Verified:

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 28th 2017, 22:48:59

So if President Trump were to declare war on a country via his twitter account rather than issuing an official declaration of war from the oval office, is America, in your opinion, at war?

I think it's pretty clear my opinion is yes. And I think you all know where I'm headed with this.

SPARTACUS

Member
122

Sep 28th 2017, 23:39:58

He can't declare war on a country, the Congress has to.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 28th 2017, 23:50:54

Well sure. But assuming he did anyways. You know. If you were in chyyyyna and trump tweeted "America is going to war with chyyyyna." Would you as a Chinese citizen consider yourself at war with America?

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Sep 28th 2017, 23:51:45

Do you(US citizens) consider yourselves at war with North Korea?

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 28th 2017, 23:52:49

North Korea surely does and I can't say I blame them.

Short answer for me is yes tho more in the cold war vein.

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Sep 29th 2017, 0:06:25

Why, because carter wanted to leave and China begged him not to because they were cowardly afraid of the destitute bolshevick?
This isn't a Trump problem. This is a problem brought on by liberal pc losers.
Being nice to the third world is going to get millions of South Koreans killed.
This is not on Trump. Losers.

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 0:25:28

Originally posted by SPARTACUS:
He can't declare war on a country, the Congress has to.


So... Congress voted for war in Libya? Did not know that.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Sep 29th 2017, 0:29:22

Originally posted by DerrickICN:
North Korea surely does and I can't say I blame them.

Short answer for me is yes tho more in the cold war vein.

Ok, but the cold war is an expression used to decribe the tensions between the Soviets and US, later including Nato and China. So the "Cold war" expression never described an actual war as it is a broader term that may envelop some dozen conflicts and actual wars but also many other things like the space race, etc.

The cold war era envelops the Korean war, the Vietnam war but also Neil Armstrongs first steps on the moon, the Berlin Blockade, the cuban missile crisis and the SALT and START negotiations etc.

Cold war was about preparing for war, fearing war and not waging it as the results of a direct conflict between the key players would be 'massive retalliation' and later 'mutually assured destruction'. Those were the war scenarios that never became reality.

So you are comparing your stance against NK to your stance to the Soviet Union during the cold war, which means you are not at war.

Sanctions, like you are using against NK, may be part of strategies to win actual conflicts but do not in themselves constitute wars or acts thereof. Just as the tariffs Trump proposed to goods originating in Mexico or Tchiyynya would not be acts of war. They could start a trade war, which is not an actual war either.

While you might have believed you found a thread to tear from at the start of the thread you must realize by now that you have lost it in rapid fashion.

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 0:40:01

Originally posted by Gerdler:
Originally posted by DerrickICN:
North Korea surely does and I can't say I blame them.

Short answer for me is yes tho more in the cold war vein.

Ok, but the cold war is an expression used to decribe the tensions between the Soviets and US, later including Nato and China. So the "Cold war" expression never described an actual war as it is a broader term that may envelop some dozen conflicts and actual wars but also many other things like the space race, etc.

The cold war era envelops the Korean war, the Vietnam war but also Neil Armstrongs first steps on the moon, the Berlin Blockade, the cuban missile crisis and the SALT and START negotiations etc.

Cold war was about preparing for war, fearing war and not waging it as the results of a direct conflict between the key players would be 'massive retalliation' and later 'mutually assured destruction'. Those were the war scenarios that never became reality.

So you are comparing your stance against NK to your stance to the Soviet Union during the cold war, which means you are not at war.

Sanctions, like you are using against NK, may be part of strategies to win actual conflicts but do not in themselves constitute wars or acts thereof. Just as the tariffs Trump proposed to goods originating in Mexico or Tchiyynya would not be acts of war. They could start a trade war, which is not an actual war either.

While you might have believed you found a thread to tear from at the start of the thread you must realize by now that you have lost it in rapid fashion.


Cold war does not necessary have to refer to the US-Soviet Cold War. That is The Cold War, just like WW1 was The Great War. If someone says a war is great, then you can't say no it's not because it's not WW1. Either way, North Korea and the US and co never signed a peace treaty. I don't really understand what you're trying to say though.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 0:40:20

Interesting opinion. Suppose it depends on whether or not you view sanctions as direct conflict but I suppose you're mostly correct. Although in that context war was never directly declared like my previous example. What I meant by "cold war vein" is that we haven't had direct conflict yet. The difference I'm pointing out is the declaration of war. It's nearly impossible for the north Koreans to feel otherwise about it, no?

