Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
We do have consistancy. 2 reasons, the Hive declared on us, it wasn't our decision; and we the Hive disagrees with us on our main point (democracy) whereas Morgan doesn't. In fact, Morgan is using Democracy. Why would we have a problem with him? We can preach peace with Morgan and War with Yang, because Yang is th only one we have an ideological problem with, and he started on us, and won't declare truce. If Morgan attacks us and won't truce, then let's defend ourselves (by removing him if necessary), but otherwise it is not the same. There is no comparison, if we do this with one we must do this with another.

We are not on high horses, we just don't want war. Realpolitik is fine, I don't want Blitzreig however.

The fact that the Hive declared war on us is irrelevant to our claims that we must go in and liberate the Hiverian people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t invade, in fact it would be prudent to do so. Rather that we shouldn’t be claiming that we are doing this for anything other than the real reasons. An invasion of the Hive would not be one intended primarily for defense, or anything nearly as noble as the liberation of the Hive. Rather we would be invading to seize as much territory as we can.

And your point about the ideological differences between us and the Hive is exactly what I was trying to get across. But we are hiding behind this ideological difference to justify out intended invasion.

And to finally put a stop to the rampant German analogies, all I’m saying is that we shouldn’t put the welfare of other factions above that of our own people in foreign policy, we should attempt to gain an upper hand. As I’ve stated before, if we can get the Morganite territory through means other than war, let’s do it. War should be a last resort, but one we need to consider seriously rather than dismiss right off hand.

Originally posted by Drogue
I beg to differ. We have a responsibility to Planet, and to all the people on it. Why should we only care about the people who vote us in? I want a better place to live for everyone, and if that means war, then so be it, but I think, certainly at the moment, Peace is best overall, if not for everyone.

It is noble to believe that we have a responsibility to all people on Planet; but this altruistic intention is hardly anything more than just rhetoric. Forgive me for being such a cynic, but I don’t think that humanity has matured, if you will, in this short period on Planet. We are still the same species who murder one another for matters as trivial as ideology. As a faction we must realize that ultimately others if they were in a similar position as us, would attack, despite the fact that we find such thoughts disturbing, they are true. Going about attempting to change human nature through means as this is futile at best, it is useless to preach wisdom to men, you must inject it into their blood.

[Drogue]

We are not claiming ideology as the main reason for the Hive attack (IIRC). We are not wanting to attack the Hive yet. But why start another war when we already have someone to fight. I say we should not attack either.

Humanity has not matured that much, I agree (It may do before we leave, however) but I do believe that. I know our people may just want for themselves, but I want happiness for everyone. Why must we inject or preach wisdom. When we talk of human nature, we are not talking some about some hypothetical people, we are talking about us. I feel I have a responsibility to the human race, and I think some others do too. Why do we need everyone to believe it. What others would do does not matter. It is what we will do that does.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
We are not claiming ideology as the main reason for the Hive attack (IIRC). We are not wanting to attack the Hive yet. But why start another war when we already have someone to fight. I say we should not attack either.

Humanity has not matured that much, I agree (It may do before we leave, however) but I do believe that. I know our people may just want for themselves, but I want happiness for everyone. Why must we inject or preach wisdom. When we talk of human nature, we are not talking some about some hypothetical people, we are talking about us. I feel I have a responsibility to the human race, and I think some others do too. Why do we need everyone to believe it. What others would do does not matter. It is what we will do that does.

Whatever our own personal ideals and wishes for the human race are, we as organisms are slaves to our biology. Humans by nature are collective, we don’t wish to be free, but rather to be controlled. This is why for the majority of human history we have lives under despots, monarchs, etc. Though education we have escaped, or avoided that aspect of human nature, but conformity is still ever present in our society. Wars, though seemingly pointless, do serve a purpose, even wars for matters such as ideology or religion. Wars between forces are fought under the pretenses of morality, but in the end they are about resources, for we are conformists wish to gain an advantage of our side, we wish to ensure the survival of those who share similar ideals, and to do this we often are willing to kill. Again a cynical look upon human nature, nevertheless an accurate one. If you desire to change humanity, start at their genes, alter the very base of what is meant to be human, only then can you truly change humanity. Until such a time we have to resort to imperfect methods.

