Talk: Military Command of the New Pacific Order

Something Needed

In the table there needs to be start and end dates of the wars. --216.20.93.164 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision Arguing

Please stop the history revisionism. The wiki is for facts, not propaganda. NPO lost the first Great War, period. Otherwise, you must revise the FAN war to disputed, along with several other wars. Just admit our loss (NPO's) and move on.

That it is disputed is the fact. An ever dwindling number claim that the Orders lost; a majority claim that it was a stalemate; and a growing minority (such as myself) claim that the Orders won. The only propaganda therefore was your edit. But more importantly, the wiki admin has already ruled on this matter and it is to be left as 'disputed'. If you edit it again you can face disciplinary action for vandalism. Soviestan 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the effort, this page is not hosting a debate over who won the Great Patriotic War. The perspective that the coaLUEtion won is put forward in the original text by noting the apology. The new section adds nothing of relevance. The substance of the peace talks from half-way through the war do not demonstrate your point because the war did not end half-way through; and by the end circumstances had changed (in fact bringing those peace talks up supports the argument that the coaLUEtion did not win the war by pointing out the rapid decline in demands as the war turned against them). If you want to debate the outcome of the GPW the OWF is a more appropriate venue. Soviestan 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GATO-1V

Since Jinman has taken this to the absurd position where he is reporting us for vandalising this page, let me state for the record that his claim is so far removed from reality as to be unrecognisable.

The war was nearly a year ago and in all that time I have never heard one single person seriously suggest that they won the war. Indeed, the only time it has ever come up was in the thread that Jinman mentioned and it was put there as an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, not as a serious proposition.

But nevertheless, allow me to demonstrate a few of the elementary errors made in the 'disputed' claim.

"Vladimir posted a topic in the Cybernations Official Forums entitled "The Great Patriotic War and You", which outlined how the NPO and NpO won the Great Patriotic war despite being completely crushed militarily due to their only goals being the alliances’ survival."

No, at no point did I [Vladimir] claim that. In fact, not only did I never claim that, I didn't even discussed that. Where did I say "the Order's only goal was survival"? You won't find it because I said the exact opposite! Not only did I say the exact opposite (that the Orders' goal was to punish LUE), but I went on to say that we ultimately failed in this goal and, more importantly that it was irrelevant. So one short paragraph, one essential premise to his point, and two complete fabrications. We could go on to mention a third -- that the Orders were not "militarily crushed" (and if Jinman had actually read the post he is trying to use he might realise that this was the entire point I was making) -- but I think we've already destroyed it sufficiently.

It's also worth pointing that GATO still to this day has an NPO Viceroy, so to claim that they may have won the war is more than a little ridiculous. I also note that Jinman has only been editing the outcome of this war on the NPO wiki (along with vandalising a couple of other articles with asinine anti-NPO nonsense on the flimsiest of pretexts) and not on the other wiki's of One Vision. Must have been an oversight, I'm sure. Soviestan 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to this, there are many flaws and inconsistencies in this point made by Soviestan.

First of all, I have only reported one member of this wiki thus far for any form of vandalism, though if this man continues his actions in removing additional facts and statements which may not agree with him then I feel it shall soon increase to two.

The first man, Imperial Empire, has repeatedly removed the same sections continuously and never given any actual statements as to why he is doing this or why he considers them to be vandalism, would he state these reasons then I would be more than willing to listen to them. Other actions include, the removal of a historic event within the Francograd page despite evidence given to it via a link, the removal of the bias warning on the New Pacific Order page, the removal of the fact within the Military Command page that the InFANtile war is still ongoing and has not reached it’s conclusion, therefore it cannot be a One Vision victory and I am sure that further searches will uncover more details over time.

