Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 02:31:00 -
[31]
ILF DID help the Caldari occupy Intaki. That is what was stated, and it is fact. The ILF has since stated that they reject the Caldari militia and all evidence so far points to this being true.
|
Vechtor
Intaki Chartered Company
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 02:45:00 -
[32]
Originally by: X Gallentius ILF DID help the Caldari occupy Intaki. That is what was stated, and it is fact. The ILF has since stated that they reject the Caldari militia and all evidence so far points to this being true.
I guess then that when a current ILF commander proposes an idea such as the Intaki Navy to be debated around here he is doing it with the best of intentions and not with any hidden interest such as benefiting the Caldari. At least that was what X Gallentius just stated.
So... will FDU commanders now let this debate return to its original topic?
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 08:58:00 -
[33]
As for using Yuri as an example I can easly in the same KB get at least a couple more pilots.
But I am the first to admit they are all no longer ILF and as X Gallentus says it does seem ILF is no longer working with the Caldari.
Yuri and friends were kicked at the time ILF finally realized that the Caldari will not be the liberators they expected and so the pro-Caldari group had to leave. It was arround that time that ILFs plans for an Intaki free state that would have all of the Viriette constellation and a couple more of systems in it come to light.
There is nothing honest, innocent or simple about this propossal. Its just a stepping stone towards the Greater Intaki goal.
And even if this Intaki navy would come to be how would it be sucessful fighting pirates were the Federation Navy, Mordu's Legion and the Capsuleers protecting Intaki "failed" ?
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:15:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Bataav on 14/06/2010 10:24:43
Originally by: Hussain
And even if this Intaki navy would come to be how would it be sucessful fighting pirates were the Federation Navy, Mordu's Legion and the Capsuleers protecting Intaki "failed" ?
The effectiveness of an Intaki Navy greatly depends on the nature of it's deployment.
Currently the Mordu's Legion escorts tend to operate around the Astral Mining station above the Intaki homeworld and despite their mandate to protect the Intaki system in practice their attention is focussed on protecting the Ishukone transports with varying degrees of success.
In my personal view of how an Intaki Navy would be deployed would be similar to that of CONCORD in higher sec systems that Intaki. Of course with a 0.1 security rating it is unrealistic to expect a high sec style deployment, though perhaps we could debate on whether it is unreasonable.
If an Intaki Navy was deployed in low numbers at the three system gates in Intaki and had a mandate to respond to combat in system we would see an effective improvement in security. It does not take long for someone relocating to the Intaki or surrounding systems to learn that while Serpentis pirates are a menace throughout asteroid belts and on some system gates they pale into insignificance in comparison to the capsuleer pirate corporations that regularly camp gates on the route to Intaki at a massive cost to the local economy.
I understand that this might effectively reset Intaki security status from 0.1 to something higher but I would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone had any arguement against that happening.
And it is this, Hussain, that would give us results. Higher sec systems are by their very nature more secure as they have a greater security presence from CONCORD, but paradoxically it is the lowsec systems that cry out for patrols. What is the use of CONCORD patrolling the gates of systems that are already secure? Is it perhaps because of these patrols that the system is secure?
Yes? Good, then an Intaki Navy with a similar deployment and mandate should have a similar effect in Intaki should it not? I repeat my first point - the effectiveness of an Intaki Navy depends on the nature of it's deployment.
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:57:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Hussain on 14/06/2010 11:05:14 Edited by: Hussain on 14/06/2010 10:59:32
Originally by: Bataav
The effectiveness of an Intaki Navy greatly depends on the nature of it's deployment.
Currently the Mordu's Legion escorts tend to operate around the Astral Mining station above the Intaki homeworld and despite their mandate to protect the Intaki system in practice their attention is focussed on protecting the Ishukone transports with varying degrees of success.
In my personal view of how an Intaki Navy would be deployed would be similar to that of CONCORD in higher sec systems that Intaki. Of course with a 0.1 security rating it is unrealistic to expect a high sec style deployment, though perhaps we could debate on whether it is unreasonable.
If an Intaki Navy was deployed in low numbers at the three system gates in Intaki and had a mandate to respond to combat in system we would see an effective improvement in security. It does not take long for someone relocating to the Intaki or surrounding systems to learn that while Serpentis pirates are a menace throughout asteroid belts and on some system gates they pale into insignificance in comparison to the capsuleer pirate corporations that regularly camp gates on the route to Intaki at a massive cost to the local economy.
I understand that this might effectively reset Intaki security status from 0.1 to something higher but I would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone had any arguement against that happening.
And it is this, Hussain, that would give us results. Higher sec systems are by their very nature more secure as they have a greater security presence from CONCORD, but paradoxically it is the lowsec systems that cry out for patrols. What is the use of CONCORD patrolling the gates of systems that are already secure? Is it perhaps because of these patrols that the system is secure?
