Official Poll: War or Peace with Yang

Hercules · March 4, 2003, 00:21

This is a simple poll . Do we want War or Peace with Yang at this time. The people's answer will help the Justices to arrive at a decision on which save to play.

There are essentialyl two choices War or Peace, as far as I can see.

If we choose war, we can:-

a) go to save 1 ( no communication initiated) and no contact with Yang or anyone. Vendetta will continue.

b) go to save 2 (after contact) and decide how best to implement peoples wishes. ( provoke, wait, demand base, probe, (which we intended anyway to steal SSA)

c) other eg send Lemmy as ambassador.

If we choose peace, we can:-

a) go to save 1 (as above and initiate contact) with a view to seeking peace but not with conditions attached

b) Go to save 2 (as above) and continue with truce.

Cedayon · March 4, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
c) other eg send Lemmy as ambassador.

Lemmy, how soon can you have one of those armies of darkness ready?

GeneralTacticus · March 4, 2003, 02:40

I'm ambivalent on this. I voted war, because O think we'll have to deal with Yang sometime, so we might as well do it now; but I can see the value of a temporary Truce, which might allow us to gain Yang's support for a Global Trade Pact, which would be a great help to us, and once we can get that passed, our veto will be enough to preserve it forever.

Lemmy · March 4, 2003, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Cedayon

Lemmy, how soon can you have one of those armies of darkness ready?

Uhm...well, i'd have to pull them back from their way to New Apolyton..erhm..err...to DEFEND, yes, they were on their way to defend New Apolyton from...ehm...Yang-sponsored terrorist attacks...

Drogue · March 4, 2003, 07:18

Voted Peace, although I think on which save we use is a Court decision, and not subject to this poll.

GeneralTacticus · March 4, 2003, 07:22

This isn't a poll on which save to use, it's a poll on whether we want to be at war or peace with Yang, so that we know what to do after we figure out which save to use.

Cedayon · March 4, 2003, 09:39

Voted peace. Let us develop new weapons, build up our strength, and when the truce expires crush Yang in one fell swoop. He won't stand a chance, since we'll probably have choppers with at least fusion laser by then.

With Yang out of the way, we can concentrate on claiming victory in whichever way we please.

... We're probably near the required power for a diplomatic victory as it stands, actually. *thinks*

Aaron Blackwell · March 4, 2003, 16:38

Voted peace for the same reasons as Cedayon.

Make truce now to gave us the time to prepare the weapons and army which will allow use to crush Yang like the bug he is

I might as well summarize it like this :

Peace to prepare war

MrWhereItsAt · March 4, 2003, 17:01

Peace. As the (EDIT) NEWly elected DPO, I'd like to have some time to assess our defenses/offensive weapons before having to devise any strategies myself. Getting in amongst the troops to ask them what we need, so to speak.

Plus if Lemmy's lucky, I might just release the dead former troopers to him for experimentation...

DeathByTheSword · March 4, 2003, 17:47

cant send lemmy as a threat? like: if you dont surrender we will make lemmy live with you....

Voltaire · March 4, 2003, 19:12

We have no justifiable reason to continue the war with Yang, if we can establish a permanent peace (highly unlikely) our resources could be put to better use than war production.

I still choose peace even if war is inevitable since it gives us slightly more time to plan for war. We could use the cease fire period to militarize and plan an attack against the Hive homeland.

Method · March 5, 2003, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
cant send lemmy as a threat? like: if you dont surrender we will make lemmy live with you....

Kirov · March 5, 2003, 09:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
cant send lemmy as a threat? like: if you dont surrender we will make lemmy live with you....

Come on, Hive is not as _that_ bad...

And using the L weapon should be forbidden by Geneva Convention.

MrWhereItsAt · March 5, 2003, 17:26

Agh! Stupid poll! I need to know what to do. Maniac has reminded me about orders, and I can't give them if we can't make up our minds...

How many of you voted for war just because you think that the truce decision was unconstitutional? Well don't. The Court will decide what is constitutional and what is not, so vote using your head and not that ever-more annoying document. Which suits our purposes best?