I also see no reason as to why the time period of one year should come into any consideration as the Great Patriotic War was even longer ago, and yet it’s outcome and the facts to their argument are fiercely defended, and also that the events relating to the triggering of the GATO-1V war were a year before that, as a mere footnote of history and it did not prevent them from initiating the war. As for the disputed outcome of the war, I have encountered three people thus far who agree with this statement as to why it should be disputed, not including the man who made the post himself:[1]

As stated, GATO’s goal in this war was to survive and this was a fact stated by at least one Senior member. It should also be noted that there was no real counter argument to this fact and that the focus was far more upon the argument at hand and simply avoiding the GATO statement all together. While off topic, I wish to also state here that the fact that the New Pacific Order and it’s allies were on their way to a military victory is ultimately irrelevant, there is no proof to support this and they agreed to the surrender terms, nearly winning does not count.

I do however, thank the member Soviestan for pointing out my error in my facts and I assure him that this will later be corrected. However, there is no real support for many points within his counter argument from here on, we have no real proof that this is infact the NPO player Vladimir, nor any which I believe can be used to prove that this is the same man. There are many points against however, such as the way in which his words are structured and also the apparent ‘mannerisms’ of this person, I for one have never seen Vladimir use any form of exclamation mark within his argument at any point in his previous writings. I also recall that one point mentioned within the thread was that the Order’s main objective was to prevent the LUE punishing them, this punishment would ultimately lead to a forced disbandment. In short the Orders were indeed fighting for their survival, the same way in which GATO was.

There is also no real evidence to show that the Orders ‘were not militarily crushed’ and indeed the topic which this one was ultimately created to respond to stated the exact opposite, with members from the opposing side of the war and also one or two members from the NPO’s allies stating that they were indeed militarily crushed.

I also fail to see why the presence of a viceroy should ultimately change the points made as it was part of the surrender terms given, the only surrender term made to the NPO was for an apology was that, and that was stated by the current leader of the New Pacific Order himself, or so I am told. Despite this fact that they agreed with the surrender terms, the NPO still regards itself as having won the war, in this case why should GATO be viewed any differently?

And I was not aware that there was an ‘NPO wiki’ as I have not visited a separate cybernations wiki site, and the only changes made to the New Pacific Order page was the re-inclusion of the bias notice along with the warning that it is often targeted with vandalism. As for the ‘vandalism’ of the other pages, I have already stated that I was merely adding facts, and the only reason that I began with the New Pacific Order was because they were the strongest alliance, and they seemed to have many missing elements within their pages.

I hope that helps you understand my actions and I wish you good day.

--Jinman 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been following what you've been doing and I will admit I have not been happy with what is going on.

From my point of view, the war was a clear cut One Vision Victory for the following reasons:
1) GATO surrendered, NPO did not
2) GATO has a viceory, NPO did not
3) IAA disbanded before the wars end which is hardly a victory, NPO did not
4) CSN surrendered, NPO did not
5) CSN was forced to pay reps, NPO did not
Had GATO just have been made to apologise then yes, maybe I would agree with you but they did not. They surrendered, that is hardly a victory. I have always been (and always will) be under the impression that surrender = loss unless suddenly that changed. You attempt to use Zha's reasoning against us

When tallying up the war gains and losses, you cannot put an apology down in the gains column.

I hardly think GATO can put the fact that they were militarily crushed into a pulp and now live under and NPO viceroy(at least for the time being) as a 'victory'.

Further, I noticed you attempted to play the bias card

"You choose not to record an event relating to the actions of one alliance, and yet you are more than willing to edit, update and add to the information in other articles, specifically those of the NPO, and recognize any and all events and actions made by them. Some would call that bias."

Yet I have been following your actions and have noticed that you have only attempted to edit NPO related wikis. Why have you not yet touched GGA, IRON, NpO or the others that fought in GATO-1V War? How is it 'disputed' for us, yet for them it is still a victory? You have had plenty of time, yet made no attempts! Your edits are only focused on the NPO, why? Why not go to GATO's page and attempt to explain it away there? Why only focus on the NPO? Just because we're "the biggest" doesn't give a reason not to ignore the others.