Yes? Good, then an Intaki Navy with a similar deployment and mandate should have a similar effect in Intaki should it not? I repeat my first point - the effectiveness of an Intaki Navy depends on the nature of it's deployment.
Unfortunely its not as I see it, take the example of the Navies of the empires fighting the Capsuleers in their high-sec syatems only in the most extreme cases due to extremely fast response and massive numbers they are really effective. And they do operate all over the system, I myself participatedin several raids into Caldari high-sec systems and it can be easly done.
There wasnŠt (if any) singnificantly changes to systems security rating after the war started so I am assuming that the empires have some kind of arrangement with CONCORD to use their fast response nets that are obvioulsy more effective in the higher-sec systems.
The problem with Intaki its the low security rating and the lack of the fast response net, I would like to see the net extended from Stacmon-Ostigale-Agoze-Intaki (wich seem the most direct way) but the costs must be extremly high and also the maintnance costs or else all of the empire space would have it by now. I don't think the Intaki economy can support that and the number of required ships.
So in my view it really doesnt matter what kind of security forces (Federation Navy, Mordu's, Intaki Navy or even a dedicated force of capsuleers) you have if you dont have a fast response net and are unable to use interdiction bubbles.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 12:00:00 -
[36]
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between what we are both saying.
In your example you have shown that you were able to operate within Caldari hisec space without CONCORD reacting. I would have expected this to be the case during a war between the nation states, much in the same way that combat between capsuleers involved in a sanctioned war between corporations or alliances are not responded to.
This is not the situation we are trying to address here. Instead, why not fly into hisec in the Essence region, pick a capsuleer in their Iteron and kill them much in the same way a capsuleer pirate would in Intaki and note the speed of response that CONCORD arrives to deal with the situation.
This is what we are trying to work towards with an Intaki Navy, founded, mustered and sourced locally at no cost to the wider Federation. In terms of the costs involved, this would be at least partially offset by both the savings made by not requiring and therefore paying for the services of Mordu's Legion and the increase in trade that a safer system would bring.
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 13:07:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Bataav Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between what we are both saying.
In your example you have shown that you were able to operate within Caldari hisec space without CONCORD reacting. I would have expected this to be the case during a war between the nation states, much in the same way that combat between capsuleers involved in a sanctioned war between corporations or alliances are not responded to.
This is not the situation we are trying to address here. Instead, why not fly into hisec in the Essence region, pick a capsuleer in their Iteron and kill them much in the same way a capsuleer pirate would in Intaki and note the speed of response that CONCORD arrives to deal with the situation.
This is what we are trying to work towards with an Intaki Navy, founded, mustered and sourced locally at no cost to the wider Federation. In terms of the costs involved, this would be at least partially offset by both the savings made by not requiring and therefore paying for the services of Mordu's Legion and the increase in trade that a safer system would bring.
Yes Mr. Bataav there seems to be a misunderstanding.
What I am saying is that you cant have CONCORD results without CONCORD.
I was using the empires navies as an exemple of very professional forces, extremly well fundend, with good ships and probabbly using maybe a scaled down version of the Fast Reaponse Net (or a home made copy or even the full package but maybe the diffrence is on CONCORD ships, I really don't know) that are only really effective in the most high sec systems.
I understand you have 2 concerns the non-capsuleer pirates and the capsuleer ones.
The first can be deal with non-capsuleers (but even 1.0 sec systems do have them in some asteroid belts) by having security ships on the gates. But for capsuleers you need capsuleers or CONCORD, any other thing will fail.
And the only reason I see for CONCORD not be more wide spread is cost. I dont think the fledging Intaki economy (as it was so oftem said) can afford such system.
I understand that Mordu's are there to protect Caldari intrests (strange nobody noticed that at first) and are unwilling to cover anything but their ass but the assembly did refuse the Federation Navy.
I dont claim to know if the Federation Navy would have covered the gates and in all honesty they probabbly wouldnt, but maybe if the Intaki Assembly had put pressure on them and convinced the federation people that it was a good idea, things would have changed (there is still a lot of sympathy going for the low-sec systems that weren't enable to vote that could be used).
I dont know how much is the cost of having the Federal Navy patrolling Intaki, but building a force from scratch would be more expensive and it would take long time for it to mature.
With all that in mind an independent Intaki Navy would only be an ineffective burden and would only led to further saber rattling.
|
Simon Coal
Gallente The Grass Spiders
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 14:20:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Hussain I understand that Mordu's are there to protect Caldari intrests (strange nobody noticed that at first)
Then you don't understand at all, as the Legion fleet was contracted to the Intaki Assembly, not Ishukone. We're free to hire on whoever we want and frankly, I'm glad to see the Assembly acting like a member state again.
That said, I'd be happier not to see this Intaki Navy come to pass at the present. A century of low-security status, resistance to both Federation and CONCORD security patrols and a lot of money pouring into the planet despite our lack of native resources... I suspect we capsuleers are facing a divergent set of problems from the average planet-dweller.
