Jump to content
  • entries
    36
  • comments
    511
  • views
    2,073

A month and a half: How long is 'aggressive defence' justified?

Sign in to follow this  
Bob Janova

268 views

As we stand here today, the TOP/IRON-C&G front of the Bi-Polar War has been raging for a month and a half (the entirety of February, 12 days of March and 3 of January), and for almost all of that time has been a one sided destruction of the pre-emptive attackers. Peace negotiations are taking place, but so far the only terms offered by the winners are quite outrageous, and the rhetoric from C&G is not conciliatory – for example they have called the TOP/IRON counter-offer 'insulting' and suggested that they did not highball the original offer.

The question begins to arise, how long can a war (and a defensive front of a war) be permitted to go on before it becomes oppression, extended war and all those other things used to describe Hegemonic wars? How long should C&G be able to claim the moral high ground associated with 'defence' (even though they could have avoided the front, as explained elsewhere, should they have not wished for the war) before bringing serious offers to the peace table?

On this particular issue we are short of precedents. In Karma, the NPO was kept down for just on three months – but the NPO was paying for the sins of the entire Hegemony, and a large part of that time was a waiting game attempting to goad the larger nations out of peace mode. IRON received peace after one month, Echelon a month and a half, and as part of the 'Coalition of Cowards', their entry was considered aggressive by Karma. (The rest of the CoC received peace earlier and with lighter terms.)

During the BLEU war and noCB, hostilities lasted one month in total (excluding OcUK). This conflict has also been used as precedent for peace terms, with then-record reparations being demanded, and the beginning of the end for 'draconian terms' like wonder decom and forced government changes, but today we are looking at the duration of war. Unlike in this war, the pre-empters won, but the arguments around the timing and terms of the peace were similar to today; Polaris was attacked for being a threat and peace was only offered when that was deemed to be no longer the case. This war – and the peace after – has long been used as an example of injustice, starting with the Vox Populi movement in the immediate aftermath of that war.

Previous major wars also lasted one month or less. The time for the first 'extended war' in modern history – VietFAN (part 1), described as an 'occupation-like conflict' in its official history – was three months.

FAN attacked the protectorate of a bloc member out of the blue, a significantly worse crime of aggression than a pre-emptive attack during an existing war. The CoC during Karma attacked already militarily engaged alliances during an existing war, a lesser crime of aggression. That would put the answer to the question at somewhere between one month and three for the intermediate crime of TOP/IRON. The only directly comparable precedent is that of Legion during GW3, though that war is not modern enough to be a direct guide – but Legion received a broadly comparable peace to the other League alliances, after three weeks. If directly applied now, that would mean a white peace or 1 billion reps applied several weeks ago!

In conclusion, it appears that by the only direct precedent of the treatment of pre-emptive attacks during war, C&G would already have overstepped the mark for what is reasonable (in fact kept TOP/IRON down for twice as long as Legion were). On more recent precedents, of related but not identical situations, that time is round about now. People may point to the NPO in Karma, but most alliances in Karma received peace in less time than TOP/IRON have been kept at war, and the extended duration of the NPO front was down to waiting for 'peace mode warriors' (and perhaps nascent hegemonic thoughts from Athens, who have been at the forefront of neo-hegemonist actions since C&G became strong enough to do them).

C&G should be coming to the table with the intention of actually negotiating a fair and reasonable peace settlement, not continuing with an extended, unbalanced war of occupation under the fig leaf of 'defence'.

Sign in to follow this  


60 Comments


Recommended Comments



If you're going to try to use that as a point against me, of all people, you just blew any remaining credibility you may have had.

For you, perhaps. But then again, I don't try to present myself as a moral crusader.

Is this where you say, "I was extremely vocal about that in private channels?" If so, big deal. I've resigned from alliances that were engaged in the kind of 'oppression' which you supported.

Talk is cheap.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Very good, you managed to read the first clause of that sentence. Now let's try the others ... "which uses that dominance of the web to impose self-interested solutions on the rest of the world, often in an oppressive or unjust manner". The 'real definition' of the word, as you already pasted in here, is about having pre-eminence and dominance over power; the way it's used in CN carries notes of being an aggressive hegemony.

I'm certainly using it in a more honest way than you, with calling TOP 'hegemonic' – something which has not been close to accurate since they left Continuum. Citadel did not have a predominance of influence before this war.