Do you know the amount of IP vandals I have to deal with these days? They come through and change our page - sometimes adding extremely nasty stuff - thinking we're not gonna notice. Before you had an account, you attempted no reasoning, yet now you state I have made no attempts to explain it! Why did not try and say anything as your IP?

There, I have given you my reasoning. Additionally, who are you?
Imperial Empire 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the results you have listed are merely elements of the surrender or peace terms given to the alliances, the NPO did not have a Viceroy, was not forces to pay reps, nor were they forced to simply surrender. Their only term was for an apology.

Has this simply been an apology and only an apology then I would not be arguing this point but it was indeed their terms and they followed them. The Orders followed their surrender (or peace) terms. GATO and it’s allies (bar IAA) followed their surrender terms.

Both ultimately ended the war, and both were following the wishes of the opposing alliance. Simply because LUE was far more lenient on the Orders’ terms is no reason to declare two very different outcomes of very similar wars.

As I stated before, in both cases the alliance’s goals were ultimately survival and these were achieved. As you can see, I am not purely basing my entire argument upon the single apology and Zha’ha’dum’s argument does to some extent follow the backing of my point.

Also as I have stated before, many of your allies and enemies stated within a thread on the OWF relating to the outcome of the Great Patriotic War that the NPO was militarily crushed. We have already seen that members of the NPO are utterly bias towards this war and will call it nothing short of total victory, so why should I take your points over theirs?

As for living under a viceroy, I have already gone through that point and added the fact that it was a result of surrender terms, Just as the apology of your Emperor was.

Also the reason I have not moved onto the later wikis involved within this is that the NPO members continue to remove these facts and continue to maintain the ‘fact’ that the InFANtile war is a victory (despite that it is still ongoing,) and that the GATO-1V war was a victory despite all of the points I have made up until now. I have also stated the reasons for considering the NPO to be bias, and I see no defense or denial of that point. Merely attempted criticisms of what I am doing.

There is no point continuing into other areas when the current ones I am introducing these facts into continue to deny their authenticity, when you stop editing my facts and points then I will move on into the pages of the other alliances. You should also note I have edited my points to controversy into the GATO-1V war page, and to my knowledge that does not belong to the New Pacific Order.

As for adding the information GATO’s page, how do I know that you or another ally of yours will not attempt to remove such facts?

I can see the various points people have added, such as replacing all the links with Youtube videos, your allies have always removed them and that I have no problem with because it is vandalism. While I commend such players in their diligence, I also note that you are largely adding something utterly irrelevant to the debate here and I believe that this is an attempt to remind people that you consider me to be no different from such vandals. Never before have you gone to the extent of protecting the entire page in an attempt to block them however, as you did with me.

I attempted no reasoning as I saw no points placed against what I was adding to this thread, furthermore I was not altering any facts, I am not calling any war a loss for the NPO nor am I attempting to discredit the NPO in any way, shape or form. I did not see how I could defend my reasoning, nor why you would be willing to listen to it.

As for who I am, my account name is stated at the end of this message. --Jinman 07:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been called a lot of things in my time, but 'not Vladimir enough' has never been one of them, especially when dressing someone down for their sloppy error-ridden argument. But perhaps this is because no one has ever been in a situation before where they were trying to misrepresent my own posts to me without knowing who I was. How embarrassing for you. Regardless, a quick look at my contributions would inform you of my identity, given that I created the page for Vladimir, for TrotskysRevenge, and for all of my [Vladimir's] articles, including the one under discussion (before it was posted on the OWF no less). Either I'm Vladimir or I'm a very determined stalker. One way to find out is to reach me in #nsa and ask. You'll find me under the name 'Vladimir'.