Oh, and Dex? Comparing Mordu's performance to the Federal Navy's? The Federal Navy that has never patrolled Intaki space, by express vote of the Assembly? That's the very definition of damning with faint praise.
|
Jon Engel
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 16:56:00 -
[39]
The wheels shall turn, till the people of Intaki are free again. Hitting the breaks once in a while does not mean you are off the path.
|
Saxon Hawke
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 18:26:00 -
[40]
I personally support the Intaki Assembly creating a standing Navy. The IPI does what it can to serve as guardians of Intaki Space, but we cannot match the resources of the Assembly.
Is a fully-responsive and patrolling navy an option? To be honest, I'm not sure what size navy the Assembly could raise and maintain, but just about anything would be better than the Mordu's Legion pilots currently under contract.
What I fail to see is why this is such a concern to the Caldari and the Gallente as this is an internal matter between the Intaki people and their local government.
The articles creating the Federation did leave the Assembly with some autonomy in its home systems. It shouldn't raise cries of concern when that autonomy is exercised.
|
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 22:37:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Saxon Hawke
The articles creating the Federation did leave the Assembly with some autonomy in its home systems. It shouldn't raise cries of concern when that autonomy is exercised.
Was this an Intaki Assembly plan I would respect it.
But this idea coming from ILF and knowing your long term plans I cannot believe this is done without second intentions.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 11:10:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Hussain
Originally by: Saxon Hawke
The articles creating the Federation did leave the Assembly with some autonomy in its home systems. It shouldn't raise cries of concern when that autonomy is exercised.
Was this an Intaki Assembly plan I would respect it.
But this idea coming from ILF and knowing your long term plans I cannot believe this is done without second intentions.
I fear we have become distracted when we become too focussed on who has suggested an idea that can be used to improve the situation in Intakim rather than discussing the merits of the idea itself.
As has been repeatedly said, the Intaki Assembly would have full control over an Intaki Navy. From creation, funding and budget control, to operational command and oversight the Assembly would have full responsibility.
Despite stating on more than one occasion that an Intaki Navy would be strictly neutral regarding the entirely seperate debate on local politics, it is a shame that it is political paranoia that would act as a barrier to progress.
That said, I take heart that we seem to reach a consensus here that in principle, the concept of such a security force is a good idea and hope that we can work towards achieving this goal for the benefit of the Intaki system and it's people.
|
Simon Coal
Gallente The Grass Spiders
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 11:17:00 -
[43]
We have not reached that consensus, not even on this thread, let alone in the minds of the Intaki people and the Assembly. You can't carry the wind.
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 11:25:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Hussain on 15/06/2010 11:31:03 Edited by: Hussain on 15/06/2010 11:30:17
Originally by: Bataav
Originally by: HussainAs has been repeatedly said, the Intaki Assembly would have full control over an Intaki Navy. From creation, funding and budget control, to operational command and oversight the Assembly would have full responsibility.
Despite stating on more than one occasion that an Intaki Navy would be strictly neutral regarding the entirely seperate debate on local politics, it is a shame that it is political paranoia that would act as a barrier to progress.
That said, I take heart that we seem to reach a consensus here that in principle, the concept of such a security force is a good idea and hope that we can work towards achieving this goal for the benefit of the Intaki system and it's people.[/quote
As usual you are only thinking about your belly button.
And no I didnt agree to such a force, CONCORD of the Federation Navy with extended duties would be the choices for me.
If the Intaki Navy was created by the Intaki Assembly it would be very strange at least that a military force controlled by a member of the Federation was "neutral". But I do tend to forget that ILF thinks Intaki is not a part of the Federation.
And as "benefit of the Intaki system and it's people" again just again seeing ethnicity, regionalism and promoting separatism in times of war.
This are the reasons I have contested the MOTIVES of this propossal.
And no I didnt agree to such a force: CONCORD of the Federation Navy with extra duties would be my choices.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 12:11:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Hussain As usual you are only thinking about your belly button.
When suggesting a "naval" force this was not what I had in mind.
Originally by: Hussain And no I didnt agree to such a force, CONCORD of the Federation Navy with extended duties would be the choices for me.
Again, the existing relationship between the Intaki Assembly and the wider Federation means this is not an option. The Federation Navy has no juristiction in the Intaki system. We've been over this. CONCORD have rated the majority of the Placid region very low sec (0.1 in Intaki) and there is very little CONCORD presence. This was discussed in an earlier post and I agree that this is likely due to cost and realistic deployment factors. This is why this suggestion has been made.
Originally by: Hussain If the Intaki Navy was created by the Intaki Assembly it would be very strange at least that a military force controlled by a member of the Federation was "neutral". But I do tend to forget that ILF thinks Intaki is not a part of the Federation.