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 0:43:58

Do you think the Peloponnesian war was one war? Or the thirty years war? Or the hundred years war? There were periods where absolutely zero conflict raged but most credible historians consider all 3 to be single wars. North Korea thinks they're at war with the US, and they're correct.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

elvesrus

Member
5053

Sep 29th 2017, 1:15:14

Threaten a nuclear strike? Not even a slap on the wrist

Threaten a mosquito and follow through on it? Banned
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9056

Sep 29th 2017, 1:26:16

The North Korean people are not in a good position either way. Be brutalized and starved by dear leader or get blown up if actual war breaks out. Its not a good situation to be in either way. They are for all intents and purposes in a prisoner camp indefinitely.

mrford Game profile

Member
21,352

Sep 29th 2017, 2:08:18

Originally posted by sinistril:
Originally posted by SPARTACUS:
He can't declare war on a country, the Congress has to.


So... Congress voted for war in Libya? Did not know that.


We are not at war with Libya?
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 2:20:29

Originally posted by mrford:
Originally posted by sinistril:
Originally posted by SPARTACUS:
He can't declare war on a country, the Congress has to.


So... Congress voted for war in Libya? Did not know that.


We are not at war with Libya?


No, but in 2011 Libya was without a doubt a war.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

mrford Game profile

Member
21,352

Sep 29th 2017, 2:42:24

Not a declared one. Lydia is a poor example anyways. Iraq would have been a better one.

The president can deploy military for a limited time but can not declare war.
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Dissident Game profile

Member
2750

Sep 29th 2017, 2:42:44

i think people are getting hung up on this being from America's perspective. Let's say Kim Jong declared war on america without firing a missile or a shot first... America would mobilize, right?

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 2:44:37

Not an officially declared one, but this was about unofficial declarations? It did not matter to Gaddafi whether the war was approved by congress when he got a knife up his bumhole.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

mrford Game profile

Member
21,352

Sep 29th 2017, 2:51:57

Libya was the most UN action in recent history. The US wasn't as normally vested as they usually are is my point.
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 2:59:41

Originally posted by mrford:
Libya was the most UN action in recent history. The US wasn't as normally vested as they usually are is my point.


Well, I don't disagree that the UN took the lead, the idea that congress is needed to declare wars for the US to go to war is false is my point. I only used Libya because it was recent... it's easy enough to ask which wars since WW2 have been declared by congress.
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

akadeo0o0 Game profile

Member
65

Sep 29th 2017, 3:01:59

What Trump tweeted is not a declaration of war. However it can be considered as a serious threat towards NK. If no treaties or agreements are in place between the two, then the pre-emptive activities taken by NK are warranted.

Zorp Game profile

Member
953

Sep 29th 2017, 3:04:07

This is all moot. The Korean War never ended. A ceasefire was signed as a temporary agreement, with the idea that a permanent solution would be found soon thereafter. That never happened. Since then, North Korea has repeatedly violated the terms of the temporary agreement in place, said outright that it is void, and taken actions that seem, to me, intended to provoke war.

Also, braden FTW:

Originally posted by braden:

This isn't a Trump problem. This is a problem brought on by liberal pc losers.
Being nice to the third world is going to get millions of South Koreans killed.
This is not on Trump.

Dissident Game profile

Member
2750

Sep 29th 2017, 3:23:01

north korea is a second world country... cuz theyre communists.

Mini Game profile

Member
122

Sep 29th 2017, 4:44:41

North Korea is best korea

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 6:00:02

Alright. Let's count the votes!

I believe Elders had war declared on them and had to respond.

Gerdler believes elders was not at war with laf until laf was hit.

Spartacus believes Vic cannot declare war.

Sinistril believes Vic can in fact declare war.

Braden thinks LaF are PC losers that should have smashed elders.

akadeo0o0 believes elders preemptive activities were warrented.

Zorp (probably most right) believes the Laf/elders war never ended.

And Mini feels like Elders is the best.

I feel like this was a fine exercise in showing the differing opinions in the semantics of what happened this set. I'm officially intrigued because it seems, at least in this example, impossible to tell who broke pact because of the wide range of ways to interpret what happened. You may all carry on your debate now.

