Policy towards Lady Deirdre Skye/Gaians

[GeneralTacticus]

Bah to her personal profile. Her actions speak louder than a thousand years worth of psychoanalysis.

So she uses Green? How does that make her militant.

She's not militant because she favours Green; you, after all, do so as well, but you're a pacifist. She's militant ebcause she went to war over the issue.

We are not militant, but are at war with Yang because he uses Police State. That doesn't make us militant, just opinionated, like Deirdre.

Correction: Yang went to war with us because we use democracy, not the other way around.

[Drogue]

Yes, but we voted to keep the war going, when peace was on offer. Are we militant because we wish war and are fighting against a faction because they oppose our views? No. And neither is Deirdre.

[GeneralTacticus]

The militancy comes from the why, not the whether. We're not waging a war over our ideology; Deirdre is.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The militancy comes from the why, not the whether. We're not waging a war over our ideology; Deirdre is.

Two issues I take with that. 1) We are waging war over our ideology (why else would we not have signed the peace?) and 2) Why should the why be more important than the whether? If you are at war, then you are at war. And why would ideological differences be a bad reason to go to war? It is better than most IMHO.

However, I would judge militancy not by the number of wars, but by the likelyhood of the person declaring war. Deirdre is less likely to declare war than Miriam. It takes more for her too. Indeed, normally playing using Planned she does not declare against me, it takes FM for that to happen (as it is more opposed) but Miriam will declare on anyone not using Fundy. Miriam is also more likely to go back on pacts/treaties/truces. Deirdre does not go to war over nothing. This is what I usually find.

[GeneralTacticus]

1) We are waging war over our ideology (why else would we not have signed the peace?)

We refused to sign the peace because we know perfectly well that Yang will never be prepared to live in peace with us, and it is better for us to be free to strike at him as we wish rather than having to wait until he declared war again. Had we signed, his air force might now be bombing UN Slippery Ground into rubble, rather than itself being in ruins.

2) Why should the why be more important than the whether? If you are at war, then you are at war.

It matters because if you are going to war over your ideology, then you are quite clearly militant in that ideology. Going to war for other reasons does not mean you are militant in the ideology in question.

And why would ideological differences be a bad reason to go to war? It is better than most IMHO.

They aren't necessarily bad, unless you associate militantcy with being bad. However, wars for ideology alone have been the causes of some of the worst bloodbaths in history; witness World War II, Vietnam, countless wars in Afghanistan, and many others, including the Seven Minute War, which destroyed an entire sub-continent.

Deirdre is less likely to declare war than Miriam.

If you're going to use Miriam as your benchmark for militantcy, then you're going to have trouble finding anyone who you can define as militant.

Indeed, normally playing using Planned she does not declare against me, it takes FM for that to happen (as it is more opposed) but Miriam will declare on anyone not using Fundy.

It may take longer for Deirdre to declare war over Planned, but it will happen.

Miriam is also more likely to go back on pacts/treaties/truces.

Deirdre violated the Treaty she signed with us in order to start this war.

Deirdre does not go to war over nothing.

I presume you consider objecting to the economic policy of a (relatively) friendly faction on the other side of an ocean to be more than nothing?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
They aren't necessarily bad, unless you associate militantcy with being bad. However, wars for ideology alone have been the causes of some of the worst bloodbaths in history; witness World War II, Vietnam, countless wars in Afghanistan, and many others, including the Seven Minute War, which destroyed an entire sub-continent.

Yes, as all wars are about ideology to some extent. Just because she's at war does not mean she is de facto militant. It just means she is not a complete pacifist, and cares passionatly about something.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
If you're going to use Miriam as your benchmark for militantcy, then you're going to have trouble finding anyone who you can define as militant.

Well, that is true, it is not a term I use likely. Moreover, that was the original context. You said she was almost as bad as Miriam, which is clearly not the case. Her profile says erratic IIRC (certainly not aggressive) and that is how she acts. Her faction profile talks about pacifism and the negative Morale seems to suggest shes not particularly tuned for war. I would consider Yang militant, along with Miriam, they are both aggressive and cannot be reasoned with (will attack without reason or provocation). Santiago could be considered militant, at least more than Deirdre, but nowhere near as bad as Yang and Miriam. What is the point in war with Deidre? She can hardly attack us, and us to her, so there is little combat, but it puts our transports in danger and reduces trade and commerce. You said before why should we sign peace, and dismissed commerce as not important enough, but is there any reason to stay at war?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It may take longer for Deirdre to declare war over Planned, but it will happen.

Not necessarily. She won't like it if you're pacted, but generally it is possible to keep her friends. Besides, I've never seen Planned used towards the end. When there is little need to grow, there is little need for Planned.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Deirdre violated the Treaty she signed with us in order to start this war.

True, but as I said. Miriam is more likely too.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I presume you consider objecting to the economic policy of a (relatively) friendly faction on the other side of an ocean to be more than nothing?