Lemmy · March 5, 2003, 17:48

i voted peace because i think going back to the old save would be unconstitutional

MrWhereItsAt · March 5, 2003, 19:15

/me sends military goons after Lemmy.

The war on the undead has begun!

Kirov · March 5, 2003, 20:41

voted peace on a whim. Is it constitutional?

Maniac · March 5, 2003, 21:22

No one knows.

Drogue · March 6, 2003, 10:06

But we will decide

Voltaire · March 6, 2003, 19:58

I’m appalled at the fact that the warmongers are winning at the polls. War is not what our faction should be stating for, and even if the Hive were to betray us sometime down the road in the forcible future we should stand by our principles and sign the ceasefire if for no other reason aside from that it is the moral choice. Are we so arrogant as to believe that we have some moral superiority to Yang when we are unwilling to stand by our own principles? And to those of you who would go out and say that our primary principle is democracy, I would remind you that we are here to enforce the UN charter and the ideals of the old United Nations. Democracy is all nice and fine, but one of its failings is that the majority often does not know what is for the best. I implore all the apathetic masses out there who have yet to vote to consider the Peacekeeper lives that will be lost in total war with Yang, it is clear that Yang will betray us in the future, but some peace is better than none. Please vote for peace.

Cedayon · March 6, 2003, 20:18

Peacekeeper lives lost in a war... hmm, some, depending on how our air-attack rolls go, but I doubt we're in danger of many civilian casualties except those at the nearby sea bases.

They would be a tragedy, sure, but Yang would do far worse to us if we allow him time to get PBs...

I voted peace because we can make war in the future much more effectively, and thus suffer fewer casualties in the regrettable but inevitable conflict... well, inevitable unless we can secure enough diplomatic power to become supreme leader after we get MMI.

MrWhereItsAt · March 6, 2003, 21:03

Yang has proven he is a threat to the Peacekeeper way of life. His regime of brutal oppression of his own people should be evidence enough that this tyrant must be removed, and as defenders of freedom and democracy for Planet, we are obliged to act. Moreover, he is harbouring radical Green organisations, which have been recently threatening to overturn our whole Free Market economic infrastructure because they hate our success.

It is only through staying at war that we can maintain the peace.

Voltaire · March 6, 2003, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Yang has proven he is a threat to the Peacekeeper way of life. His regime of brutal oppression of his own people should be evidence enough that this tyrant must be removed, and as defenders of freedom and democracy for Planet, we are obliged to act. Moreover, he is harbouring radical Green organisations, which have been recently threatening to overturn our whole Free Market economic infrastructure because they hate our success.

It is only through staying at war that we can maintain the peace.

Our own people in the latest polls have shown great support for a return to a Green economics system, so even if Yang is harboring Green radicals [highly unlikely] that alone does not justify the continuation of war. And you would continue fighting even if it would cost us the lives of our soldiers? If only one soldier does not loose his or her life during the ceasefire I consider it worth it. Our first duty is to our own people, and a ceasefire would be the best means to ensure their security for the time being.

Peace with Yang will not last; I have repeated this over and over again, but we could use that ceasefire to prepare for war and perhaps strike against Yang before he has a chance to strike against us. I say for all these reasons, and more, we need to support the ceasefire.

MrWhereItsAt · March 6, 2003, 22:52

We are talking at cross-purposes here, I believe. I believed you would have us appease this tyrant, who would once again laugh at having pulled the wool over the eyes of the UN. You believed I would rather give up the strategic advantage of a temporary peace in order to keep the war factories running, and had my eyes set on nothing but the large synth-oil deposits Yang maintains.

I myself support the truce established with Yang, as it will give me the ability to respond to the troops' needs and equip them with more advanced technology that will enable skirmishes with Yang to be conducted with automated weaponry rather than placing troops in danger. Furthermore key areas will be permitted to increase their readiness in preparation for the inevitable Yan backstab.