Mr Gainsboro Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1469

Sep 29th 2017, 6:37:32

Until I see that wall built and paid by Mexico anything he says is just fluff
Don of LaF

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 6:47:17

Do you feel the same about Vic? Eyyyyyyy

Edited By: DerrickICN on Sep 29th 2017, 6:53:18. Reason: Proper punctuation for a drunk troll
See Original Post

LittleItaly Game profile

Game Moderator
Alliance & FFA
2172

Sep 29th 2017, 14:30:51

Originally posted by DerrickICN:
So if President Trump were to declare war on a country via his twitter account rather than issuing an official declaration of war from the oval office, is America, in your opinion, at war?

I think it's pretty clear my opinion is yes. And I think you all know where I'm headed with this.


If he could.. i would say no.

My opinion is based on grounds that Twitter is definitely a place to not take seriously on anything that happens there and is not an official platform to do business on. If he says "I dec war on X" and thats it... it could be taken in so many different directions Lol. Economical, political, and even competitively. Example A: The Cold War! Youd also would need to check your sources and not just act on one source (twitter).
LittleItaly
SOL Vet
-Discord: LittleItaly#2905
-IRC: irc.scourge.se #sol
-Apply today @ http://sol.ghqnet.com for Alliance

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 15:29:16

Ahh so checking with a more reputable source like don tob....

drkprinc Game profile

Member
5114

Sep 29th 2017, 15:37:43

the pact was NO FS, so no question as to who broke it don't see why you keep saying that.
(<(<>(<>.(<>..<>).<>)<>)>)

zz.ghqnet.com - 0.o
http://LaF.center - LaF
imp.ghqnet.com - IMP

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 15:41:47

Because Vic said it was already broken on AT no less than three times and declared war on us.

drkprinc Game profile

Member
5114

Sep 29th 2017, 15:43:56

saying wasn't part of the pact actually FS'ing was the opposite of the pact.
(<(<>(<>.(<>..<>).<>)<>)>)

zz.ghqnet.com - 0.o
http://LaF.center - LaF
imp.ghqnet.com - IMP

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 15:50:11

If you really feel that way DP you should take it up with Vic and not us.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Sep 29th 2017, 16:22:53

No FS means No FS. The only thing up for debate is when you FSed, and therefore broke the pact; was it when #11 hit LaF and you did not take responsibility or was it when your whole alliance FSed.
No FS means no FS, LaF did not FS, so LaF did not break the pact. No one of sound mind can say LaF broke the pact and no one of sound mind can say Elders did not. It's all very simple and clear.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 17:34:30

Or is it? Life is not so black and white, brother, as we've seen in this post. If the only clause that mattered was the only clause in the pact that regarded only the FS, as you say. Then why did your president say the pact was broken 3 times on AT and declare war on us prior to the FS? Hmm?

To claim the pact was broken by a detagging suicider but also that the pact can only be broken by an FS makes no sense. According to DP, there should be no question of when the pact was broken which puts both of you in complete disagreement with the leadership of your clan.

And no. A detagging suicider does not and has not ever counted as an FS. EVER

Edited By: DerrickICN on Sep 29th 2017, 17:44:14
See Original Post

Zorp Game profile

Member
953

Sep 29th 2017, 17:51:41

It seems to me that, much like the current situation between DPRK and USA, There was a lot of sabre-rattling involved pre-war. Elders had the RD thing which was highly questionable at best, like DPRK. LaF, like USA, was making threats but not following through on them.

On breaking the pact though, it really is pretty black and white. Elders broke the pact. Pact says no FS, you FSed, plain as day. That said, it's hard to argue with the justification Elders had to declare war and FS. Multiple LaF higher-ups had declared war.

I'd argue it was a bad pact to begin with, but then both parties agreed to it.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Sep 29th 2017, 17:57:31

At this point I must assume you have issues with reading comprehension and that you are not actively trying to misrepresent me.

Originally posted by DerrickICN:
According to you, there should be no question of when the pact was broken

No, according to what I just wrote that is very much not the case, and it it indeed up for debate.
Originally posted by Gerdler:
The only thing up for debate is when you FSed, and therefore broke the pact; was it when #11 hit LaF and you did not take responsibility or was it when your whole alliance FSed.