All I’m saying is that we should consider war as a tool, we may find it undesirable, but nevertheless simply because it is undesirable does not mean that it cannot serve some useful purpose.

I commend you for taking the stance that we should do what we believe is correct, regardless of what others would do to us in a similar case. But that stance is foolish. We need to be pragmatic about this, we cannot afford to be sentimental and lower our guard. The points made about a war on Morgan are well taken, I perfectly well understand that he has given us no provocation, or direct provocation for war. And as it stands, he is our ally, though not a very strong one. The proposal for an attack on him is one for the future, one we should consider, that is all that is being asked for. We should not outright dismiss it. Let us have all possible options at our disposal, and let us hope we don’t have a need for them, but we should still be prepared.

[GeneralTacticus]

Crimes against others? Well if you consider war a crime, do not be hypocritical enough to support eliminating the Hive and not the Morganites.

I consider aggressive war without provocation to be a crime. The assault on the Hive would be neither.

[GeneralTacticus]

We have a responsibility to our people, this does not extend to others.

Why not? They're every bit as human as us.

Foreign policy should simply be another means by which we benefit the people, and carry out their will.

Internally, the will of our people is not permitted to result in murder; why should it be allowed to do so externally?

And as I’ve stated earlier, I’m proposing a alternative to the current government position on the matter of war, and alternatives are what we need, since without them we are little better than the Chairman whom we all so find despicable.

I never said you shouldn't have suggested this, I said we shouldn't do it.

Everyone is a potential threat; call me cynical but if we do not switch to free market Morgan will eventually cancel the pact with us, and given more time he may just decide to declare war.

Ok, you're a cynic. What relevance does it have if Morgan declares war? He has no capacity to hurt us.

Bloodshed? You yourself just said they practically have no military. Our losses, and their losses, will not be so critical. And to emphasize this, I’m not saying there will be no casualties, what I’m saying is that because of the Morganites lack a military, those losses will be light.

Our miltiary losses will be light, theirs will not be; and their civilian casualties will be apalling. IF we go ahead with this war, we will have the blood fo tens of thousands of innocents on our hands, for nothing more than some extra land of little value.

I want this war for the benefit of the Twin Sea region, and yes that benefit includes its expansion. But it is not MY region, I’m not nearly vain enough to even remotely claim that.

Regardless of what you call it, it is the region you govern and the one you will probably continue to do so for the forseeable future. You have stated yourself that you want this war because it will expand your region (and their will be no benefits for it besides that).

And we’re taking the word of a defector on what the conditions of the Hive are like? Couldn’t be just be possible, even remotely, that the people living under Yang like his rule, and find it effective and efficient?

Why, then, would he need to employ a police state? Why would we even have a defector among us? Why would anyone undertake a long and dangerous journey, at great risk to his own life, without even knowing where he was going, if conditions under his rule were good?

Well lets wait before we attack, lets give Morgan time to develop those bases and then take if from him. This would result in little expense to us, his military most likely will be behind ours, and in return for the invasion we would receive bases with full infrastructure.

Minus whatever was destroyed in the fighting, which would be quite significant.

[GeneralTacticus]

The fact that the Hive declared war on us is irrelevant to our claims that we must go in and liberate the Hiverian people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t invade, in fact it would be prudent to do so. Rather that we shouldn’t be claiming that we are doing this for anything other than the real reasons. An invasion of the Hive would not be one intended primarily for defense, or anything nearly as noble as the liberation of the Hive. Rather we would be invading to seize as much territory as we can.

That's YOUR view, and YOUR reason for supportng it. I, and those others who actually have some kind of morality, have other reasons. Would you support an invasion if it had been the Gaians or the Morganites across the sea, and they hadn't declared war? I wouldn't.

And your point about the ideological differences between us and the Hive is exactly what I was trying to get across. But we are hiding behind this ideological difference to justify out intended invasion.

'Hiding behind' it? We have no real choice but to invade, because we will never be safe until we can eliminate the Hive - by their choice, not ours.

And to finally put a stop to the rampant German analogies, all I’m saying is that we shouldn’t put the welfare of other factions above that of our own people in foreign policy, we should attempt to gain an upper hand.

We've gained the upper hand peacefully; there's no reason to kill countless people in order to increase it by force.