In terms of the navy, there is a higher level of autonomy than you are comfortable with. Intaki is not protected by the Federation Navy. Again we have covered this basic fact. I feel I must clarify - the Intaki Assembly has delegates from across the Intaki system and represents a range of political views from the Federalist to the Secessionist and all those in between. Just as is the case with other Assembly led organisations, security would be under the oversight of the Assembly as a whole and not one faction or another.
Originally by: Hussain And as "benefit of the Intaki system and it's people" again just again seeing ethnicity, regionalism and promoting separatism in times of war.
The Intaki system is home to a far wider range of peoples than pure-blood Intakis. And this is a regional suggestion because this is a regional issue and The Intaki Assembly already has autonomy from the Federation when it comes to security.
Let me try a different angle...
Would you have been content if we had not made this suggestion at all? For things to carry on as they are? Would you be content for the Intaki Assembly to continue to outsource, at cost, the security of a Federation system to a Caldari mercenary force? Or would you rather security to be home grown? To be loyal to the system it defends rather than the ISK it receives?
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 12:20:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Bataav
Let me try a different angle...
Would you have been content if we had not made this suggestion at all? For things to carry on as they are? Would you be content for the Intaki Assembly to continue to outsource, at cost, the security of a Federation system to a Caldari mercenary force? Or would you rather security to be home grown? To be loyal to the system it defends rather than the ISK it receives?
Yes I would be contented if the Intaki Assembly stop playing the disgruntled boy send away the Caldari mercenaries and welcomed back the Fedration Navy who are loyal not to a system but to the all the Federation.
But as I said before I fully respect the wishes of the Intaki Assembly if their wishes are within Fedral law.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 13:13:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Hussain ...and welcomed back the Fedration Navy...
Did you actually just type that? Are you just ignoring facts when making your case? Are you disregarding Federation history when you keep talking about the Federation Navy in Intaki?
When the Intaki joined the Gallente and others in the founding of the Federation it was made a stipulation that the Assembly would retain autonomy in matters of security.
The Federation Navy has NEVER been involved in Intaki security.
For your convenience I have accessed the public records and offer you this link as a resource. May I draw your attention to the second paragraph under the History and Politics section.
Respectively Bataav
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 14:00:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Hussain on 15/06/2010 14:01:12 Edited by: Hussain on 15/06/2010 14:00:07
Originally by: Bataav
Originally by: Hussain ...and welcomed back the Fedration Navy...
Did you actually just type that? Are you just ignoring facts when making your case? Are you disregarding Federation history when you keep talking about the Federation Navy in Intaki?
When the Intaki joined the Gallente and others in the founding of the Federation it was made a stipulation that the Assembly would retain autonomy in matters of security.
The Federation Navy has NEVER been involved in Intaki security.
For your convenience I have accessed the public records and offer you this link as a resource. May I draw your attention to the second paragraph under the History and Politics section.
Respectively Bataav
From the link:
When the Intaki were negotiating for Federation membership, one of the stipulations of their joining was for a minimal Federal Navy presence in the system. "The original Intaki representatives asked for minimal protection at the founding of the Federation," according to Vremaja Idama. "We have always valued our independance and self-reliance." In the modern era, however, he says that "We have been left to suffer", referring to the lackluster response to the Reschard V disaster and the rampant space piracy that didn't exist when the original deal was made.
and a link:
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3727&tid=4
From this I think is easy to conclude that the Federation was always involved in Intaki's security. And that involvement was the involvement the Intaki Assembly let them have.
As the above commentator say "we have been left to suffer" and this seems to be the general Intaki mood, but its very complicated to help those that dont want to be helped.
I might also remind your words:
"It was my idea that the Viriette consellation or Placid region would be the restricted area the Intaki Navy would be responsible for so nothing quite on the scale or expense of the existing Federation Navy. Costs and timescales would also be reduced if some existing Federation Navy units were transferred."
And say again that yes the Assembly has full authority in security matters inside the Intaki system, but what you want is a lot more than that.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 16:48:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Hussain From this I think is easy to conclude that the Federation was always involved in Intaki's security. And that involvement was the involvement the Intaki Assembly let them have.
As the above commentator say "we have been left to suffer" and this seems to be the general Intaki mood, but its very complicated to help those that dont want to be helped.
Unfortunately the link isn't working for me, but I am aware that there is plenty of evidence that the Federation has been involved in the defense and security of Intaki. I have never disputed this. What I have been saying is that specifically the Federation Navy have not been involved. I think there is sometimes confusion on all sides between the Federal Navy and the FDU Militia. Of course not being able to access the link you've provided means I have to make some assumptions here as to it's particular content.
With regards to the quote "we have been left to suffer", I think all of those in the Intaki system regardless of race, bloodline or political affiliation can argue that the Intaki system suffers in terms of security but the records do show that Vremaja Idama was also referring to the Federation's response to the Reschard V disaster which is well documented.