So what you are trying to make yourself, and others, believe I said is the exact opposite of what I said. English is my second language, your first. Do better.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 17:58:04

Yeah. That and if we hadn't hit, they'd still be whining that we somehow broke pact. Hitting just changed the logic and not the fact that all these same members were trying to justify these same statements a different way two or three weeks ago. If I'm going to get called a ham sammich I might as well be a ham sammich.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 17:59:05

I did edit that to say DP almost instantly Gerdy. Sorry you was already typing. I should edit fastah

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 18:00:22

Even so. Detagging suicider does not equate to an FS. They're clearly not the same.

Suncrusher Game profile

Member
502

Sep 29th 2017, 18:15:20

I just want to clarify I fully expected my original to survive until the end of the set. It didn't, but I really wanted it to.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Sep 29th 2017, 18:43:17

Originally posted by DerrickICN:
Even so. Detagging suicider does not equate to an FS. They're clearly not the same.

Very true you could have payed reps for it and it would not have been a problem. Since you didn't and he did not wait the 72 hours you are responsible for him it was 1 Elder actively waging war with LaF condoned by Elders leadership. I don't know what that is called. Maybe a sneaky FS, maybe a bad FS, maybe not even an FS, but definatly an act of war by Elders to LaF. Or would you say it's peaceful?

Your leader friends say they take pride in having made Elders the ISIS of the server, yet you go around preaching as if you are the good guys. Breaking pacts, forcing people into wars they don't want and your members being toxic as fluff on AT, #alliance suggests your leader friends are right and you are wrong.

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Sep 29th 2017, 19:14:44

You lied in your title.
This isn't a question of semantics. It is a question of your right or wrong and somebody else's right and wrong.

Semantics is may or might. Right or wrong is philisophical.

Semantically, learn semantics.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 19:33:00

I meant semantics as in the logical aspects of the words said. Such as the implication. Think lexical semantics. As in, what is the actual meaning of the words that were said?

Also, anything after 7 hits at least used to be considered a "kill" for most clans Ive been in. In that way one can reach a reasonable amount of reps and retals. I know your only part in that conversation was calculating the ridiculous amount of reps demanded from a clan that hates you but was attempting to let you net anyways. I know LaF never did even their allies that favor but MD, ICN, ELY, RAGE and most other clans I was a part of would not expect $280b as a reasonable request. A more reasonable request would have been reps on around 40k acres and that we kill the country. $280b is a silly request.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 19:37:22

If you truly wanted to net, you'd have worked with us. You chose to make those outrageous demands instead of helping us let you net. Chose to call us pact breakers. Chose to declare war on us. And now you're dealing with the consequences of that. It's that simple. There was always going to need to be a bit of give and take to keep the peace this set. It's unfortunate, IMO, that didn't happen.

zygotic Game profile

Member
340

Sep 29th 2017, 21:08:22

Originally posted by braden:
Why, because carter wanted to leave and China begged him not to because they were cowardly afraid of the destitute bolshevick?
This isn't a Trump problem. This is a problem brought on by liberal pc losers.
Being nice to the third world is going to get millions of South Koreans killed.
This is not on Trump. Losers.


Trump is a fluff and the rest of the world are laughing at him

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Sep 29th 2017, 22:21:32

Zygotic: learn is and are.

Derrick: syntax and semantics take divergent paths. As a true subject of the monarchy I should hope you know this.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Sep 29th 2017, 22:25:51

Aye but my question (originally) was regarding the logical implication of a statement rather than the literal arrangement. No?

sinistril Game profile

Member
2184

Sep 29th 2017, 22:46:52

There are four, two sided cards on a table with a number and letter on each side. The sides of the cards that are showing have T, 4, 6, and G on them respectively. Which cards must you flip over to prove the following statement: If a card has a T, then it must have a 6 on the other side
If you give a man some fire, he'll be warm for awhile. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Mr Gainsboro Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1469

Sep 29th 2017, 22:50:54

Originally posted by DerrickICN:
Do you feel the same about Vic? Eyyyyyyy

what do you mean?
vic is nice and have not done something wrong, you are the fluffing retard that should be dropped from a fluffing building and stoned to death. vic never questions the decitions i do cause we are in alighned with what we think laf should be, the best in all possible ways. i would like to see a 1v1 that was fair and see how we would curbstomp you nubs.

fluff you and fluff elders, go cheat somewhere else you fluffing retard. (no i dont really care i have run a fluffton of multies and i wish i was less nice and could do it agian cause it would be more fun)

ps just had a fluffing terrible beer that costed 30$ :-/ your damn fault.
Don of LaF