"I have encountered three people thus far who agree with this statement as to why it should be disputed"

Now, I have already refuted this point. Look at the post for more than a couple of seconds. Ok, got it open? Looking at it? Good. Now, let me take you through it in a manner you might understand. This is the structure and purpose of his post:

He starts off by saying that it is absurd to suggest that achieving the goal of 'survival' means you won a war.

He emphasises this by taking the most absurd example he can think of -- that is, a war that was an undeniable loss for an alliance -- and applies the same logic to them. This is not a claim that they won or that the war is 'disputed', it is a statement that the war was a loss for said alliance and that thus the logic he is discussing is wrong. This is, as I said earlier, an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum -- a favoured tactic of the OWF.

He then goes on to discuss what the Orders' actual goal was in the war and suggests that the they didn't achieve it. Ironically he puts forward exactly the same goal that I did and comes to the same conclusion that we didn't achieve it. To quote the essay itself:

"What about the Orders' original goals? Given the discussion with GATO and the ODN mentioned in the previous section, it was explicitly to teach LUE a lesson, if not destroy them completely, and this has never been denied. Were they punished? The fact that it is difficult to say would suggest not as much as the Orders would have liked.

[...]

With neither side achieving their original goals [...]"

So the post that you linked to proves two things. One, that neither you nor Delta1212 read my essay (or if you did you failed to understand it to a cataclysmic degree). And two, that the GATO-1V war is such a ridiculously obvious win for 1V that the your claim is actually an argument against its own logic. It is also further clear that you didn't read my response on the very next page, which more succinctly states exactly what I have been stating here:

"I already addressed most of this in the article itself. Read the section 'Who won?' and you will see that I readily admitted that the Orders' goal was to 'punish' LUE. I also argued that we failed to do so. However, it is also evident that the coaluetion also failed to achieve its goals -- to destroy the Orders. I addressed this because it is the most common definition used to determine who won the war -- it is common to hear those who favour the coaluetion say 'our goal was to defend LUE, we did this, so we won', I was merely debunking this argument.

I then moved on from this to argue that the Orders won not because they achieved their original goal, but simply because they were on their way to a military victory -- and indeed, they explicitly beat a number of coaluetion alliances due to individual surrenders. That the Orders pulled out of the war without fully achieving this victory does not nullify what was happening at the time."

So, your premise that the aforemocked logic was the basis for my claim to victory in the Great Patriotic War no longer exists, meaning that your conclusion for moving the war to 'disputed' also no longer exists. Unless you have anything else up your sleeves to try and justify your vandalism I would suggest that you cease and desist before you embarrass yourself further. Soviestan 14:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you see, this is why I am having difficulties believing that you are Vladimir, For one thing I do not believe that he would open his posts with direct slanders against he opposing side in any debate, nor do I believe that he would miss the point of the debate completely.

I am not trying to misinterpret Vladimir’s posts or threads in any way, I have repeatedly stated my points for why I am doing this and this is partially due to the fact that you can only claim victory in one war by losing the other.

As for your actual identity, I feel that it would not be hard for the NPO to have members of their alliance specifically focused upon one single job relating to their public image. It is obvious that there are other NPO members on these forums, and even a page noting several of them (the ACE page,) so with so many Pacificans on this wiki, with so many members within one alliance and only your word that you are who you claim to be without any solid evidence, how can I believe you? Additionally if you are Vladimir and have written all of his articles, then why do you not use his name? You should know as well as I it’s reputation

As for your next part of your reply, if this war was a loss for the alliance as you have already suggested, then why do you not list it as such? And why do your members continue to state that the Order is undefeated in war if this was a loss for them?

Furthermore, I have already stated my reasons in the previous edits, reasons which you helped me alter to represent the truth, pointing out how the prevention of an opposing force’s objective (also an objective of your own alliance) could be viewed as a ‘victory.’

The LUE wished to punish the Orders, most likely by disbanding them, and to one extent or another our objective would have been to stop them. As the Orders are still alive and well today we can assume that they were successful in this effort, and the objective of preventing the LUE’s victory (ultimately equaling to survival) was a success.