As I’ve stated before, if we can get the Morganite territory through means other than war, let’s do it. War should be a last resort, but one we need to consider seriously rather than dismiss right off hand.

What is it that makes you so fixated on obtaining the Morganite land? What do we need it for?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That's YOUR view, and YOUR reason for supportng it. I, and those others who actually have some kind of morality, have other reasons. Would you support an invasion if it had been the Gaians or the Morganites across the sea, and they hadn't declared war? I wouldn't.

So now since I don’t agree with your morality, I have none? That’s not the issue, and I’m getting off topic. No I would not support an invasion overseas if the Gaians were located in the present location of Yang, if they were not being aggressive; wars overseas are too costly. Had they, like Yang, declared hostilities, the situation would be different.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
'Hiding behind' it? We have no real choice but to invade, because we will never be safe until we can eliminate the Hive - by their choice, not ours.

All fine, but then don’t go claiming that we must liberate the Hive.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
We've gained the upper hand peacefully; there's no reason to kill countless people in order to increase it by force.

Ok. Nevertheless does this warrant the complete disregard for warfare as a tool for achieving goals of foreign policy?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What is it that makes you so fixated on obtaining the Morganite land? What do we need it for?

One of our most paramount goals has been expansion and exploration, Morgan is indirectly interfering with this.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why not? They're every bit as human as us.

Because they’re not the ones in control of our government, our citizens are. If our citizens as a whole mandate that we go and help others, fine; in not, fine. We are simply to carry out their will.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Internally, the will of our people is not permitted to result in murder; why should it be allowed to do so externally?

Internally we alongside democracy place liberty as a ideal, that every citizen be both free as well as safe. Our constitution does not in effect place any restrictions on foreign policy in terms of war; and if we value democracy so highly, we would if the people desired something through means such as war, carry out their wishes.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I never said you shouldn't have suggested this, I said we shouldn't do it.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Ok, you're a cynic. What relevance does it have if Morgan declares war? He has no capacity to hurt us.

Well you’re looking for a reason to attack him if we were going to go to war with Morgan, if he were the one to declare war, as you have many times repeated, we would have little choice but to fight back. So why have a plan in reserve for our military operation against him if he attacks, since from the looks of it we’re not going to attack first?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Our miltiary losses will be light, theirs will not be; and their civilian casualties will be apalling. IF we go ahead with this war, we will have the blood fo tens of thousands of innocents on our hands, for nothing more than some extra land of little value.

And we can justify the losses suffered by the Hive, both military and civilian, simply because they are the aggressors?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Regardless of what you call it, it is the region you govern and the one you will probably continue to do so for the forseeable future. You have stated yourself that you want this war because it will expand your region (and their will be no benefits for it besides that).

Yes, and as long as I govern that region I must pursue the course of war against the Morganites since the Twin Sea regions benefits. If I were to become governor of a different region, my support for it would cease since another region would not benefit from the war as directly.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why, then, would he need to employ a police state? Why would we even have a defector among us? Why would anyone undertake a long and dangerous journey, at great risk to his own life, without even knowing where he was going, if conditions under his rule were good?

So you’re basing this on the fact that there was one person that we know of who was dissatisfied with life in the Hive; there are more of course, but you’re generalizing that the entire population is so miserable and hates living in the Hive.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Minus whatever was destroyed in the fighting, which would be quite significant.

Well, if they have perimeter defenses the infrastructure damage would be less, and if we given them time to develop their infrastructure until the point where they have perimeter defenses then this wouldn’t be as great of a problem.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I consider aggressive war without provocation to be a crime. The assault on the Hive would be neither.

Fair enough.

[GeneralTacticus]

It is noble to believe that we have a responsibility to all people on Planet; but this altruistic intention is hardly anything more than just rhetoric. Forgive me for being such a cynic, but I don’t think that humanity has matured, if you will, in this short period on Planet. We are still the same species who murder one another for matters as trivial as ideology.

What you seem to be creating, Voltaire, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - you want us to kill because it's human nature to do so, and then you say it's human nature to kill because we did.

As a faction we must realize that ultimately others if they were in a similar position as us, would attack, despite the fact that we find such thoughts disturbing, they are true.

So what?

Going about attempting to change human nature through means as this is futile at best, it is useless to preach wisdom to men, you must inject it into their blood.

