The Debating Room

[Drogue]

Since most debate seems to be in party discussions, yet most people do not belong to parties, I thought we needed a non-party thread to debate issues on Chiron. This is for anyone to contribute, but please keep posts civil, polite, Chiron based, and preferably not too long. If someone makes a strawman or other mistake, then it is ok to point it out, but please then state what your real opinion is. And be nice!

If anyone wants to propose a motion to debate, please do, or PM me and I will for you. But please make them relevant.

Here's the latest one:

Our military should place more emphasis on individual unit quality than overall numbers.

[Micha]

so... I start!
There has never been a discussion whether to attack an ally or not. It was said that we have to think about ALL options we have, even if they will clash with our ideals. If all factions would act like our ideals tell, then there wouldn´t be any need for war. But we have to face menaces in future, which might be much more dangerous than our little skirmish with Yang. So we either need STRONG allies or much more bases/land (e.g. the one of our weaker neighbours) or both.
We shouldn´t declare war on allies, that´s for sure.
But what if they proof not that helpful as ally...

[Drogue]

Well, I think if we have built our society on Freedom and Democracy, how can we justify denying it to any other? If they have chosen a leader, why should we despose them? And more importantly, why should we presume our system is better than any other? What right have we to impose ourselves, our beliefs and ideals, upon another faction?

Overall, in a war, humanity loses. What purpose does war serve, other than to help our egos and bid for power. If we go to war, people will die. Why should we allow unnecessary deaths? Do we value our power, our authority, more than the lives of the people? We are put here, into our position of power, by the people, ot do what is best for them. If we are not provoked, if our people are not in danger, we have no business attacking.

IMHO, we should take the path of least resistance, of least lives lost. Let our aim be to improve the quality of life for all people, not just our citizens, not just our voters, but all citizens on Planet. If that means take out Yang, to liberate his people, so be it, but would Deirdre's, or Morgan's, or Zak's people have a better quality of life after a war, where many people have died, and where society is decimated? Yes I believe our system is better, but the bad effects caused by a war are far bigger than the good effects of being in our society. Why waste time, money and energy on war when we can help improve the life of our citizens? Let us prosper in peace.
Live and Let Live

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
Well, I think if we have built our society on Freedom and Democracy, how can we justify denying it to any other? If they have chosen a leader, why should we despose them? And more importantly, why should we presume our system is better than any other? What right have we to impose ourselves, our beliefs and ideals, upon another faction?

We should do none of this, I fully agree with you on this statement; it has been what I objected to in our planned future invasion of the Hive. Most of those in favor of the invasion of the Hive are in favor because they believe we have some moral superiority over the Hive, and that we must liberate them for their own good.

The proposal for the war with Morgan, if anything, was more honest. I have never claimed that it was about ideology, or anything other than territory and resources. If we are to go to war, and even if it is against our allies, lets be at least honest about our intentions and not attempt to hide behind some non-existent moral structure which we ourselves have created for the purpose of sparing us the guilt of admission of what our wars are really about.

Originally posted by Drogue
Overall, in a war, humanity loses. What purpose does war serve, other than to help our egos and bid for power. If we go to war, people will die. Why should we allow unnecessary deaths? Do we value our power, our authority, more than the lives of the people? We are put here, into our position of power, by the people, ot do what is best for them. If we are not provoked, if our people are not in danger, we have no business attacking.

If the people wish it, so be it. I have said this many times. Nevertheless, our duty is to our people, and it legally ends there. If we can fight a war with minimal military losses on our end, and little civilian losses on the enemies, shouldn’t we take the chance since it might not come again? War, despite its undesirable characteristics, is a means to an end, and we should not dispose of it as a tool simply because we find it uncomfortable. And yes, this tool should be considered for use even against allies.

Originally posted by Drogue
IMHO, we should take the path of least resistance, of least lives lost. Let our aim be to improve the quality of life for all people, not just our citizens, not just our voters, but all citizens on Planet. If that means take out Yang, to liberate his people, so be it, but would Deirdre's, or Morgan's, or Zak's people have a better quality of life after a war, where many people have died, and where society is decimated? Yes I believe our system is better, but the bad effects caused by a war are far bigger than the good effects of being in our society. Why waste time, money and energy on war when we can help improve the life of our citizens? Let us prosper in peace.
Live and Let Live

Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good? If we were to simply come out and say that we want to invade Yang since we would gain much if we conquered him, it would be considerably more honest and closer to our true intentions.