You are correct. Amongst some there is a definate feeling that the Federation doesn't necessarily give the Intaki the attention they feel they deserve. Of course there are examples of Intaki advancing to the very top of Gallente society, indeed to the Presidential office. But there are also cases, such as Reschard V or the removal of voting rights at the last election that fuel anti Federation sentiments. This is perhaps for a seperate debate and I would rather not distract further from the subject here.
It is through our value in our self reliance that some Intaki now call for the Assembly to improve the security of the system for which it is responsible, and I would expect no less from the rest of the Federation were local systems or facilities to be found wanting.
I am fully aware that there are concerns from some quarters in the Federation over the potential an Intaki Navy might present. But with the Assembly responsible for this level of security, and not the Federation as a whole, I honestly feel that this suggestion is neither overreaching nor unreasonable.
If we both accept that the Federation Navy is not an option, due to the long standing agreement between the Assembly and the Federation, what then would be your suggestion as one on the pro-Federal side of the debate be? So far it is unclear as to what the Federation's position is, as much of this debate has raged over suspected hidden agendas and suspected plots for open rebellion on the back of a newly founded Intaki Navy.
Clearly as we find ourselves on opposing sides to the sovereignty debate but as I said very early on, a suggestion on the improvement on security in Intaki that adheres to the existing agreement between the Assembly and Federation is and should be non political.
Originally by: Hussain Was this an Intaki Assembly plan I would respect it.
The suggestion is for the Assembly to consider this and move forward as they see fit.
It was hoped that the consensus I mistakenly thought we had (or were close to) could be cultivated into a common cause. Instead despite assurances that it would be the Assembly that would control this at every level it appears that contrary to positive sentiments there is in fact no trust from some quarters that the Assembly is able to remain neutral to the seperate soverignty debate.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 16:54:00 -
[50]
I am aware that this has become something of a two-person debate, and the Federation is a melting pot of peoples, cultures and ideas and so I would invite others with something to add, please do so.
Unfortunately I have to admit ignorance in terms of the other empires and the specifics of their various regions and areas of juristiction and how this is implemented in their various cases.
How does the Intaki situation compare to other regional debates of security? I'm keen to hear new thoughts on this in an attempt to break the stalemate.
Bataav
|
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 22:51:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Hussain on 15/06/2010 22:53:55
Originally by: Bataav
Originally by: Hussain
If we both accept that the Federation Navy is not an option, due to the long standing agreement between the Assembly and the Federation, what then would be your suggestion as one on the pro-Federal side of the debate be? So far it is unclear as to what the Federation's position is, as much of this debate has raged over suspected hidden agendas and suspected plots for open rebellion on the back of a newly founded Intaki Navy.
Clearly as we find ourselves on opposing sides to the sovereignty debate but as I said very early on, a suggestion on the improvement on security in Intaki that adheres to the existing agreement between the Assembly and Federation is and should be non political.
Honestly I understand both the need for political statements such as turning back the Fedral Navy after been denied voting rights or the independence statement of not relling on the Fedration Navy for protection done at the Intaki's joining of the Federation.
I also understand that by having a pro-Caldari force protecting Intaki and not leaving the Fedration the Intaki Assembly is making themselves immune from the effects of the war in general and that is another smart political move if a very selfish one.
What I see as acceptable is for the Fedration Navy to become the protector of the Intaki system with added resources and responsablities, at least until the war is over.
As the Federation Military Forces are volunteers I do believe that such a force for obvious reassons would have a large number of Intakis.
The deal made when Intaki joined the Fedration might have been the best for the Intaki at the time and I do believe that the 0.1 sec rating comes from there. That deal could be remade.
I know is hard to trust and even more difficult let go of pride but sometimes you have too.
Intaki seems that always wanted to stay pridefull alone in the Federation.
Please let the Fedration help you.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 04:13:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Bataav on 16/06/2010 04:15:34
Originally by: Hussain What I see as acceptable is for the Fedration Navy to become the protector of the Intaki system with added resources and responsablities...
I think we might be making some progress here at last!
It looks like despite the apparent concerns by some over an (incorrectly) assumed alterior motive behind a suggestion for the Assembly to oversee a local Intaki Navy, this is not the case. It seems that it is instead the pro-Federalists with the agenda. And here it is for us all to see.
Here we have the solution of the Assembly surrendering it's autonomy for security to the Federation essentially leaving it fully dependent. Here we have the solution of an apparent power grab over a region that in the past has been the focus of concern for the Federation during previous times of conflict with the Caldari.
I'll admit I'm glad I was seated for that revelation...
Originally by: Hussain I know is hard to trust and even more difficult let go of pride but sometimes you have too.
I could not agree more. Perhaps those apposed to the Secessionist view, perhaps those who cry out in alarm that rebellion must be behind any attempt to improve local security, perhaps those who would derail progress in Intaki should spend more time contemplating that sentiment a little too.