The same view can be applied to the GATO-1V war to some extent with GATO in the place of the Orders, attempting to make sure they survived. As I stated this was their only real objective and as such even with the argument you are putting forwards, the achievement of this objective (paralleling that of the Orders) can be viewed as a victory.

You argue that the NPO lost the Great Patriotic War, I argue that it can be viewed that you won it. You argue that GATO lost the GATO-1V war, I argue that for the same reasons you are here today (along with others) GATO won it.

Therefore they are both disputed. Even on this minor level.

As for the next stage of this argument, if he did so easily misunderstand the argument, then why did Vladimir not simply state such a fact? He also fails to mention the GATO-1V war at any point in this essay at all, and you have not pointed out how or why the GATO-1V war was a loss for GATO, nor have you given any evidence to suggest as such, only that the Great Patriotic War is in your eyes a failure for the Order if not for both sides. Both points I have given by counter points to suggest how you could have (and can be viewed as having) won these wars.

This next section relating to the fact that the Orders were on their way towards a military victory seems to be somewhat irrelevant. At many points in history have there been near victories Jacobite rebellion in England came close to victory and people do not view them as having won the war even by that point. The individual surrenders also mean little as they did not result ultimately to the victory or defeat of either side, and I fail to see your point about how it matters at all. May I also have links to these individual surrenders?

Your final paragraph is also now irrelevant as all the points you have made up till now and you also appear to have failed to grasp why I am arguing that the GATO-1V war was disputed. --Jinman 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting painful to read. You continually refuse to read what I write and insist on asserting that I said the exact opposite. First things first: my identity. Why do I not use the name 'Vladimir'? If you knew me a little better you would know that I use a lot of different names in a lot of different places. But in this particular case I believe it was because 'Vladimir' was taken by one of the many other CN Vladimirs. You will note that 'Soviestan' is my nation name. If you are so confused on the matter you can, as I said, come into #nsa and ask me if I am me. Or send me a PM on the CN forum, or a PM on the NPO forum, or a PM ingame. In every case you will find me under the name 'Vladimir' and in every case I will respond 'I am Soviestan on the CN wiki.' So don't just sit there repeating 'nu uh!' over and over again. If you think that I am impersonating another player then test your theory. If you're right then the admins will ban me from the wiki and you can get your way.

If, on the other hand, you are simply using your confusion as a device to hide behind and launch attacks against me ie. 'Vladimir wouldn't be this stupid', then you should forget it and just attack me head on.

Next, you continue to completely miss the point to such an extent that I no longer know what you're talking about. Take the following examples.

"As for your next part of your reply, if this war was a loss for the alliance as you have already suggested, then why do you not list it as such? And why do your members continue to state that the Order is undefeated in war if this was a loss for them?"

I can't think of an explanation for why you think this. The NPO has never lost a war in my opinion, and I never suggested otherwise. When I was talking about an alliance clearly losing I was talking about GATO.

"Furthermore, I have already stated my reasons in the previous edits, reasons which you helped me alter to represent the truth, pointing out how the prevention of an opposing force’s objective (also an objective of your own alliance) could be viewed as a ‘victory.’"

No. Just no. This is not what I was saying at all. This is not even close to what I was saying. This is diametrically opposed to what I was saying. Where are you getting this from? I argued that the Orders won the GPW because we were winning a military victory and our strategic decision to withdraw before this victory was solidified did not indicate a loss. In the final line I used the analogy of Monty Python's Black Knight for those who couldn't grasp the argument proper. Perhaps you should reread the essay (or anything I've written on this page, since I repeat the thesis of the essay ad nauseum and for reasons unknown to me you seem incapable of grasping it).

My discussion on objectives was simply to get a common argument out of the way before discussing my own perspective. My own perspective that had absolutely nothing to do with obejectives.

