't need its hands?
Click to expand...

Because it keeps the NPA active and well trained. But between actively raiding and defending, defending is better diplomatically and will bring less collateral damage to the North Pacific.
 
unibot:
defending is better diplomatically and will bring less collateral damage to the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Yes, because at no point in history has a raider region ever declared war on a defender region. It just never happens. Never.

NEVER.
 
Blue Wolf II:
unibot:
defending is better diplomatically and will bring less collateral damage to the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Yes, because at no point in history has a raider region ever declared war on a defender region. It just never happens. Never.

NEVER.
Click to expand...
And how many of his wars has Onder successfully prosecuted?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Onder? What about NPO, Gatesville, and the like?
Click to expand...
And does the North Pacific still stand?

We can overcome invasions by groups like the NPO or Gatesville, in many cases these attacks and posturing only made the North Pacific stronger. If you're implying the NPA slowed down because TNP was being threatened by certain anti-defender groups, then I say we withdrew our army out of terror and terror hasn't done anyone much good.

What I don't think we can overcome is becoming an interregional pariah-region by tag-raiding and losing the general population of NS's support. The tribulations however to overcome are different in either situation; in the former, it's a specific threat with a face that we can fight, in the latter, the threat is ourselves and the victim is largely ourselves.
 
One could also easily argue that TNP will still stand if we allow the NPA to raid freely to, but with the bullshit you've been spouting off, Unibot, you wouldn't know it.

I find it hypocritical when you say that choosing one side over the other (or allowing both) will instantly make us stronger or weaker when both sides basically carry the same risks of pissing someone out there off.

Unibot:
The tribulations however to overcome are different in either situation; in the former, it's a specific threat with a face that we can fight, in the latter, the threat is ourselves
Click to expand...

Heh, allowing raiding in the NPA would make TNP a threat to ourselves, or a threat to you? Once again, its fairly obvious that your interests are self serving here Unibot. You don't want to allow NPA to raid because you don't want the NPA to ever be a "threat" to the UDL. You'd rather they be totally Defender, so UDL can use them as an asset for their own missions, or be totally ineffective, so they will pose no "threat" to the UDL.

Dress it up however you like, Uni, your disguise remains paper-thin.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Heh, allowing raiding in the NPA would make TNP a threat to ourselves, or a threat to you? Once again, its fairly obvious that your interests are self serving here Unibot. You don't want to allow NPA to raid because you don't want the NPA to ever be a "threat" to the UDL. You'd rather they be totally Defender, so UDL can use them as an asset for their own missions, or be totally ineffective, so they will pose no "threat" to the UDL.

Dress it up however you like, Uni, your disguise remains paper-thin.
Click to expand...
I think the NPA, neutral, will be ineffective either way (I don't see a long list of successful neutral armies.. I don't even see a short list) and between raider and defender, being defender is more diplomatically wise.

I'm not dressing up my argument or hiding any sort of partisan motivation, at this point, I'm starting to lose interest. I don't think members are convinced their plans for a "neutral" army will end up like every other neutral army, they seem to think the NPA is *special* and some how will be able to magically buck an overly negative trend. This is a political lie that people tell themselves over and over again in almost every region that goes neutral out of expedience; to end a heated political debate between raider and defender supporters, 'neutrality' descends from the heavens to them like a savior proposition but it has just one small hitch: it doesn't work.

And I don't think I can convince any more people that it is diplomatically unwise to attack regions arbitrarily. Those who get it, will get it. Those who don't, won't ever.

So ultimately, why the frigger should I continue to bother, I'm just trying to say my argument and hope people listen and not treat it as just the words of a partisan defender hiding some corrupt scheme. I guess at this point I can just say I told you so in a years time. Whatever.

Dramatic emoticon: :cry:
 
If anything, the number one obstacle for TNP being able to pull off a neutral military successfully are the people who are declaring "this will never work!" right out of the gate, before it even gets a chance to start. It's a self-defeatist attitude.