I’m saying, that if there are minimal costs, and war could be used to improve the lives of our citizens, we should use it. In to paraphrase Chairman Yang of all people, don’t deny yourself a useful tool simply because it uncomfortably reminds you of your lack of morality. And ultimately, that is what we are doing. We are hiding behind our supposed moral high-ground in regards to the invasion of the Hive, because we are not willing to admit that we want their land, resources, and bases for ourselves.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Most of those in favor of the invasion of the Hive are in favor because they believe we have some moral superiority over the Hive, and that we must liberate them for their own good.

I disagree, I think most just do not want war. Besides that is only one reason, and to me, a small one. I favour peace with Yang, but we have little choice in the matter. He declared war.

Originally posted by Voltaire
Nevertheless, our duty is to our people, and it legally ends there. If we can fight a war with minimal military losses on our end, and little civilian losses on the enemies, shouldn’t we take the chance since it might not come again? War, despite its undesirable characteristics, is a means to an end, and we should not dispose of it as a tool simply because we find it uncomfortable.

Legally maybe, but only under our laws. I say we should care about all humankind. We are one race, we want to unite, and I would rather unite under tolerance and democracy than force.

Even the means to an end must be closely looked at and decided if they are right. Otherwise we end up like Robespierre, having a great dream, but causing too much suffering to try and attain it. War is a tool, but by that idea, so is eugenism. Should we condone that in the name of progress and a means to an end too?

Originally posted by Voltaire
Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good? If we were to simply come out and say that we want to invade Yang since we would gain much if we conquered him, it would be considerably more honest and closer to our true intentions.

But we do not disagree with Morgan. Morgan has a democracy, Yang stands for Police state, it's antithesis. There is a big difference between the too. And the one Hive member we have met (Aaron) has asked us too. Can people really be happy under those conditions. My probes have seen what he does, it is unethical, it is immoral, and if I believed in such a concept, it is evil.

Originally posted by Voltaire
I’m saying, that if there are minimal costs, and war could be used to improve the lives of our citizens, we should use it. In to paraphrase Chairman Yang of all people, don’t deny yourself a useful tool simply because it uncomfortably reminds you of your lack of morality. And ultimately, that is what we are doing. We are hiding behind our supposed moral high-ground in regards to the invasion of the Hive, because we are not willing to admit that we want their land, resources, and bases for ourselves.

Why should it happen at all. Just because it is there, and won't be later, does not mean we should use it. We do take the moral high ground, we will not commit war without provocation. Yang has provoked us, Morgan has not. To me, it really is that simple.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
I disagree, I think most just do not want war. Besides that is only one reason, and to me, a small one. I favour peace with Yang, but we have little choice in the matter. He declared war.

You may not share this opinion, but others in our faction and in our government do. Personally I would prefer to ideally have peace with Yang, but since that is not an option, invasion, assuming we could pull it off would be desirable. Though that is a large assumption to make.

Originally posted by Drogue
Legally maybe, but only under our laws. I say we should care about all humankind. We are one race, we want to unite, and I would rather unite under tolerance and democracy than force.

Again, though I find this very noble, it isn’t practical. We should, and we must take all humanity into account when making our decisions, but if it ever comes down to between “us” and “them”, the choice should be clear.

Originally posted by Drogue
Even the means to an end must be closely looked at and decided if they are right. Otherwise we end up like Robespierre, having a great dream, but causing too much suffering to try and attain it. War is a tool, but by that idea, so is eugenism. Should we condone that in the name of progress and a means to an end too?

We should have all tools at our disposal, that is all I have to say on the matter.

Originally posted by Drogue
But we do not disagree with Morgan. Morgan has a democracy, Yang stands for Police state, it's antithesis. There is a big difference between the too. And the one Hive member we have met (Aaron) has asked us too. Can people really be happy under those conditions. My probes have seen what he does, it is unethical, it is immoral, and if I believed in such a concept, it is evil.