"The LUE wished to punish the Orders, most likely by disbanding them, and to one extent or another our objective would have been to stop them. As the Orders are still alive and well today we can assume that they were successful in this effort, and the objective of preventing the LUE’s victory (ultimately equaling to survival) was a success.

The same view can be applied to the GATO-1V war to some extent with GATO in the place of the Orders, attempting to make sure they survived. As I stated this was their only real objective and as such even with the argument you are putting forwards, the achievement of this objective (paralleling that of the Orders) can be viewed as a victory."

Now, you say you have modified your argument to take note of my criticisms, but all I see here is exactly what you have always been saying, and exactly what I have been telling you is incorrect. Again (and again and again and again), my argument had nothing to do with objectives. And moreover, the Orders' objective had nothing to do with 'survival' or 'stopping LUE from punishing them'; it was to punish LUE, and in this they failed. So why you would apply this "view" to the GATO-1V war when no one except you is trying to apply it to the GPW is unknown to me.

I'm sitting here trying to fathom how you can genuinely continue to say that this is my argument when my entire last post was a rebuttal of this point, complete with quotes of me saying exactly the same thing over the past months. What will it take to get you to understand this? Or are you just trolling as I am becoming increasingly convinced.

"You argue that the NPO lost the Great Patriotic War, I argue that it can be viewed that you won it.

You argue that GATO lost the GATO-1V war, I argue that for the same reasons you are here today (along with others) GATO won it.

Therefore they are both disputed. Even on this minor level."

What. Are. You. Talking. About. I argue that the NPO lost the GPW? Are we not discussing my 3700 post where I argued that we won it? How can that be misinterpreted? Where have I ever said anything to even suggest that I no longer agree with this? Where are you getting this impression that you are using the same arguments as I did? Is my head going to explode from the complete insanity of this so-called discussion?

"As for the next stage of this argument, if he did so easily misunderstand the argument, then why did Vladimir not simply state such a fact?

I did state such a fact. That was the entire post, me pointing out where he misunderstood the argument. Surely everything doesn't need to be spelled out word by word for you to understand. Just take it for granted that when I contradict everything you say in a post I am telling you that you are wrong. That was the case there.

"He also fails to mention the GATO-1V war at any point in this essay at all, and you have not pointed out how or why the GATO-1V war was a loss for GATO, nor have you given any evidence to suggest as such, only that the Great Patriotic War is in your eyes a failure for the Order if not for both sides. Both points I have given by counter points to suggest how you could have (and can be viewed as having) won these wars."

Of course I didn't mention GATO at any point in the essay. It is completely irrelevant to the essay as I have already noted a thousand times -- why on earth would I have mentioned it? And Imperial Empire already pointed out why GATO lost the war. They were completely decimated militarily and accepted harsh surrender terms that included the NPO gaining sovereignty over their alliance. If you go by your new definition of victory where only the 'objective of survival' matters and all of that listed above is irrelevant, then you will have to go to every single page on the wiki and rewrite every single war to state the exact opposite of what it states now. And there you go again saying that in my eyes the GPW was a failure for the Order. Have we entered bizarro world? Have we all suddenly sprouted goatees? Soviestan 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we are now going in circles. You refuse to acknowledge any points or previous points I make and are apparently certain in your views that I am wrong and you are right (no offence intended, but that is what your views appear to be here and now.) Whenever I attempt to acknowledge or reply to a point made by you, you seem to continuously misunderstand that.

Furthermore, can you give any examples of different online names you have used? can you prove that you do not have an agreement with Vladimir, one allowing him to focus upon matters of the NPO and the Official Forums and you this wiki for example. Can you prove that if I were to find a way of contacting him it would be you? with such a simple reply as 'I am Soviestan on the CN wiki' it would easily be possible for you to maintain this agreement. I am sorry, but a more convincing method should be found to help prove your identity. Also, what if I am not a member of the game or the forums? Did you take that possibility into account?

