Inner Circle Peace Talks

The Federation and Republic made something that was a domestic issue otherwise, in contravention of the Yulai Accords. There is not to my knowledge any such accord proscribing pacification of rebellion.

Whatever dogma your new mistress whispers to you about the injustices of the Empire. During this debacle we have acted within the framework of admittedly imperfect laws. Something neither the Republic, nor the Federation you seek to replace us with could manage.

… you think this started in Kahah?

Did the sanctions not?

Despite the claims of xer Qoth, sanctions are not a contravention of Yulai Accords, because they are domestic policies. There is no interstellar law against a nation telling one of its corporations it is not allowed to do business with corporations from another nation. There is no interstellar law against closing bank accounts foreign business people have opened in domestic banks. In fact, the Empire did this ourselves to the Republic after the One Day War, imposing considerably more barriers against trade with them.

No foreign corporation or individual has any inherent right to do business in our territory if we decide otherwise, and if such laws did exist, they would be ridiculous impositions of CONCORD on national sovereignty. Impositions which would cut off a non-violent means of expressing disapproval with the actions of a rival nation.

No, there is not. Not an interstellar one, anyway. It’s sovereign territory, not under the purview of CONCORD law.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t still morally wrong and deserving of retribution (and frankly, while it might not have been a violation of the Accords, it was a violation of Amash-Akura’s laws of warfare). The ideal would have been the Empire taking action against the Kingdom’s excesses ourselves, as is our duty, but we didn’t. Like usual. And thus, we deserved what we got.

This claim doesn’t get any more right just because you keep saying it.

Perhaps not, your stated aim was to have the Federation bring the Empire to its knees if it will not change, you seemed to have some strange notion they’d allow us to stand afterward.

My aim is for Amarr to change and become the holy empire of God and cultivator of the human spirit that it is supposed to be. If we must be beaten down and broken and divested of our impurities before that happens, then so be it. Better it be by our own hands than someone else’s, but if we hide from that responsibility then God will punish us through other means.

What the Federation allows is irrelevant. Our first and only master is God. If we allow ourselves to be bound under someone else – to which we would have no one to blame but ourselves – then it will be our duty to follow the path of Gheinok and Amash-Akura and cast off that rule and throw down those that would seek to suffocate our faith.

Do you think yourself the equal of Gheinok or Amash-Akura, of Tetrimon, we could perhaps include His Late Majesty Heideran? How many have changed the Empire to anything like the extent you propose? How many of them collaborated with foreign powers? Or sought to lay the Empire low?

You may be a heretic but you’re not an imbecile, you must have checked.

No. The only people that have claimed such are people like you.

This is going off-topic.

I’m not sure who it was that said that a good deal leaves all parties feeling dissatisfied but that would seem to apply here.


Each of us must hold every other person to account, in our own way.

Not the person saying ‘oh, fine, we’ll stop punishing you for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents, if you’ll just promise to stop this additional attack on innocent civilians’.

That’s not peace. That’s becoming complicit in atrocity.

Someone who was stupid, or conniving. There is no ‘good deal’ to be had here. Any peace bought by withdrawing objections to and consequences for committing atrocities is not a good deal. It is morally bankrupt capitulation, and if the Tribes sign off on such a thing, then the Sanmatar and the Tribal Council should be replaced by leaders with principles and the courage to adhere to them.


You all have such an artful way of taking the things I say, extrapolating in absurd directions, and then claiming that I said the extrapolations.

You completely missed Auriga’s point.

I didn’t claim you said anything of the sort. I’m simply saying that any agreement from CONCORD that removes the sanctions without making it absolutely clear that the Empire cannot be allowed to continue committing these atrocities without active, direct, intervention fron all of the other signatories and CONCORD itself is not a sign of “adults” in the room. It’s a sign of idiots whistling past their own graves.

I rather didn’t. His point is that at best, no-one will be satisfied with any accord that can be reached. Mine is that any accord that can be reached here is not ‘best’.

1 Like

So essentially, you quoted me, then replied to something I didn’t say?


That’s only one half of his point, at best.

At least, that’s how I interpreted it, but, knowing his sense of irony, I’m pretty sure mine is accurate.

If that is not what you were intending to imply, then I apologize for reading into it that way.

1 Like

I quoted you, then responded to your point with a point of my own. That doesn’t mean I claimed you said anything you didn’t, just that I have a very different impression of the situation, and that your words prompted that thought in me.

That’s why.

1 Like

I support the current direction the talks are heading in. I urge everyone to help facilitate rather than hinder the path towards coorperation the Inner Circle is seeking.


Not really. My point was that a deal which is ‘good’ (i.e. one that achieves its objectives) usually annoys those who submit to it in equal measure. If there is a ‘winner’, the deal will fall apart.

In this case, the objectives should be twofold. The short term goal should be to save the millions of civilians being threatened with antimatter reactor meltdown. The long term goal should be to avoid this situation happening again.

In order to achieve those things, the Empire needs to withdraw immediately and submit to a binding commitment not to invade more places in future. A price has clearly been identified and is worth paying. Sanctions can always be reimposed if the Empire breaks its commitment. From that perspective, the sanctions policy will have ‘worked’, even if it came too late for Kahah. The policy will have driven the Empire to a commitment (which can be enforced through further sanctions) that it never would have conceded otherwise.

It may not sit comfortably with many readers’ ideals but it’s the right thing to do.


And this is different from “no-one will be satisfied with any accord that can be reached” how?

Which will in no way address the behavior in Kahah. No, that does not achieve a damned thing. It tells the Empire ‘when you get punished for X, do X2, and let them negotiate you back to X!’

Then don’t quote me.

Quoting you indicates precisely which statements of yours have produced the thoughts and impressions I’m expressing.