Again, happiness is a subjective thing. Who’s to say that they cannot be happy, or that they aren’t happy? Yes, it is true that some of the methods employed by Yang we find at best distasteful, and at worst despicable. Nevertheless, can it not be said that though our methods are different, that we have the same goals in mind, that is the betterment of humanity and the human condition. Simply because we disagree with his methods is no reason to totally and completely condemn them. Besides, as you have said we shouldn’t not attempt to unify humanity at our feet, that is not democratic, what right then do we have of stating that we should liberate the Hive?

Originally posted by Drogue
Why should it happen at all. Just because it is there, and won't be later, does not mean we should use it. We do take the moral high ground, we will not commit war without provocation. Yang has provoked us, Morgan has not. To me, it really is that simple.

Simply because the Morganies have not to date provoked us is no reason to, in complete totality, reject the possible use of war latter on. And as for the Hive, I’m completely fine with invading them, just do not give me any rhetoric about the valiant Peacekeeping forces going off to war to liberate the oppressed Hivarian people. Rather just come out and say that the true motivations for any possibly invasion of the Hive is so that we can occupy them and gain those resources for ourselves.

[AdamTG02]

Here again I see this insistence that we have some moral superiority and right to “liberate” the people of the Hive. They haven’t asked us to do so, what right do we have of going in to liberate them, under the claim that it is for their own good?

The people of the Hive haven't been asked by Yang for permission to set up his totalitarian government either. He imposed his power by force and maintains it by force. If we deposed him by force, that would be justified by his own logic. Morgan, on the other hand, while he originally used economic coercion to force those on his Colony Pod to enter his employ, was able to institute a Democracy with universal suffrage before our educational techniques were up to the task. He has shared those educational techniques with us, forming the basis for our present Democracy. He has been democratically reelected as CEO multiple times. He has maintained a Pact with us despite his belief that our economic system harms legitimate business interests.

Compare this with Yang, who has developed the largest army on Planet, preemptively declared war on us, decries all Democracy as immoral, builds his bases like underground fortesses, and maintains himself in power through brutal repression. The people of the Hive may not have begged us en masse to come to their aid. They may not have the means, they may be afraid, or they may be prevented from doing so. None of those are certain, but they are possible, as is the possibility that they are content. Most likely, some exist who are content, and some who are prevented from defecting or are afraid. Now here is the key:

Do we have the right to sacrifice the liberty of those who wish to be free, for the tranquility of those who prefer despotism? Do we have the right to sacrifice their liberty, even if fighting to establish it would cause loss of life on both sides?

I do not know the answer, but that as I see it is the question.

[Edited for typos.]

[GeneralTacticus]

but if it ever comes down to between “us” and “them”, the choice should be clear.

Of course, but it isn't a choice between 'us' and 'them'. It's a choice over whether we want what is theirs by killing them.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
The people of the Hive haven't been asked by Yang for permission to set up his totalitarian government either. He imposed his power by force and maintains it by force. If we deposed him by force, that would be justified by his own logic. Morgan, on the other hand, while he originally used economic coercion to force those on his Colony Pod to enter his employ, was able to institute a Democracy with universal suffrage before our educational techniques were up to the task. He has shared those educational techniques with us, forming the basis for our present Democracy. He has been democratically reelected as CEO multiple times. He has maintained a Pact with us despite his belief that our economic system harms legitimate business interests.

Compare this with Yang, who has developed the largest army on Planet, preemptively declared war on us, decries all Democracy as immoral, builds his bases like underground fortesses, and maintains himself in power through brutal repression. The people of the Hive may not have begged us en masse to come to their aid. They may not have the means, they may be afraid, or they may be prevented from doing so. None of those are certain, but they are possible, as is the possibility that they are content. Most likely, some exist who are content, and some who are prevented from defecting or are afraid. Now here is the key:

Do we have the right to sacrifice the liberty of those who wish to be free, for the tranquility of those who prefer despotism? Do we have the right to sacrifice their liberty, even if fighting to establish it would cause loss of life on both sides?

I do not know the answer, but that as I see it is the question.

[Edited for typos.]

Fair enough, and point taken. Nevertheless, I maintain that we should leave the option of war on table, just in case, besides it would be prudent to do so.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Of course, but it isn't a choice between 'us' and 'them'. It's a choice over whether we want what is theirs by killing them.

Fine, so be it. Even so, will we never consider the use of force to gain what we want?

[GeneralTacticus]

Fine, so be it. Even so, will we never consider the use of force to gain what we want?