For the next statement upon confusion, I believe that this is something of an accusation. You seem to now believe that I am here largely to attack you in some way when all I have stated so far is my doubt that Vladimir would use such insults and other reasons for which I have already stated why I think you may not be the actual Vladimir.

The following are a number of responses to the various examples used to in Soviestan’s argument:

The first example: And I would ask you for the next point to read through your own workings, up till now you have repeatedly been referring to Vladimir as either ‘Vladimir’ or he and you gave no specifications as to which war you were referring. Is it all that possible to get the two confused, especially when I have stated that the reasons for the possibility of victory on both sides ultimately relates to survival and the alliance’s own objectives?

The second example: In this you seem to once again miss the point and believe that I am directly referring to your argument over the separate points relating to the Orders’ arguable victory over the LUE via their objectives and the comparison between this and GATO in the GATO-1V war. I later commented upon the military victory stating that a near victory almost always means nothing to the outcome and gave a wartime example of this. I then later commented upon your decision to withdraw from the conflict and pointed out that in doing this you had to agree to the LUE’s terms, an action for which you believe you won the GATO-1V war.

The point of objectives still stands however, as you have given no real examples or evidence as to how preventing the primary objective of an enemy can lead to defeat in a war.

The Third example: I have altered my argument to take into account new facts and information, you can look at previous edits within the main article to see that fact and how it has been put into use. And also, though your argument focuses upon objectives (or rather the use of them as points within mine) mine doesn’t and tries to point out how they can be used to make comparisons between the wars and their ultimate victories, this is of course barring the situation of both sides and other factors for the debate’s sake. I also noted that the LUE’s punishment would ultimately result to disbandment and also that had you not focused upon preventing this objective, then neither Polaris or Pacifica would be here today. You also once again move onto pointing out how your objective of punishing the LUE was a failure, to which I once again ask that if your objective was a failure and you agreed to the LUE’s terms then how can you have won this war?

I believe that I have also already previously stated my reasons for how I apply this to the Great Patriotic War and I would ask you to look back to these points than have me repeat myself.

The Forth Example: What I was referring to here was our disagreement upon the outcomes of the wars triggered by my misunderstanding of a previous point of yours (as seen in the first example) and relating to your failure to place any note of which war you were referring to here. What I was speaking of at this point was that it is disputed due to conflicting views.

The Fifth Example: You have not given any actual reply to my query here, but I shall answer as best I can. What I was referring to at this point was the fact that you did not directly state that he misunderstood the argument, this was not hard to spot.

Also, sometimes a short statement (a conclusion) to a post finishing your exact points clearly does help lower the number of misunderstandings within any thread. As for your next point, when there are contradictions, how sure can you be that you are not wrong?

The Sixth Example: Now, you’ll have to forgive me here but this was a partial fault of mine. When I stated essay, I believe that I was actually referring to the post I had used as an example. I am sorry about that and I shall try not to repeat such a mistake.

I have noted in my reply to Imperial Empire why it is debatable that GATO won the GATO-1V war based upon the views of Pacificans relating to the Great Patriotic War and how it is arguable that both you and GATO won in both cases. Part of this argument related to the alliance’s only objective being survival and that just as NPO members regard themselves as having won the Great Patriotic War, as can GATO for the same reasons despite agreeing to surrender terms on both occasions.

I also have no desire to rewrite every last page on these forums as many of them are not flawed and contain few contradictions within them. There are also very few occasions upon which the alliance both agrees to enemy terms and achieves it’s objective whether it be in attack or defense. As for that last point, as I have stated before, that is due to a misunderstanding very early on into your post within this debate. --Jinman 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"your argument focuses upon objectives"

*head explodes*

Soviestan 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is no in-game match for anyone called "Jinman", neither is there anything on the wiki in regards to it. Why don't you tell me who you are? Do you even still have a nation in the game? Feel free to send me an in-game PM if you want.
Imperial Empire 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)