Originally by: Hussain Please let the Fedration help you.
I am very much aware from previous experience that was a request for assistance to be extended to the Federation the immediate response would be "how dare those rebellious Intaki now beg for Federal help to protect them!"
This has happened within the last week in the Intaki system itself.
We Intaki may be renowned artists and poets, contemplative philosophers through Rebirth who follow the path of Ida, but we are a little more robust than you give us credit for.
We do not need our hands holding. Quite the contrary. We only wish that the Assembly be allowed to exercise it's right securing the system, and we again submit the proposal for a home grown Navy be founded as a more effective solution that mercenaries that so far do little towards the situation.
|
Simon Coal
Gallente The Grass Spiders
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 05:10:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Bataav It looks like despite the apparent concerns by some over an (incorrectly) assumed alterior motive behind a suggestion for the Assembly to oversee a local Intaki Navy, this is not the case. It seems that it is instead the pro-Federalists with the agenda. And here it is for us all to see.
That's a broad brush you've got there, Bataav. I respect you and you know this, but I think you're losing a bit of your composure. I'm a Federalist Intaki and Hussain and I are not in agreement. You're also assuming Hussain's opinion is the opinion of the Federation, and that's a big mistake.
I support suggesting this to the Assembly, if that's what you want to do, but I think it's an insolvent plan. I'll enumerate why in a bit.
|
Mammal Tafren
Gallente Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 05:53:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Mammal Tafren on 16/06/2010 05:53:22 Bataav is simply seeking consensus, hoping to avoid all the sabre rattling and baseless accusations that normally go with discussions of this nature.
The logical leap that some people in the FDU seem to make is that as the ILF don't wish Intaki to remain part of the Federation, that the ILF are anti-Federation. This does not follow, a non-sequitur, and I will explain why.
It is possible for the ILF to have a positive attitude to the Gallente Federation and not think that it is in the best interests of Intaki to remain part of it.
I, for one, very much like the Minmatar Republic. However, it does not follow that I wish my people to be part of that body.
The Gallente Federation is a great force for good in New Eden. The ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity that are at the core of the Federation are also close to my heart. I can say that I love the Federation.
However, it is possible that it is not in the best interests of Intaki to remain part of the Federation, and that we need to go it alone.
I realise that this is somewhat off topic, but the assumption that the ILF is anti-federation has coloured a number of the responses to this topic. This is a false assumption, and is also illogical.
Furthermore nothing in my suggestion, that the Intaki Assembly should commission and Intaki Navy, has any basis in the various conspiracy theories suggested here. The ILF is not pursuing and Anti-State policy. Neither is it empire building. These are red herrings placed here to confuse the argument.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 07:41:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Simon Cool Then you don't understand at all, as the Legion fleet was contracted to the Intaki Assembly, not Ishukone. We're free to hire on whoever we want and frankly, I'm glad to see the Assembly acting like a member state again.
Good to see someone understands the concept of a Private Military Corporation.
Mordu's Legion is fulfilling their contractual responsbilities to the Intaki Assembly and Ishukone. It seems to have been forgotten, Ishukone was awarded the Shipping & Transport contract for the Intaki system by the Intaki Assembly as well. I would argue the Mordu's Legion ships operating outside the Astral Mining Inc. Refinery are in fact not there as part of the Intaki Assembly contract, but rather under contract from Ishukone to provide their ships with protection.
As to the Intaki Assembly contract with Mordu's Legion, like everyone else, I can only guess at the terms.
Originally by: Simon Cool Oh, and Dex? Comparing Mordu's performance to the Federal Navy's? The Federal Navy that has never patrolled Intaki space, by express vote of the Assembly? That's the very definition of damning with faint praise.
As for the status of the Federal Navy's presence in Intaki, to what organization do the ships defending Federation complexes in Intaki report?
If the Intaki Assembly truly believes their contract with Mordu's Legion is insufficient to achieve the Assembly's goals, the Assembly is free to renegogiate the terms.
Originally by: Saxon Hawke What I fail to see is why this is such a concern to the Caldari and the Gallente as this is an internal matter between the Intaki people and their local government.
My concern is the misrepresentation of Mordu's Legion effectiveness. Mordu's Legion provides, not only Caldari, but Intaki with the opportunity to make something of themselves. The very foundation of the organization is to promote mutual respect between Caldari and Intaki. The State, the Lai Dai Corporation, and Lai Dai Infinity Systems support Mordu's Legion through mutual contracts and investment. We are invested in their reputation and success as an entity, their ablility to operate independently from the needs and requirements of the individual megacorporations.
I can say wth some certainity the State's megacorporations and Mordu's Legion would be willing to provide favorable contractual terms for supplying a potential Intaki Navy with training and equipment.
Lai Dai Infinity Systems supports increased autonomy and independence for Intaki and thus an Intaki Security Force / Intaki Navy.