Yes, that is something, hence it is clearly not nothing. Indeed, pollution affects us all, and so having FM (evern though we don't produce ED, she doesn't know that, and FM is seen as Planet wrecking due to the -3 Planet rating) is a problem not just for us, but for other factions. It's like if the US was to pollute heavily, a purely Green faction might have a problem with it (such as Norway). If the US was to pollute heavily, and refuse to stop, and Norway not at all, but feeling the effects of it, that might constitute a reason for war.

I'm not saying Deirdre is completely pacifist, that is clearly not true, but in the original context, comparing her to Miriam, she is far less militant, and far more valuble as a friend.

[Cedayon]

I'm not sure the reason we're getting DoW'd so much is because of the other factions being particularly militant... it's more a case of "We're-so-powerful-even-Ghandi-declared-war-on-us", holdover from the Civ games.

It's probably only a matter of time before relations with Morgan degrade to hostility, simply because we're leaving everyone in the dust.

[Drogue]

Since Herc isn't here, should I post results of this poll? Having multiple choice seemed a little strange for the poll, but under the constitution, in a yes/no poll if yes has a majority it is enacted, if no has, then it is discarded, and if it is a tie then the Director decides. Therefore we seek peace without conditions, for a modest ec sum and for any technology.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, as all wars are about ideology to some extent. Just because she's at war does not mean she is de facto militant. It just means she is not a complete pacifist, and cares passionatly about something.

The fact that she was willing to go to war over her ideology when it was not under threat is an indicatino of rather mroe than passionate belief in something. We were not demanding that she
implement FM (while I'd like to see her do that, I know it won't happen, and we have no right to force her to do so), while she was demanding that we go Green, and went to war because we refused.

Well, that is true, it is not a term I use likely. Moreover, that was the original context. You said she was almost as bad as Miriam, which is clearly not the case.

I said it in the context of her system of government, which clearly [b]is[/i] the case. You were the one who brought up militantcy, and you did not claim she was merely 'less militant', you said she wasn't militant at all, when she quite clearly is.

Her faction profile talks about pacifism and the negative Morale seems to suggest shes not particularly tuned for war.

The stats are for her entire faction, which was originally pacifistic (although decades of fundamentalism seem to ahev rather eroded this).

What is the point in war with Deidre? She can hardly attack us, and us to her, so there is little combat, but it puts our transports in danger and reduces trade and commerce. You said before why should we sign peace, and dismissed commerce as not important enough, but is there any reason to stay at war?

My objection to signing peace is that I have a strong distaste for allying with tyrants. I'm nto going to be pushing for war if the people don't want it, but I don't consider the Gaians a faction we should be particularly friendly with, at elast until they can implement a form of government that at least vaguely recognises human rights.

Not necessarily. She won't like it if you're pacted, but generally it is possible to keep her friends. Besides, I've never seen Planned used towards the end. When there is little need to grow, there is little need for Planned.

While I agree that towards the end there is no need for Planned, I have seen Deirdre declare war over Planned. Again, it just takes longer.

True, but as I said. Miriam is more likely too.

And, again, if you use Miriam as a benchmark, you will find very few people particularly bad.

Yes, that is something, hence it is clearly not nothing. Indeed, pollution affects us all, and so having FM (evern though we don't produce ED, she doesn't know that, and FM is seen as Planet wrecking due to the -3 Planet rating) is a problem not just for us, but for other factions. It's like if the US was to pollute heavily, a purely Green faction might have a problem with it (such as Norway). If the US was to pollute heavily, and refuse to stop, and Norway not at all, but feeling the effects of it, that might constitute a reason for war.

A pretext, perhaps. Even if Deirdre doesn't know that we don't pollute, given her much-vaunted knowlege of Planet's ecosystem, she should be easily able to tell that she isn't being affected by any pollution that she would have thought we did produce.

It's probably only a matter of time before relations with Morgan degrade to hostility, simply because we're leaving everyone in the dust.

I wouldn't be quite so sure; his relations with us, after all, have improved since he broke off the Pact (they're now at Ambivalent, IIRC).

[Drogue]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on much of this. However, a couple of points I would like to make:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
My objection to signing peace is that I have a strong distaste for allying with tyrants. I'm nto going to be pushing for war if the people don't want it, but I don't consider the Gaians a faction we should be particularly friendly with, at elast until they can implement a form of government that at least vaguely recognises human rights.

I disagree strongly on this. What makes Deirdre a tyrant? Because she is at war with us? Because she is unelected? This may make her a dictator, and we disagree on the militancy, but tyrant? Also when has she violated any human rights? She does not massacre her people, she has committed no atrocity, where is your basis for this serious accusation?

If we do go to Green, would you then support peace with Deirdre, since it could then be sustainable, or would you continue to want her destruction?

[GeneralTacticus]

What makes Deirdre a tyrant? Because she is at war with us? Because she is unelected?

Because she continues to brainwash her people, promote religous fanaticism, and deny freedom of thought to them.

