(Actually) Interesting Ideas for Ending the Amarr-Minmatar Conflict

Nor did I claim that. How does this make it any more possible for someone who has no means to get off planet to do so when their lives are in danger?

2 Likes

Leaving smugglers aside, that’s not the original scope of the question, so :v:

It’s not? I recall originally asking the following.

My last question was:

How is my last post not in scope with my original question?

2 Likes

Going from the average mon-capsuleer to someone who’s being actively hunted down by authority does change the scope of the question. It’s disingenious at best.

I was responding to this from you.

(emphasis mine)

How is someone who’s life is threatened, as framed by your original post, and my pointing out that the average non-capsuleer in such a situation may lack the luxury to leave the planet, disingenuous?

The section I had snipped out from my original post explains my position clearly. If you’re not convinced you can expand the quote and see for yourself. I reject your charge of me being disingenuous.

2 Likes

What I’m saying is if doing A puts you in danger, why not do B?

What you’re asking is how someone can do B if they’ve already done A?

Yes. And? It’s a valid question and by no means disingenuous.

2 Likes

Racing toward 1,000 replies. Keep it up!

2 Likes

Now that’s just a silly goal. We’d need filler posts and nonsense and thoroughly unhelpful commentary! And nobody here would do that.

3 Likes

And I agree with this wholeheartedly, as it reflects what I have been saying prior multiple times before.

But, unfortunately, I cannot agree with this. For me, freedom is not a lie. It is a force that separates all these bonds. Or the condition where these all these bonds are simply absent. It is a world without laws, without families, without society, without loyalty, without friendship, without love. And it is probably the most hellish nightmare that I can think about. This is why I so eagerly fight against freedom worshipping zealots.

Thank you for your words, they are truly profound.

1 Like

I didn’t say it was a perfect deterrent.

The Caldari Prime Incident was an extremely limited incident, a lightning raid as it were, that was in no way tenable should the Federation Navy respond in force. But, the will to respond in force was not there, because the Federation politicians knew well that such a response could draw in the Empire as well.

So they chose to de-escalate, by signing a treaty recognising the facts on the ground.

It’s a different strategy, but one that works, to an extent.

One might even say that CONCORD & the Empire have a good cop/bad cop act going on.

Identification of which is which, is an exercise left to the reader.

1 Like

I strongly disagree. Even if Federation Navy responded in force, the situation wouldn’t have changed. Our Navy is the best in the Cluster, and backed up by security forces of all Eight, filthy frogs would have no chance against us even if they threw absolutely everything they had against us in that battle.

We had will to liberate our Homeworld, and for this we did that - gathered everything we had, baring our flanks. It was a gamble, and we won it. Feds are just cowards. Though their fears have the basis: if they did that, they both would lose their fleet to our ships, and their systems would be bare for the Empire to invade.

And I am pretty sure we would still have ships to return to our systems to defend them in case of possible Minmatar attack. The Federation on the other hand… would be collapsed.

So the Empire is what keeps the peace, except when a culture that’s historically not an aggressor just happens to go on the offensive for a specific purpose everyone in the cluster’s been hearing them openly and loudly say they’re planning for over a century.

But hey, the Empire’s prevented all of those other offensives they weren’t planning, right? By the way, the Federation choosing not to escalate doesn’t reflect on how well “the Empire curbs the aggression of the State”. Nor would the Empire have been likely to attempt to intervene, since the treaty they have with the State is at best a mutual defense pact (it’s not, actually, but it’s implied) and the State were the aggressors.

To do so would’ve meant needing to move forces toward Genesis, even if they used the Niarja pipeline for the majority of their aid. That would have left them open to attack from the Republic.

You see, this whole ‘balance of power’ thing? It actually relies on all parties, not one of them.

2 Likes

What’s wrong with eudaimonia?

1 Like

I don’t think Mr. Shutaq meant cynics in that way. Cynics more in the vein of not believing in the goodness of humanity. Sadly, he seems to have a bit of that same cynicism.

1 Like

Well … his version’s not really cynicism, though.

Cynicism can be described as romanticism with a broken heart-- taking that same gauzy veil of light and turning it dark. It still obscures the realities of the world; it just flips the polarity around.

Lord Consort Newelle’s been too thoughtful about what he thinks of people for me to think he suffers much from such a thing. He can be glib; he can be judgmental; but he pays attention to details, and puts a good bit of thought into what he thinks of people and why.

3 Likes

Perhaps you’re correct, Ms. Jenneth. It might just be that Mr. Shutaq was a bit frustrated with some of the comments in this discussion. It is hard though, trying to get all these different people with their varied experiences and opinions to agree on any topic. I don’t envy him, that is for sure.

2 Likes

Well … he’s not the only one to get frustrated, of course.

2 Likes

No, certainly not.

1 Like

The Amarr have an irrational terror of anything with ‘daimon’—or similar spellings—in it.

3 Likes