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 10:49:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Hussain on 16/06/2010 10:51:05
Originally by: Bataav
I think we might be making some progress here at last!
It looks like despite the apparent concerns by some over an (incorrectly) assumed alterior motive behind a suggestion for the Assembly to oversee a local Intaki Navy, this is not the case. It seems that it is instead the pro-Federalists with the agenda. And here it is for us all to see.
Here we have the solution of the Assembly surrendering it's autonomy for security to the Federation essentially leaving it fully dependent. Here we have the solution of an apparent power grab over a region that in the past has been the focus of concern for the Federation during previous times of conflict with the Caldari. Here we have the admission that the Federation wants what autonomy that has always been in place to be removed and for Intaki to submit in full.
It was you Mr. Bataav that asked for what would be a pro-federalist solution. And what autonomy was to be removed ? I think it was clear in my proposal that it would be the Intaki Assembly that would call on the Federation Navy to become the security forces of Intaki. There was not to be any change of the Intakis rights.
Originally by: Bataav
I could not agree more. Perhaps those apposed to the Secessionist view, perhaps those who cry out in alarm that rebellion must be behind any attempt to improve local security, perhaps those who would derail progress in Intaki should spend more time contemplating that sentiment a little too.
You Mr. Bataav was climing early on for a Intaki Navy handling the security all of the Placid region and ILFs plans for the great Intaki free nation involve that same area. As I said before you want far more than the security of Intaki.
Originally by: Bataav
I am very much aware from previous experience that was a request for assistance to be extended to the Federation the immediate response would be "how dare those rebellious Intaki now beg for Federal help to protect them!"
This has happened within the last week in the Intaki system itself.
I am not aware of any official call for help made to the Federation, perhaps I missed that news, can you please enlightem me ?
Originally by: Bataav
We do not need our hands holding. Quite the contrary. We only wish that the Assembly be allowed to exercise it's right securing the system, and we again submit the proposal for a home grown Navy be founded as a more effective solution that mercenaries that so far do little towards the situation.
YES YOU DO.
- It was the Intaki Assembly long ago that decided to be more independent and not accepted the Fedration Navy help that decision is the root of the 0.1 sec status in Intaki.
- It is the Intaki view that they were abandoned and still most seem to support the turning back of the Federation Navy a few months ago. - It is the IPI that claims not be able to control piracy in the system and that are always crying for help.
- Even this Intaki navy plan seems to depend on either Fedration or Caldari help to be able to start.
Autonomy and Independence are all nice and good if you can afford it, right now Intaki seem not to.
PS: For those that have any doubts, my views are mine alone, I dont represent FDU and much less any Federal Office.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 12:45:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Bataav on 16/06/2010 12:46:18
Originally by: Simon Coal That's a broad brush you've got there, Bataav. I respect you and you know this, but I think you're losing a bit of your composure. I'm a Federalist Intaki and Hussain and I are not in agreement. You're also assuming Hussain's opinion is the opinion of the Federation, and that's a big mistake.
The broad brushstrokes were intentional as it's often the case that single capsuleers are singled out and used as an example for the entire sessionist view. I believe earlier in this discussion Yuri Intaki was used as a case in point for an accusation that the ILF supports or has supported the Caldari State over the Federation when in fact my understanding is that her membership of the ILF came to an end because of her actions.
I'll admit to baiting a little though as I assumed that one of the pro-Federation suggestions for a solution would be for the Federation Navy to take over.
Indeed it was with a sense of irony that I adopted the frequent FDU responses that regularly include accusations of rebellion and subversion regardless of the topic at hand.
I would like to extend my personal thanks, though to Dex for more clarification regarding the Mordu's contracts with both the Assembly and Ishukone, and his sentiments of support for this proposal.
Originally by: Hussain You Mr. Bataav was climing early on for a Intaki Navy handling the security all of the Placid region and ILFs plans for the great Intaki free nation involve that same area. As I said before you want far more than the security of Intaki.
There is a slight misunderstanding on your part here. You are correct that the Placid region has been suggested as an area of operation for an Intaki Navy. However the ILF do not officially have plans for the entire region. At most the Viriette constellation with one or two extra systems is suggested as an Intaki sovereignty. But again this is besides the point.
The initial suggestion is for the Assembly to create a local naval force responsible for security in the system. Is it not reasonable to assume that this naval force would have a range of systems in which to operate? To contribute to the security of a region of Federation space? There is no suggestion here that the creation of a security force automatically removes an entire area from the Federation.
Originally by: Hussain I am not aware of any official call for help made to the Federation, perhaps I missed that news, can you please enlightem me ?