If you want to change the world, start with yourself.

Whatever our own personal ideals and wishes for the human race are, we as organisms are slaves to our biology.

This statement is relevant how?

Humans by nature are collective, we don’t wish to be free, but rather to be controlled.

Then why did democracy ever emerge at all?

This is why for the majority of human history we have lives under despots, monarchs, etc. Though education we have escaped, or avoided that aspect of human nature, but conformity is still ever present in our society. Wars, though seemingly pointless, do serve a purpose, even wars for matters such as ideology or religion.

Oh, they serve a purpose, all right. Doesn't mean the purpose is a good one.

Wars between forces are fought under the pretenses of morality, but in the end they are about resources, for we are conformists wish to gain an advantage of our side, we wish to ensure the survival of those who share similar ideals, and to do this we often are willing to kill.

'We'? We must be ready to kill, if necessary, but in the case of Morgan, it's not necessary. Morgan is not a threat to our factional well-being, and is in fact an asset to it.

If you desire to change humanity, start at their genes, alter the very base of what is meant to be human, only then can you truly change humanity. Until such a time we have to resort to imperfect methods.

You seem to be advocating some form of eugenics here. Genetic engineering isn't going to rid us of the darker side to our nature; education and morality will help to control it.

All I’m saying is that we should consider war as a tool, we may find it undesirable, but nevertheless simply because it is undesirable does not mean that it cannot serve some useful purpose.

And I've never disagreed with you on that, just on what is and isn't a useful purpose.

I commend you for taking the stance that we should do what we believe is correct, regardless of what others would do to us in a similar case. But that stance is foolish.

Why is it foolish? It would be so if doing what was right threatened us with serious harm, but it doesn't.

We need to be pragmatic about this, we cannot afford to be sentimental and lower our guard.

There's a big difference between wanting to let our guard down and disagreeing with an aggressive war. Saying that we shouldn't go out and attack others isn't the same as saying we shouldn't defend ourselves.

The points made about a war on Morgan are well taken, I perfectly well understand that he has given us no provocation, or direct provocation for war. And as it stands, he is our ally, though not a very strong one. The proposal for an attack on him is one for the future, one we should consider, that is all that is being asked for.

The plan DBTS posted is meant for implementation NOW. If your position is that we should attack sometime in the future, fine, we can't know what will happen in the future and how the situation may change. The original questin for the party that I posted was how to react to DBTS' plan, not to the possibility of a future attack.

We should not outright dismiss it. Let us have all possible options at our disposal, and let us hope we don’t have a need for them, but we should still be prepared.

Of course.

All fine, but then don’t go claiming that we must liberate the Hive.

The fact that the Hive citizens will be better off without Yang is mainly a bonus; it wouldn't warrant an invasion by itself. The fact that we need to invade at some point does, this fact just removes another reason not to.

Ok. Nevertheless does this warrant the complete disregard for warfare as a tool for achieving goals of foreign policy?

No. Just that we shouldn't just call for the conquest of other faction's land solely in order to gain more power at their expense.

One of our most paramount goals has been expansion and exploration, Morgan is indirectly interfering with this.

How? By existing? Besides, we already know everything in Morgan's territory, and the and you want to take is hardly very valuable for expansion. We would be better served to expand at sea and to the north.

Because they’re not the ones in control of our government, our citizens are. If our citizens as a whole mandate that we go and help others, fine; in not, fine. We are simply to carry out their will.

PErfectly true, but that shouldn't be used as an argument that we have the right to go out and conquer other faction; 'You have the right to tell me what to do, now tell me to go off and kill people in your name.'

Internally we alongside democracy place liberty as a ideal, that every citizen be both free as well as safe. Our constitution does not in effect place any restrictions on foreign policy in terms of war; and if we value democracy so highly, we would if the people desired something through means such as war, carry out their wishes.

See above. The fact that we are obligated to follow the will of the people should not be used in an argument to try to influence it.

Well you’re looking for a reason to attack him if we were going to go to war with Morgan, if he were the one to declare war, as you have many times repeated, we would have little choice but to fight back. So why have a plan in reserve for our military operation against him if he attacks, since from the looks of it we’re not going to attack first?