This type of rhetoric is common in the losing side throughout history. Go back and read your own side's posts during noCB, for example. The onus is always on the winning side to come up with a reasonable end to the war. And no, paying for all of your damage is not 'reasonable', it has not been reasonable since at least the Unjust War and it never will be.

I'm sorry, but 'imposing self-interested solutions on the rest of the world' fits perfectly into it already and 'often in an oppressive or unjust manner' does not apply to CnG or supercomplaints. I would have to ask you for specific examples if you think I am wrong. We were not oppressive or unjust in our handling of the knights of ni affair, we were not oppressive or unjust in our handling of the TPF affair. 'Often' is still not always and is rather meaningless for the definition.

TOP/IRON are the ones trying to oppress us. They are the unjust ones. That their attack was a failure of grand proportions does not change the fact that they wanted it and made the attempt. If motives and initial actions are irrelevant then I believe you are again straying far from the commonly perceived definition AND the true definition. We are a hegemony because an unwarranted, oppressive and unjust attack on us failed?

And what makes paying for the damage 'unreasonable' exactly? From where I'm standing, it is only right. They are entirely responsible for this war. No matter how you try to twist it around. Furthermore we are attempting to come up with a reasonable end that demands they only pay a minor part of the damage they caused which I find to be severely lacking.

I don't care if it takes them five full years to repay their debt, it will still be reasonable. They attacked us to rule the world, that is unacceptable. That sort of action against us is what CnG was founded to deter. That they thought they could just sweep us aside and go on to bigger conquests is their own folly. One they should by all rights pay for in full.

Share this comment


Link to comment
I'm sorry..but did you just state that they were validated in attacking Hyperion for absolutely no reason?

Uh ... no. Just pointing out that the losing side always posts 'we'll never surrender', 'we'll beat you', 'we're in the right' etc.

Is this where you say, "I was extremely vocal about that in private channels?"

I was vocal about that on the public forum as well, so not only are you wrong in this case, but you also didn't do your research before trying to pick out a cheap shot.

Edit:

They attacked us to rule the world

lol

When you make your whole post based on such ridiculous assertions of the opponent's motive, you make it impossible to argue with you, because you're in fantasy land.

As for not paying 100% reps, that has been the standard for a long time ... if it wasn't, you'd still be paying damages for your nukes on NPO in 2008. It's telling though that you'd be happy to make an alliance stay under terms for five years. That's pure hegemonic thought right there.

Share this comment


Link to comment

TOP/IRON are the ones trying to oppress us. They are the unjust ones. That their attack was a failure of grand proportions does not change the fact that they wanted it and made the attempt. If motives and initial actions are irrelevant then I believe you are again straying far from the commonly perceived definition AND the true definition. We are a hegemony because an unwarranted, oppressive and unjust attack on us failed?

Baw baw baw.

And what makes paying for the damage 'unreasonable' exactly? From where I'm standing, it is only right. They are entirely responsible for this war. No matter how you try to twist it around. Furthermore we are attempting to come up with a reasonable end that demands they only pay a minor part of the damage they caused which I find to be severely lacking.

Really? Entirely? Let's be serious now.

I don't care if it takes them five full years to repay their debt, it will still be reasonable. They attacked us to rule the world, that is unacceptable. That sort of action against us is what CnG was founded to deter. That they thought they could just sweep us aside and go on to bigger conquests is their own folly. One they should by all rights pay for in full.

Five years doesn't sound reasonable in any context of the word. We attacked no one to "rule the world". Don't pretend that what you are doing right now is what CnG was "founded to do".

Share this comment


Link to comment

The war will end when peace is agreed upon. TOP and C&G have no issue with an extended war - bot sides have said so on numerous occasions. But keep ranting.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I simply don't understand the attitude that if you attack me and I repel that attack I have some compulsion to stop counterattacking.

I agree. I find Bob's bias especially amusing considering his very vocal attitudes concerning tech-raid targets.

Historical context and all that crap aside Bob, how is this any different than a tech-raider biting off more than they can chew? Should TOP/IRON not have to nut-up and take their licks since it was they who initiated this conflict?

Share this comment


Link to comment

We are still firmly in the chest beating phase of the war/negotiations. The winners want crazy high terms the losers want crazy low terms, and nobody's willing to budge yet.

Problem is looking at the sanction race its obvious that despite the lopsided numbers of who's left engaged TOP/IRON and company are still dishing out just as good as they are getting. As long as they feel like they are doing just as much damage in a slugging match they've got no motivations to surrender.