That would depend on whether we are justified in wanting it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
We should have all tools at our disposal, that is all I have to say on the matter.

Simply because the Morganies have not to date provoked us is no reason to, in complete totality, reject the possible use of war latter on.

We are not rejecting the possibility later on. What I'm saying is since they haven't provoked us yet, we should not attack. When they have provoked us, then it is a completely different argument. I do not want to reject the possibility completely, when a situation arises, we should discuss it. However, unless it is provoked in some form, I see no moral reason to attack.

Originally posted by Voltaire
And as for the Hive, I’m completely fine with invading them, just do not give me any rhetoric about the valiant Peacekeeping forces going off to war to liberate the oppressed Hivarian people. Rather just come out and say that the true motivations for any possibly invasion of the Hive is so that we can occupy them and gain those resources for ourselves.

It is not rhetoric, as I think Adam has addressed. If we disagree strongly with someone's ideals, we have a reason to attack (albeit to me not reason enough). If we do not disagree with them, then we do not have a reason. We disagree with the Hive and not with Morgan, hence our current foreign policy.

[Kirov]

Voltair, what you call "romantic idealism" is a foundation and agenda of our faction, the characteristics that distinguishes us from other factions. Imagine that Miriam imposes a secular way of government becomes it's more efficient, or Morgan runs Planned (I know he can't, but that's not the matter) because he wants to pop boom...

I do consider invasion of the Hive as "liberation", but it is not his political system what gives us excuse to invade - it is the fact he declared war on us himself. Whatever we do on that matter, we are defending ourselves.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That would depend on whether we are justified in wanting it.

Fine, in such a case what would then be considered justification for war?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
We are not rejecting the possibility later on. What I'm saying is since they haven't provoked us yet, we should not attack. When they have provoked us, then it is a completely different argument. I do not want to reject the possibility completely, when a situation arises, we should discuss it. However, unless it is provoked in some form, I see no moral reason to attack.

Ok, nevertheless, we shouldn’t completely discount the use of force even if Morgan is not being aggressive in the future. And moral reasons are not something that wars are fought over.

Originally posted by Drogue
It is not rhetoric, as I think Adam has addressed. If we disagree strongly with someone's ideals, we have a reason to attack (albeit to me not reason enough). If we do not disagree with them, then we do not have a reason. We disagree with the Hive and not with Morgan, hence our current foreign policy.

Disagreement over ideas is perhaps one reason for attack, but one way or another disagreement over ideals cannot be used as an excuse for an attack, not should agreement over ideas be used as justification for a possible use on force.

And just to clarify, I’ve never in all my posts used any absolutes. I’ve always clearly stated that any discussion is about possibilities, therefore I’m not arguing for the direct use of force, but rather for the possibility for the use of force, even against an ally.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Kirov
Voltair, what you call "romantic idealism" is a foundation and agenda of our faction, the characteristics that distinguishes us from other factions. Imagine that Miriam imposes a secular way of government becomes it's more efficient, or Morgan runs Planned (I know he can't, but that's not the matter) because he wants to pop boom...

I’ve been against romanticism since the start, and even before the planetfall I’ve argued for the abandonment of old Earth ideals of governance, and the adoption of scientific and rational means of governance. Yes, if secular government would be more efficient for Miriam, she should adopt it; Morgan should run planned if it is of benefit at the time. We shouldn’t restrict ourselves to our ideals, but rather govern in accordance with reason and logic. If something is reasonable at some point in time, and even if it contradicts our ideals, we should not be prevented from carrying it out simply because of this. We must be flexible and adaptive in the way we govern, and no rigid as we are becoming.

Originally posted by Kirov
I do consider invasion of the Hive as "liberation", but it is not his political system what gives us excuse to invade - it is the fact he declared war on us himself. Whatever we do on that matter, we are defending ourselves.

Invasion for defensive purposes, I can buy it. Invasions under the pretenses of liberation, is just BS. Ultimately we will not be going into the Hive to liberate the people, but to defend ourselves; lets not pretend that we have some altruistic motives when we don’t.

[Drogue]

Well, BS in your opinion. I still think it is a valid reason if the person who states it actually believes it. I believe it, I think we should liberate them, and I do not BS. It is only a small reason, and not enough on its own to launch a war, but nevertheless, I do believe it still.

Why should we not rule according to our ideals? We want to unite Planet under the banner of democracy, if we abandon that (as you seemed to suggest with saying Morgan should abandon FM if Planned does better) then we lose the point of our mission. To win, and to qin under the banner of democracy, we must both convince or conquer the other factions to our belief, and convince ourselves. If we win without using democracy, even if at a point it is not the best option, we have not won at all. It is now you who is denying human nature, in saying we should rule without 'romantic idealism'. Our ideals, our beliefs are an integral part of who we are. We should not rule solely by them I agree, but, whatever the situation, we should always be running democracy. You say to keep all options open, but if we do that we never make a decision. We should remove all options that we disagree with morally. For instance, when running an election campaign, killing the other candidate in order to win should never be an option. Our whole society is based on democracy, if we abandon that, we have no society. There should be [b[some[/b] options that are never used. In this sense I support the motion.

If we take out our idealism, what purpose have we left on this Planet?

If we are allied, then we obviously do not have strong disagreements with the faction, and, unless they give us reason, we should never attack them. I do not agree with absolutes on almost any issue, but on this, I make an exception. Therefore, I support the motion.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
Well, BS in your opinion. I still think it is a valid reason if the person who states it actually believes it. I believe it, I think we should liberate them, and I do not BS. It is only a small reason, and not enough on its own to launch a war, but nevertheless, I do believe it still.

Fine, but as I’ve stated time and time again we’re being presumptuous assuming that everyone in the Hive wants to be liberated.

Originally posted by Drogue
Why should we not rule according to our ideals? We want to unite Planet under the banner of democracy, if we abandon that (as you seemed to suggest with saying Morgan should abandon FM if Planned does better) then we lose the point of our mission. To win, and to qin under the banner of democracy, we must both convince or conquer the other factions to our belief, and convince ourselves. If we win without using democracy, even if at a point it is not the best option, we have not won at all. It is now you who is denying human nature, in saying we should rule without 'romantic idealism'. Our ideals, our beliefs are an integral part of who we are. We should not rule solely by them I agree, but, whatever the situation, we should always be running democracy. You say to keep all options open, but if we do that we never make a decision. We should remove all options that we disagree with morally. For instance, when running an election campaign, killing the other candidate in order to win should never be an option. Our whole society is based on democracy, if we abandon that, we have no society. There should be some options that are never used. In this sense I support the motion.

You’re correct in stating that it was an oversight on my part to human nature when I stated we should rule without letting our ideals get in the way. That’s not probably, and even if it were, our faction is dedicated to democracy. We should always run democracy, but does democracy always prohibit war, even wars of aggression? And I’ve stated this before, in democracy we have to have choice, for that is what democracy is all about. Can we really deny our citizens the right to choose what they want to do if we are to maintain the ideal of democracy? And it is true that we should strive to never use certain methods of achieving our goals, but that does not mean we should not consider the methods. In regards to the issue of the Morganite invasion proposed by DBTS, our citizens will most likely vote it down, and it seems that it has already fallen apart, but the point was that the choice of attacking Morgan was given, and the citizens made a decision. We need to have these sorts of debates to keep ourselves in line, if for no other reason. The government should not rule unchallenged, it must be made ready to defend its actions and its positions.

Originally posted by Drogue
If we take out our idealism, what purpose have we left on this Planet?

If we look beyond our idealism we see reality. And I believe that reality should be the founding principle for all our decisions. As stated above, we cannot, nor should we eliminate all our ideas, but nor should we govern by them alone. In this regard I agree with you.

Originally posted by Drogue
If we are allied, then we obviously do not have strong disagreements with the faction, and, unless they give us reason, we should never attack them. I do not agree with absolutes on almost any issue, but on this, I make an exception. Therefore, I support the motion.

All perfectly fine, nevertheless I still stand opposed to the absolute never, even in this case.

[Aaron Blackwell]

Voltaire,

I am sorry, but there is a lot of difference between the idea of a war with Yang and the idea of a war with Morgan.

Being a former member of the hive, I know how accurate the word liberating is, when speaking of overthrowing Yang in his own cities.

I was born there and lived there. The conditioning and the repression is so inhuman there ... it has to be stopped.
I was perhaps the only one to have been lucky enough to be able escape the hive and look for a place where human rights would mean something.