I don't understand what you mean here and I don't think you understood what I meant either. Why should we launch a pre-emptive strike on Morgan when he has no capacity to hurt us if he attacks us?

And we can justify the losses suffered by the Hive, both military and civilian, simply because they are the aggressors?

Yes. Yang started this war, and it will never truly end until either we are destroyed or he is gone. Obviously, we need to eliminate him.

So you’re basing this on the fact that there was one person that we know of who was dissatisfied with life in the Hive; there are more of course, but you’re generalizing that the entire population is so miserable and hates living in the Hive.

No they probably don't; there will be citizens that benefit from his rule, because they are the ones who enforce it, and are rewarded with a slice of the wealth Yang loots from his people. Others will simply be blinded to the truth by the lies they are fed constantly.

Well, if they have perimeter defenses the infrastructure damage would be less, and if we given them time to develop their infrastructure until the point where they have perimeter defenses then this wouldn’t be as great of a problem.

They will still lsoe facilities, if not as many, the perim. defences will result in much higher casualties, and we can expect any field troops Morgan has to destroy their infrastructure as they retreat.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Whatever our own personal ideals and wishes for the human race are, we as organisms are slaves to our biology. Humans by nature are collective, we don’t wish to be free, but rather to be controlled. This is why for the majority of human history we have lives under despots, monarchs, etc. Though education we have escaped, or avoided that aspect of human nature, but conformity is still ever present in our society. Wars, though seemingly pointless, do serve a purpose, even wars for matters such as ideology or religion. Wars between forces are fought under the pretenses of morality, but in the end they are about resources, for we are conformists wish to gain an advantage of our side, we wish to ensure the survival of those who share similar ideals, and to do this we often are willing to kill. Again a cynical look upon human nature, nevertheless an accurate one. If you desire to change humanity, start at their genes, alter the very base of what is meant to be human, only then can you truly change humanity. Until such a time we have to resort to imperfect methods.

That is very much your opinion, and one I disagree with. Some wars are not fought under 'the pretences of morality', so actually are about morals, and not land. It is cynical, and as GT said, self proclaiming. If we believe that, it may well happen, however I will argue against it to my last breath. And human nature is not to be controlled, it is to be controlling, which is why we have years of despot rule. It is not because the people wished to be controlled, but because the despot wished to control others.

Originally posted by Voltaire
All I’m saying is that we should consider war as a tool, we may find it undesirable, but nevertheless simply because it is undesirable does not mean that it cannot serve some useful purpose.

I agree, we should consider it, but at the moment with Morgan it should not be used, and later, I think pacifism in general is still the best option, even if it is not used universally.

Originally posted by Voltaire
I commend you for taking the stance that we should do what we believe is correct, regardless of what others would do to us in a similar case. But that stance is foolish. We need to be pragmatic about this, we cannot afford to be sentimental and lower our guard.

It is not foolish. It is against human nature, but if a few people stand in the way of human nature, we may be able to stem the tide. We will win, we will become all powerful, and I think we should win in the way we want to govern in the end. We can afford to lower our guard to our friends, and if they bite us, we bite back. We should not bite first, because we think they will bite us later however. We cannot see the future, we do not know Morgan will attack. As such, we should not attack until he does.

Originally posted by Voltaire
And we can justify the losses suffered by the Hive, both military and civilian, simply because they are the aggressors?

Yes we can. I want peace as soon as possible, and we continually ask for it. We have no other option until Yang declares truce. I do not want bloodshed, but if it is forced upon us, we must defend ourselves. 'Reasonable force' is the legal term I believe. We must attack until he is no longer a threat, ie. when he ends the war.

[Kirov]

GT, one request: could you please not to cut the others' posts several times and comment everything separately? It takes sometimes 3 - 4 screens to read/scroll and besides, you often comment separate sentences rather than someone's opinion or debate's topic in general.

Note it's a request and there is no saying things like "Oh yea? Because you said so?".

[GeneralTacticus]

I formed this habit because it makes it a lot easier to write up the rebuttals if you only have to deal with one piece at a time. It also helps to identify which bit is directed at what.

[Drogue]

I do understand GT's point, but often it seems you rebut every sentance but miss the point of the whole.

[GeneralTacticus]

If I do miss the point, feel free to tell me so and also tell me what the actual point was.