NationStates

Conscentia wrote:

Harelia wrote:Harelia does not kneel. Capture demands suicide. Only the weak kneel. The strong die with honor.

Natural selection favours the humble.

Natural selection better get on that a bit faster then.

Salus Maior wrote:

Ifreann wrote:1.Useful enough to be made the leader. Which doesn't bode well for suggestions that


2.I would have called the country I was invading the right country.

3.Gosh, I guess my rebellion might have to lie and hide and steal. How awful. Clearly I should have let myself be killed.

1. A leader who failed his charge.

I did edit in the rest of that sentence.

2. So, instead of a revolutionary movement your band is an invading horde out to carve land for itself? Have fun being ISIS.

Do you even watch Game of Thrones?

3. I fail to see how any of those helps you, personally. You'd still be under watch by the Dictatorship, and I doubt you could get away with suspicious behavior without shit hitting the fan.

Well then obviously I should have let myself be killed.

And if you say that your rebellion can function without you, then what's the point of you living and kneeling in the first place?

To help them, obviously.

---

Urran wrote:I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I wouldn't kneel. Id grandly lay down my life for a cause that I believe in.

So you care more about how you die than the actual cause.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:You conveniently skipped over the fact that they'd also have to tell us that they'd kill us if we don't kneel. Which is a representation by that party, not a statement of fact.

No its in a separate paragraph for a reason.

Still doesn't change the fact that they'd have to tell you they'll kill you if you don't kneel.

I would surrender, but only as part of a greater plan. While fighting, we would gain valuable experience to use. Upon return I imagine my troops would have enough combat experience to deal with most situations. Then relaunch my revolution.

If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

Help Stannis get on the Iron Throne and he'll reward your people with lands south of The Wall. Take that, ride out winter, and deal with the issue of "We'd actually rather not have a king, if it's all the same to you, m'lord" at a later date.

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

What you think they'll give you tanks and RPGs?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

What you think they'll give you tanks and RPGs?

Yeah. It's what Genghis Khan and Nazi Germany did. I doubt this dictator is literally worse than Hitler.

The OP doesn't say you won't be armed.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

What you think they'll give you tanks and RPGs?

Yeah. It's what Genghis Khan and Nazi Germany did. I doubt this dictator is literally worse than Hitler.

The OP doesn't say you won't be armed.

but because it doesn't say you will be armed, you shouldn't assume it

which is why to make an argument that goes

''Hey I'll be armed so I can betray the dictatorship later'' is a position that not only is dishonourable but also unwise

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Yeah. It's what Genghis Khan and Nazi Germany did. I doubt this dictator is literally worse than Hitler.

The OP doesn't say you won't be armed.

but because it doesn't say you will be armed, you shouldn't assume it

which is why to make an argument that goes

''Hey I'll be armed so I can betray the dictatorship later'' is a position that not only is dishonourable but also unwise

What are you talking about? That's one of the smartest moves in all of history. So many countries exist and thrive because they made it that it would actually take a dissertation to properly enumerate them all.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

You seem to be assuming considerable stupidity on the part of Stannis Baratheon. Why would he go to the trouble of trying to recruit soldiers he doesn't need?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Yeah. It's what Genghis Khan and Nazi Germany did. I doubt this dictator is literally worse than Hitler.

The OP doesn't say you won't be armed.

but because it doesn't say you will be armed, you shouldn't assume it

Yeah you should.

which is why to make an argument that goes

''Hey I'll be armed so I can betray the dictatorship later'' is a position that not only is dishonourable

So France was dishonorable? Because it was a pretty similar scenario.

but also unwise

Not at all. Historically, there have been many examples of arming recently conquered nations to fight elsewhere.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

You seem to be assuming considerable stupidity on the part of Stannis Baratheon. Why would he go to the trouble of trying to recruit soldiers he doesn't need?

GoT logic.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

You seem to be assuming considerable stupidity on the part of Stannis Baratheon. Why would he go to the trouble of trying to recruit soldiers he doesn't need?

There's no mention of Stannis in the OP, you chose to go there

I forgot, what century is this scenario?

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:I forgot, what century is this scenario?

2nd?
It's a pretty primitive mindset.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:I forgot, what century is this scenario?

Does it matter?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:I forgot, what century is this scenario?

Does it matter?

Yes.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Does it matter?

Yes.

Please explain.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Yes.

Please explain.

It determines contemporary values and interpretations thereof. Location is also important.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Yes.

Please explain.

If Temujin tells you to kneel, you fucking kneel.

Sun Wukong wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Please explain.

If Temujin tells you to kneel, you fucking kneel.

Unless you want molten silver poured down your throat. Also don't kill, humiliate or otherwise mistreat his ambassadors.
Just don't.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If the government is actually arming former rebels and using them to fight, logically it must be pretty desperate for manpower. There's no reason, then, why my group can't just surrender to the enemy en masse, turn our guns on the government immediately, etc.

Hell, even if we do neither, if and when the war is won, we'd have won the war for the dictator and would still have our guns. Thus we could force the dictator to negotiate with us on favorable terms or just depose the regime.

where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

What you think they'll give you tanks and RPGs?

I was operating under the assumption that the dictator wasn't completely fucking retarded.

Clearly that was too much to ask for from a Kefka thread.

In all likelihood, if the dictator actually wants a chance at victory, he'd arm us.

But that would work against your honor before reason horseshit, so clearly you meant that that would never happen.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Please explain.

It determines contemporary values and interpretations thereof. Location is also important.

if it matters for your answer, then you can give conditional hypotheticals for each and every case

The Nuclear Fist wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
where in the OP does it say you will be armed?

It just says you will be used in the war. It doesn't say how. In all likelihood you'd just be used as unarmed fodder to reveal enemy artillery positions or to set off mines.

What you think they'll give you tanks and RPGs?

I was operating under the assumption that the dictator wasn't completely fucking retarded.

Clearly that was too much to ask for from a Kefka thread.

In all likelihood, if the dictator actually wants a chance at victory, he'd arm us.

But that would work against your honor before reason horseshit, so clearly you meant that that would never happen.

using you as unarmed fodder still helps his military cause

also, you don't if he's winning or not

maybe he is winning but he needs to throw more bodies at the enemy minefields to wear them down and lower his ''real'' casualties