As for Morgan, on the other hand, Seeing that he has done us no harm, is one of our allies and runs a democratic government, I see no justifiable reasons to attack him. This could drastically worsen our reputations and could prevent us from gaining advantageous comercials reliationship with him or other factions.

I may not totally agree with their FM policies, but at least, it was chosen democraticaly within their faction and not imposed by Morgan ( which was intelligent enough to convice its people to support rather than force them).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Fine, but as I’ve stated time and time again we’re being presumptuous assuming that everyone in the Hive wants to be liberated.

Yes, but they should have the option. If they want Yang bacl, they vote for him, and hey presto, there he is.

Originally posted by Voltaire
We should always run democracy, but does democracy always prohibit war, even wars of aggression? And I’ve stated this before, in democracy we have to have choice, for that is what democracy is all about. Can we really deny our citizens the right to choose what they want to do if we are to maintain the ideal of democracy? And it is true that we should strive to never use certain methods of achieving our goals, but that does not mean we should not consider the methods... The government should not rule unchallenged, it must be made ready to defend its actions and its positions.

Exactly, we should rule by our people. I was merely stating my opinion on the issue. If the people feel differently, then we will do that. War is not directlyprohibited by our current ideology, but I'm saying maybe it should be. I wanted to see peoples feelings about war. It is nice to have a range of views too.

Originally posted by Voltaire
If we look beyond our idealism we see reality. And I believe that reality should be the founding principle for all our decisions. As stated above, we cannot, nor should we eliminate all our ideas, but nor should we govern by them alone. In this regard I agree with you.

Reality is whatever we make it. I think we have enough support for our ideals that we can make them reality.

Originally posted by Voltaire
All perfectly fine, nevertheless I still stand opposed to the absolute never, even in this case.

That is good. I look forward to debating with you on it when the time comes for non-hypothetical talk of war.

[Drogue]

Since this seems to have run out of steam as most arguments have been heard, would everyone who wants like to sum up their opinion and argument in brief. So we know what we believe.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, mine:

1) We should not attack our allies under any circumstance,s as long as they remain our allies.

2) We should not go to war without some form of provocation.

3) We would gain little overall from invading Morgan right now, as he has very little worth taking and is worth more as a source of commerce.

4) We should invade the Hive once it becomes possible, because until we can eliminate them, we will never know peace with them; and because we will also gain half a continent in doing so, along with freeing the Hive people.

[Drogue]

I am for the motion, and agree with GT We should not attack without provocation. I also believe we should cancel all treaties, as opposed to surprise attacks. We should not attack until they areb no longer our allies. I agree with all of GT's points, except I think we should wait a while before attacking the Hive.

[GeneralTacticus]

That's pretty much a given, since we have no transports and no army as it stands, and we need to get Doc:Init & SFF before we really start a buildup. D:AP would be helpful, too.

[Voltaire]

We need to have all options available for use, even undesirable or morally reprehensible ones. Furthermore, we need to offer our citizens more choices, and more opposing viewpoints to choose from. Let us not utterly dismiss even something such as an attack on our allies, for we should always have the choice to do so, even if we are never to use it.

[Drogue]

First post updated for new topic:

This faction believes that not repeating the mistakes of Old Earth is more important than winning as easily as possible.

What's more important, that we win, or that we stay true to our ideals and do not repeat the mistakes of Old Earth?

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't think that's a very good way to put the topic, as no-one wants to repeat the mistakes of Earth; those who you think do (such as me) merely disagree on what the mistakes were and what would be repeating them.

[Kirov]

GT is right. The word 'mistake' is inherently negative, so there is no such a person who would like to actually 'repeat mistakes'.

I'm against the war, because:

1. Our ideals are far more important than better situation in game (tho they are slightly less important than victory - we couldn't change anything if eradicated).

2. We shouldn't betray our friends just as we shouldn't betray our ideals.

3. It would divert our mineral output from infrastructure to troops.

4. Morgan bases are too pathetic to be considered as a benefit from such a war

5. If Hive would, by any chance, land on our shores while war with Morgan, then our days are counted.

[GeneralTacticus]

Numbered, not counted. Just a correction.

[Kirov]

Thanks. I'd appreciate more often corrections (esp thru PM/mail).