A mean old man wrote:Ah, but Kalibarr - the defenders didn't actually tell the truth about it in their threads. That's the key to sneaking an agenda into a WA proposal.
Anyway, for reasons blatantly obvious, I cannot support this proposal. I do find it interesting how the invaders' side of the WA has shown us how liberations could potentially be used for their purposes as well as the purposes of defenders, though. A few well placed sleepers and anonymous puppets and the invaders could do just what the defenders have done.
This just serves as a reminder that we must all, despite our loyalties or ideologies, must be wary of the possible intent behind WA resolutions and not allow them to be used for purposes that we are not aware of. WASC resolutions, particularly liberations, must be well justified and supported by as many natives of the regions targeted as possible. When liberations start digging into the interests of private organizations or individuals, we begin to travel down a slippery slope carved out by greed and insensitivity.
So remember this, raiders, defenders, and neutral nations of the world. Anyone can sneak an agenda behind a WA resolution, whether it be raiders attempting to make a region vulnerable to attack, or defenders trying to make themselves look like heroes or trying to undermine individual invader organizations. Let us always remain vigilant and heavily question the intent behind a resolution and the evidence provided for said resolution before we accept the resolution as actually meaning to do exactly what it says it wishes to in its writing and nothing more (in a secret, sneaky sense).
Don't know how sneaky something is when a Nazi tries to liberate the land of the libertad, but otherwise I agree with you completely.