This is in reference to an incident that threatened to become confrontational in the Intaki system where an Intaki resident capsuleer with a long history of fighting the local capsuleer pirate threat was treated as a potential threat to FDU operations. When he was targetted by a pirate in local, and after the considerable number of FDU pilots had just been stating their mandate to defend the Federation from threats they openly refused his request for assistance in dealing with the pirate. Another FDU pilot in the area later commented that this denial of assistance was at best a result of pilot petulance following the heated discussion over the rights of Intaki pilots to navigate their home system. As this was a potentially inflamatory incident in Intaki I won't quote actual local comms
It's simply not good enough for FDU pilots, who do represent the Federation when flying on official militia operations to pick and choose when to fulfil their duty.
Originally by: Hussain YES YOU DO.
No. We don't. Indeed this very proposal shows that we are not crying for help, nor are we content with private contracts with provate corporations. Instead here some of us show that there is the drive and determination to deal with the issue ourselves.
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 13:33:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Bataav
There is a slight misunderstanding on your part here. You are correct that the Placid region has been suggested as an area of operation for an Intaki Navy. However the ILF do not officially have plans for the entire region. At most the Viriette constellation with one or two extra systems is suggested as an Intaki sovereignty. But again this is besides the point.
No this is the only point that matters.
It has been agreed that Intaki are free to protect their system as they seem fit. It as been dicussed the viability of several possiblities.
What matters is how is that Navy is intendend to be used by certain parties.
Mr. Tafren initial plan never mentioned anything but the Intaki system.
And I only becomed involved because someone again is having imperialistic dreams.
|
Bataav
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 14:52:00 -
[59]
I'm pleased to read that we agree on the basic principle of the Intaki Assembly pursuing better security for the area for which it is responsible and that this could potentially take the form of an Intaki Navy should that be the decision they make after serious consideration. "As they see fit" was your term.
You are correct. Mammal did refer to the Intaki system, and I have indicated a wider area.
This is indeed a very important point and so we must be very clear we understand just what area the Assembly is currently responsible for.
The Intaki system itself is heavily mentioned because that is the home system, it features the jewel that is Intaki V. But my understanding is that this system is not the limit of the Assembly's "domain" for want of a better word.
If I again refer you back to the same link I provided before (here it is again) we can see that the Gallente and the Intaki first made contact with each other in 22794 AD. This as we all know was 327 years before the founding of the Federation.
Now this is the very important point that we need to focus upon. It says, and I quote "Within a century, they caught up with the Gallente, mastering space travel to settle other nearby regions..."
The wording here may be ambiguous but it clearly suggests that at least two centuries before the founding of the Federation, the Intaki people had spread and were present in areas other than their home system of Intaki.
Of course I have not yet had the opportunity to look further into this, but previous investigation into my own heritage has not specifically detailed a list of pre-Federation Intaki colonies or settled systems.
However, with this in mind, would it not be reasonable to assume that upon the founding of the Federation, the Assembly would continue to have oversight of these original Intaki colonies in addition to the home system?
Perhaps the Viriette constellation - a considerable area in it's own right without extending to the borders of the entire Placid region - is a reasonable starting point for this stage of the debate?
|
Hussain
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 22:52:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Hussain on 16/06/2010 22:53:30
Originally by: Bataav I'm pleased to read that we agree on the basic principle of the Intaki Assembly pursuing better security for the area for which it is responsible and that this could potentially take the form of an Intaki Navy should that be the decision they make after serious consideration. "As they see fit" was your term.
You are correct. Mammal did refer to the Intaki system, and I have indicated a wider area.
This is indeed a very important point and so we must be very clear we understand just what area the Assembly is currently responsible for.
The Intaki system itself is heavily mentioned because that is the home system, it features the jewel that is Intaki V. But my understanding is that this system is not the limit of the Assembly's "domain" for want of a better word.
If I again refer you back to the same link I provided before (here it is again) we can see that the Gallente and the Intaki first made contact with each other in 22794 AD. This as we all know was 327 years before the founding of the Federation.
Now this is the very important point that we need to focus upon. It says, and I quote "Within a century, they caught up with the Gallente, mastering space travel to settle other nearby regions..."
The wording here may be ambiguous but it clearly suggests that at least two centuries before the founding of the Federation, the Intaki people had spread and were present in areas other than their home system of Intaki.
Of course I have not yet had the opportunity to look further into this, but previous investigation into my own heritage has not specifically detailed a list of pre-Federation Intaki colonies or settled systems.
However, with this in mind, would it not be reasonable to assume that upon the founding of the Federation, the Assembly would continue to have oversight of these original Intaki colonies in addition to the home system?
Perhaps the Viriette constellation - a considerable area in it's own right without extending to the borders of the entire Placid region - is a reasonable starting point for this stage of the debate?
I also must admit to not know the full area of the Intaki assembly comptence.
But from this its perfactly clear that only in the Intaki system itself the Assembly has control over security.
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3727&tid=4
All of the other systems retaken from the Caldari have Federation Navy and the Navy was only blocked in the Agoze-Intaki gate not earlier and Agoze is a part of the Viriette constelation.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |