Also, you want a plan B, C and D to get you started. Don't put all your money on one horse, even if you know it's the best horse.

"But you don't get to choose whether another country is rational. Only your own"

Influence is caused by power, money, connections, favours. You have greater influence at home in some cases, but in others no. How do you choose whether your country is rational? You only have a degree of control over it's citizens who elected you. The whole point would be defunct if there is any sort of blurring of borders (for example some people now have a say in whether *Europe* is rational). Extend that to a world government, and now you only have minor uprisings to deal with. If Europe can be peaceful (although it expands, it is peaceful), then I am confident that peace is not a myth.

@ Synapse

Out of interest what do you think my agenda actually is?

I think you're a patriot

Good God, you make conversation hard work :p. I take it from that non answer that despite attacking my agenda you have no idea what it is or if it even exists?

It's a non answer to a non question. What's your "agenda"? I don't know, having kids while earning some money, playing webdip, making sculptures? What sort of question are you asking?

"I guess the question you need to ask is whether Octavious, deep down, only wishes to pursue his agenda because of the current state of the world, and whether deep down he really wants a peaceful world? Because I kinda don't think he does."

Synapse 15th May 2014

That is a potentially interesting comment, but can only be taken as something other than absolute garbage if you have an opinion as to what my agenda actually is. Hence the question "what do you think my agenda actually is?".

@Octavious: From what SYnapse said, my guess would be that SYnapse somehow thinks that you support American dominance, but if that's even close to what SYnapse thinks, he is probably wrong on so many levels.

If that's not it, SYnapse should probably start making sense again soon.

Your agenda in that sentence meaning, your understanding of realistic politics, national interests, maintaining a defensive budget and not trusting neighbouring nations kind of mentality. I understand how you can justify that by saying "if we are not vigilant our enemies will overcome us" but you can't fail to see that the problem is a tragedy of the commons. If we do not betray our neighbours and they adopt a similar mentality we do not need a defensive budget at all. But it's very difficult to get this across to someone who plays Diplomacy after all...

Okay: If you are trying to "win" the game of Diplomacy, it makes sense to stab and not trust your allies. But if your intention is to save lives, make stable profits, explore space and also not to be destroyed by your allies? The best strategy is to click draw at the start of the game. That is what I am proposing. The only reason nations don't do this is because they have imperialist agenda wishing to expand.

OK - gotta get this off my chest. Valk was replaced on Day 2....Day 1 there was only a dingle kill. valk was replaced for inactivity...very probable he fucked up Night 1...

...and PE is the SK.

Im' at work at my desk, busy, won't be able to particiapte much today. But has to say that. rip it apart and I;ll be back later.

Woops...wrong thread. lol

@ SYnapse

On a similar line of argument, if nobody ever committed theft their would be no need for locks or alarms. I trust you stick to your principles and have neither?

Shitty analogy. I don't go around stealing people's stuff in case they steal mine. Or threatening to steal their stuff so they don't steal mine.

In fact I'm all in favour of locks and alarms. Anti missile systems are all good for security. But missile systems aren't. That's like buying lockpicks to deter thieves if you're so insistant on that metaphor.

@ SYnapse

You do know that almost all anti missle systems are also missle systems, yes?

Ok, lets stick to your Diplomacy analogy. You click draw at the start of the game. A couple of other players don't. What do you do? Because from what I read your plan is to essentially NMR until the other chaps win.

I do follow your point, SYnapse. If everyone was like you there would be no war. If everyone was like me there would also be no war. But (and thank God for small mercies) no amount of wishing from our many fans will lead to a world where that is the case. The world contains a small number of people who will do vile things just for the sake of it. The world also contains a somewhat larger number of people who will do things that benefit themselves without worrying too much about the people who are on the sharp end of the actions.

And that is the problem. That is what makes your vision of non intervention such a sick and disgusting one. In a world where people are willing to act, where people are prepared to take up arms and go to the grim business of soldiering, war isn't worth the cost. If Germany or Russia today was to consider invading Belguim it would know the costs of such an enterprise would vastly outweigh any possible gain. Why? Because Belguim's allies are willing to act. That, more than anything else, is why most of the potential wars of the modern age simply do not happen.

You, and those like you, would take the threat of wider military consequences off the balance sheet. You, and the people like you, would help to make war profitable. Death, injury, rape, injustice, and all the evils of war become profitable because of people like you. It is vile, it is disgusting, it turns the stomach, and that is why I will fight against your wretched vision with the same gusto as I would have fought the Kaiser when he invaded Belguim

Octa - nice. Bullies *love* pacifists: they ensures the bully will always have lunch money waiting for them.