We shall free the Hive peoples, but I agree the time has not yet come. Pending a final court decision on war or peace, my envoy Blans Hix will be sent to attempt to delay this war a little longer...

Cedayon · March 6, 2003, 23:00

Just to put it simply: peace, for now, so we can stomp him like a bug and end the problem later.

GeneralTacticus · March 7, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

I’m appalled at the fact that the warmongers are winning at the polls. War is not what our faction should be stating for, and even if the Hive were to betray us sometime down the road in the forcible future we should stand by our principles and sign the ceasefire if for no other reason aside from that it is the moral choice. Are we so arrogant as to believe that we have some moral superiority to Yang when we are unwilling to stand by our own principles? And to those of you who would go out and say that our primary principle is democracy, I would remind you that we are here to enforce the UN charter and the ideals of the old United Nations. Democracy is all nice and fine, but one of its failings is that the majority often does not know what is for the best. I implore all the apathetic masses out there who have yet to vote to consider the Peacekeeper lives that will be lost in total war with Yang, it is clear that Yang will betray us in the future, but some peace is better than none. Please vote for peace.

Peace would be a great detriment to the goal of eliminating Yang's tyranny. The longer the war goes on, and the longer he continues building up his military, the weaker he will become. In the end, he will become weak enough that his state will collapse under the slightest pressure. It worked for Reagan (much as I hate to say it), why shouldn't it work for us?

Quote:

Our own people in the latest polls have shown great support for a return to a Green economics system, so even if Yang is harboring Green radicals [highly unlikely] that alone does not justify the continuation of war. And you would continue fighting even if it would cost us the lives of our soldiers? If only one soldier does not loose his or her life during the ceasefire I consider it worth it. Our first duty is to our own people, and a ceasefire would be the best means to ensure their security for the time being.

No, it would not. Our citizens are not under any real threat from the Hive anyway (especially not after the sound drubbing Yang recieved when he tried to land troops in our territory), and would indeed be more threatene din the long term if we allowed Yang to actually start building things other than military units.

Quote:

Peace with Yang will not last; I have repeated this over and over again, but we could use that ceasefire to prepare for war and perhaps strike against Yang before he has a chance to strike against us. I say for all these reasons, and more, we need to support the ceasefire.

Our preparations for war would not be in the slightest bit hindered by actually being at war, and the state of war would allow us to carry out operations to weaken Yang - probe actions, shelling his coast, sinking ships, etc.

Cedayon · March 7, 2003, 10:27

GT has a point: even if we remain at war, it's not going to impede our preparations much at all, we just have to be prepared for the occaisional sneak attack... which probably would be the case at peace anyway.

I just liked peace because... well, we'd be at peace, with one faction at least

Voltaire · March 7, 2003, 16:39

All I have to say is this: would you be willing to sacrifice your life for this war? If you wouldn’t and you are in favor of it, then you’re a hypocrite. It is easy for us here to discuss the overthrow of the tyrant Yang and how it is our noble duty as defenders of freedom and democracy, but none of us here are going to the front, we will be safely far away from the actual fighting feeling good about ourselves and how we are liberating the people of the Hive and brining them under our enlightened rule. To echo the words of Cicero I prefer the most unjust peace to the most righteous war.

GeneralTacticus · March 7, 2003, 21:58

Would I be willing to go to the front and fight this war at the time when I'm advocating we begin the fighting? The simple answer is yes. Our huge technological advantage over the Hive emans casualties are likely to be very low, and the death rate even lower. Hell, we're probably more at risk of assassination by the Hive staying here than at the front.

Voltaire · March 7, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Would I be willing to go to the front and fight this war at the time when I'm advocating we begin the fighting? The simple answer is yes. Our huge technological advantage over the Hive emans casualties are likely to be very low, and the death rate even lower. Hell, we're probably more at risk of assassination by the Hive staying here than at the front.

So what you’re saying any invasion by our forces would pretty much be wholesale slaughter due to our great technological advantage? If the Hive is of no threat to us, how can we justify the casualties we will cause on their side?