Things were actually working quite well before a certain someone demanded that NPA have a set of rules that, originally, would have forced the NPA, against its will, to be Defender or die.
 
unibot:
I'm not dressing up my argument or hiding any sort of partisan motivation, at this point, I'm starting to lose interest. I don't think members are convinced their plans for a "neutral" army will end up like every other neutral army, they seem to think the NPA is *special* and some how will be able to magically buck an overly negative trend. This is a political lie that people tell themselves over and over again in almost every region that goes neutral out of expedience; to end a heated political debate between raider and defender supporters, 'neutrality' descends from the heavens to them like a savior proposition but it has just one small hitch: it doesn't work.

And I don't think I can convince any more people that it is diplomatically unwise to attack regions arbitrarily. Those who get it, will get it. Those who don't, won't ever.

So ultimately, why the frigger should I continue to bother, I'm just trying to say my argument and hope people listen and not treat it as just the words of a partisan defender hiding some corrupt scheme. I guess at this point I can just say I told you so in a years time. Whatever.

Dramatic emoticon: :cry:
Click to expand...
Sounds like it's almost time for you to move on to another feeder and try this thing all over again. Not that you have any sort of partisan motivation behind it, of course.

:hello:
 
Haor Chall:
Sounds like it's almost time for you to move on to another feeder and try this thing all over again. Not that you have any sort of partisan motivation behind it, of course.

:hello:
Click to expand...
Be fair. Unibot's been here for two and two thirds years.
 
I completely agree with Blue Wolf..and won't waste my time arguing with Unibot. It was already made clear in our debates off the forum that he and I will never agree on this issue, and that he will continue to shut down any idea of being neutral before it even exists.
 
I do agree with Unibot in one respect: I don't think TNP should tag-raid arbitrary regions because I don't think that's in line with a neutral military policy, i.e. a military policy that advances TNP's interests. What perplexes me is that Unibot doesn't seem to understand that defending arbitrary regions isn't in line with a neutral military policy either. Both are arbitrary, meaning that they're just random raiding or defending without any consideration of TNP's interests. And both will most definitely make enemies, as well as allies.

I agree with Earth that TNP as a community needs to flesh out what its interests actually are before it can decide how it wants to pursue raiding and defending. Is TNP's status as a democratic region something that is important to the identity of TNP? I certainly believe that's the case and, if so, TNP may want to pursue raiding Nazi, fascist, and other totalitarian regions, while defending fellow democratic regions. That's just one example. My point is that a fleshed out discussion of TNP's interests will pave the way for neutral military action, and there will be plenty of opportunities for such action without the need for either arbitrary raiding or arbitrary defending.
 
Cormac Stark:
I do agree with Unibot in one respect: I don't think TNP should tag-raid arbitrary regions because I don't think that's in line with a neutral military policy, i.e. a military policy that advances TNP's interests. What perplexes me is that Unibot doesn't seem to understand that defending arbitrary regions isn't in line with a neutral military policy either. Both are arbitrary, meaning that they're just random raiding or defending without any consideration of TNP's interests. And both will most definitely make enemies, as well as allies.

I agree with Earth that TNP as a community needs to flesh out what its interests actually are before it can decide how it wants to pursue raiding and defending. Is TNP's status as a democratic region something that is important to the identity of TNP? I certainly believe that's the case and, if so, TNP may want to pursue raiding Nazi, fascist, and other totalitarian regions, while defending fellow democratic regions. That's just one example. My point is that a fleshed out discussion of TNP's interests will pave the way for neutral military action, and there will be plenty of opportunities for such action without the need for either arbitrary raiding or arbitrary defending.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
You know, since KiwiTaicho has accused me of 'lying to the RA' about my intent of writing up a bill concerning whether this region is going to be all raider or all defender, I have decided to call Kiwi's bluff, show that Kiwi is blowing hot air and I will do exactly as advertised in relation to the poll and thus prove Kiwi to be a whining little child who is just out to make a name for himself.
Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top