"You click draw at the start of the game. A couple of other players don't. What do you do?"

You agree not to steal people's stuff, but they decide to steal yours. What do you do?
You certainly don’t go burgle their house to stop them burgling your neighbours…

Now I myself am getting confused with these analogies, so let's bring the conversation back down to earth.

There is no such thing as true security, I'm sure we agree. Just as a neighbouring nation can declare war at any time, so you could equally get a sick guy bombing buildings in a peaceful nation. You're far more likely to die crossing the road than to get nuked by a Russian, yet you're all for spending vast swathes of money on defence (/offence) and little on traffic management.

There are some questions you need to ask yourself. What is the price of safety? Should we imprison our citizens in their homes if it makes them safer? Well, what is the price of domestic security for example? What if we live under tyranny to prevent a terrorist being able to kill a few people?

Secondly, what is the price to pay for non-intervention? Certainly in WWII the price was high in the face of an empire that had an evil agenda. WWI – I’m not convinced that even if Germany took over Britain completely, life would change very much for the majority of people. They would simply switch from one imperium to another. So what are you fighting for? A flag or culture? Well I think that’s just stupid as they represent nothing at the end of the day.

Then you have the doctrine of sovereignty. But really the only legitimate way to intervene for human rights etc. is to do it through international “Objective” bodies. So I do believe in a kind of world policing force, rather than national supremacical forces.

Ironically, while SYnapse doesn't want to wage war, I'm fairly certain he has no problem with the government confiscating your wealth under the threat of violence to give to those who can work but refuse to. He has no problem with the government telling you how to live your life, how businesses should conduct themselves, etc all under the threat of violence.

But take up arms to defend your nation? THAT is off the table…

/\ Typical idiot Libtardism hypocrisy at it's finest.

Gtfo Krellin you're not even speaking sense. What has this welfare thing got to do with what we're discussing? Make your own thread if you want to talk your own nonsense.

I don't know if I completely agree with SYnapse here, but we should note:

World War I was primarily two mostly-representative-at-home empires and a monarchical empire fighting a different mostly-representative-at-home empire and a monarchical empire. For most of the people under their banners, life was not demonstrably better in the Central Powers side than it was under the Allies. In fact, given that the Allies had a larger proportion of imperial subjects than did the Central Powers, the average person being dropped randomly onto one side or the other would be best to pick the Central Powers.

In other words, there's no "good guy" side to World War I. It was just another fight for imperial power, perhaps best demonstrated by France and England dividing up Central Power imperial possessions under a fig leaf League mandate. Most especially screw Belgium; given how terrible they were in their brief but loathsome imperial reign, the Kaiser would have been justified cutting off the hands and then exiling everyone working for the Belgian government. No war to defend those butchers would be just.

World War II was a little different, but we should remember that the majority of civilians who were ostensibly the objects of protection by the Allies ended up under totalitarian dictatorships within a few years of the end of the war, immediately in the case of Eastern Europe and off-and-on in East Asia but by 1950 for a majority of the population. Living in Poland under Soviet control was almost certainly better for most people than living in Poland under the Nazis, but we're comparing degrees of quality, not of kind. For the (surviving) Japanese and Taiwanese and South Koreans and such things are definitely better (so far!) than they would have been under a Japanese empire, but I'm not so sure that a majority of people - the North Korean and Vietnamese and many Chinese - who would been imperial Japanese subjects got the better end of the deal.

So, while everyone points to World War II as "the good war," it was good because the worst likely outcome didn't happen. We just got the fourth or fifth worst likely outcome.

?SYnapse, welfare has *everything* to do with your thread, because WELFARE = GOVERNMENT SPONSORED THEFT of a man's labor. When you take my labor and steal it from me for another man's benefit...and the governemnt does this under the threat of violence (IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES, YOU ARE THREATENED WITH IMPRISNOMENT AND THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR LIFE)...then you are committing vioence against me.

Just because it isn't death doesn't mean it isn't violence.

So you are an advocate fo government sponsored violence - in this case to give comfort to those that are parasites upon society. But if a man wants to take up arms and defend the country from those that would literally seek to kill you, you find this somehow offensive.

Asshole.

It has *everything* to do with the discussion, but you refuse to see it because it hurts your arguement.

Have a little integrtiy, hypocrite.

come on Synner - please explain your *selective indignation* over government violence? Why is violence against a government's own citizens acceptable, while government violence against other's so bad?

Krellin, I honestly sincerely don't understand what you just wrote mate. Try taking deep breaths.

Now, we are talking about World War I in this thread. Would you like to contribute?