Also when has she violated any human rights? She does not massacre her people, she has committed no atrocity, where is your basis for this serious accusation?

I consider freedom fo thought and religion to be a fairly basic human right, and it is one which is enshrined in our own Charter. Have you perhaps forgotten what it is like to live under a religious theocracy?

If we do go to Green, would you then support peace with Deirdre, since it could then be sustainable, or would you continue to want her destruction?

I consider our economic policy to have no relevance to this whatsoever. My revulsion towards her comes from her syustem of government, not her economic system (which, it should be noted, she ahs never put in place, in spite of the fact that - IIRC - she ahs had the capacity to do so for some time).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because she continues to brainwash her people, promote religous fanaticism, and deny freedom of thought to them.

I didn't know this was true? At least, no more than we are brainwashing our people that Democracy is the only way to govern a country, and all else is wrong.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I consider freedom fo thought and religion to be a fairly basic human right, and it is one which is enshrined in our own Charter. Have you perhaps forgotten what it is like to live under a religious theocracy?

I never have lived under a religions theocracy. Personally, I do not believe it is a basic human right. Do they not have freedom of thought and religion? Just because they have a religious government, does not mean the people have to believe it. I think those freedoms are important, but not to the extent that I would consider them crimes against humanity. It may be something we disagree with, but it isn't genocide. If they wish to run it like that, I do not see why we have to condemn them because of their style of government. Who are we to say that teaching religion as being 'right' is wrong to do? I may not like fundy, but why is it universally bad?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I consider our economic policy to have no relevance to this whatsoever. My revulsion towards her comes from her syustem of government, not her economic system (which, it should be noted, she ahs never put in place, in spite of the fact that - IIRC - she ahs had the capacity to do so for some time).

I wasn't stating that. However, one of the reasons you gave against peace was that it is unsustainable, and that she will go back on it. If we have Green, that is unlikely, and it would be a sustainable peace. So do I take it that if we went to Green, and so could have a sustainable peace with Deirdre, would you still be against it? I was trying to take the possibility of her surprise attackign us out of the equation, and then asking if you would support peace, or if you would not?

[GeneralTacticus]

I didn't know this was true? At least, no more than we are brainwashing our people that Democracy is the only way to govern a country, and all else is wrong.

Brainwashing is an integral aprt of fundamentalism. This is where the bonuses to morale and probe come from. I had an argument with Archaic about this ages ago, before you showed up, which you could probably find if you looked (I think it's in one of the DSE campaign threads).

I never have lived under a religions theocracy.

Neither have I (and I'm glad of it, too), but I wasn't stating that. You don't have to have lived in one to have some idea of what it's like to.

Personally, I do not believe it is a basic human right.

You don't think it's a basic human right to beleive what you like, no matter what the state thinks, without being arrested or subjected to 24 hour a day propaganda? You don't think it's a basic human right to have the right to grow up without being indoctrinated into the ruling ideology?

Do they not have freedom of thought and religion? Just because they have a religious government, does not mean the people have to believe it.

See above. A religious theocracy has to brainwash the people to exist, because it derives it's authority from religion, and fit he people don't believe in the religion, their authority vanishes.

I think those freedoms are important, but not to the extent that I would consider them crimes against humanity. It may be something we disagree with, but it isn't genocide.

Something can violate human rights without being genocide (although one of the definitions of genocide is the attemtp to desroy a culture - and Lady Skye seems to have done a fairly good job of that with secularism).

If they wish to run it like that, I do not see why we have to condemn them because of their style of government.

And here I thought you were a democrat.

Who are we to say that teaching religion as being 'right' is wrong to do? I may not like fundy, but why is it universally bad?

Because:

1) As I have already pointed out, it rests on the brainwashing of the population.

2) People have the right to make up their own minds about what they believe; they shouldn't have it shoved down their throats at the behest of the state.

However, one of the reasons you gave against peace was that it is unsustainable, and that she will go back on it.

I never stated anything of the sort. That was the argument I put forward against peace with Yang.

If we have Green, that is unlikely, and it would be a sustainable peace. So do I take it that if we went to Green, and so could have a sustainable peace with Deirdre, would you still be against it?

The issue of sustainability is also irrelevant to me in my disliking Deirdre and being somewhat irritated at the way people seem to forgive her crimes.

I was trying to take the possibility of her surprise attackign us out of the equation, and then asking if you would support peace, or if you would not?

As Deirdre is not a military threat, the issue of her launching a surprise attack is basically irrelevant (although we should always keep watch in the Sea of Mnesimache and the Great Marine Rift inc ase she's sending ships at us). She is not Yang; she does not have an air force which could hit us at any time from across the ocean and cause great damage.

[Jamski]

GT, you really must hate Deirdre. What did she do to you?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm being asked why I don't like a leader who denies freedom of thought to an entire nation and has declared wa ron us in an effort to foist upon us an ideology she does not implement herself. Odd.