So we have to wait till the nuclear fireballs are bigger than the ego's before we see any progress. And yes I'm blaming both sides for this.

Share this comment


Link to comment

What does tech raiding have to do with this? I support tech raiders paying reps, I support TOP/IRON paying reps; I don't support C&G squeezing them as hard as they can for near-record quantities of tech, just like I wouldn't support a tech raid victim suing for 2 billion in 'damages'.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You've got to be kidding me Dochartaigh. We're not the Hegemony, we never will be the Hegemony. All you do is spew the same tired crap all over the forums. If you were talking like that during the time of the old Hegemony, you would probably find yourself on some sort of list to be hit. CnG is just as tired of this war as everyone else--it's a little thing called negotiation that takes time. We're not doing this on purpose. We're actually talking to TOP instead of keeping them in permanent war just for the hell of it. I expected better of you Bob Janova, but apparently your loyalties and need to make someone out to CNs devil is clouding your logic center.

Just because we're apparently "on top" at the moment doesn't mean we're trying to be any sort of Hegemony. Being at the top of the game doesn't make us the bad guys. It's just the way the cards fall.

Actually, i spoke out often during my time in Polar (when i was in Heg itself) and never found myself on any hitlists to my knowledge. I never stated anything about the length of this war as i figured or at least hoped negotiations were underway. and i never called you Hegemony and even stated ya'll weren't as bad as the Old Heg. hence Heg-Lite. ya'll are getting the same "might makes right" attitude as well as other issues have shown that you guys are not the angels you seem to want to appear as.

frankly, ya'll ain't as bad as old heg but what ya'll do is not exactly good. so if you wish to not have people speak out against you, i would suggest ya'll don't do/support/condone some of the stuff ya'll or your allies do. then maybe you will have a legitimate complaint if people decide to call you out.

Its pretty much common knowledge that when an alliance wants to keep someone at war they hand down reps they know will be rejected. This has been said numerous times over the last 2 years by many alliances including your own. The terms offered were so high they were guaranteed to be rejected. We are approaching the third month of this crushing beatdown now and while you probably wont keep them in a "permanent war just for the hell of it" you have made sure this crushing beatdown will continue for the foreseeable future. This idea you arent as bad as the last lot because you stop just before you reach their record level is a pathetic attempt to defend your actions, actions you would have been ashamed of before you achieved absolute power.

i do believe we are only at 1.5 months, thus we are close to the 2nd month of this theatre of the war.

By your definition that a hegemony is any alliance(s) that can exercise it's own self-interest we are a hegemony.

And I feel sorry for any alliance that is not.

Edit:

I also see a marked lack of conciliatory rhetoric from TOP/IRON. In fact I see a lot of them shouting they will never surrender, they never did anything wrong and they would rather spend the rest of their tech bringing us harm than reconcile and pay reparations.

You and some others NOT in TOP or IRON seem to be the only ones convinced that we are conducting oppressive war on them.

You speak a lot of the length of wars, but have any of these wars you mention had a hegemonic alliance with over a million tech? That they were willing to use to depletion to harm their target? There is NO precedent as far as I know here.

What is REASONABLE is to keep defending ourselves until TOP/IRON admits defeat and agrees to pay for the damage their unwarranted hegemonic war on us have caused.

i have seen remarks from TOP/IRON to the affect that they won't surrender to the first set of terms offered by CnG mostly now. i have seen remarks that instead of handing over 100+k in tech, they would rather use that to destroy CnG until better terms are produced.

as for oppressive war, i will wait to see how negotiations go and what terms are produced next, that is if CnG is willing to lower their terms, which from everything i have read they seem unwilling to do.

And what makes paying for the damage 'unreasonable' exactly? From where I'm standing, it is only right. They are entirely responsible for this war. No matter how you try to twist it around. Furthermore we are attempting to come up with a reasonable end that demands they only pay a minor part of the damage they caused which I find to be severely lacking.

I don't care if it takes them five full years to repay their debt, it will still be reasonable. They attacked us to rule the world, that is unacceptable. That sort of action against us is what CnG was founded to deter. That they thought they could just sweep us aside and go on to bigger conquests is their own folly. One they should by all rights pay for in full.

wow. just wow.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Until TOP gets over their pride and accepts the (easily affordable) terms. As long as affordable terms taking no longer than a month to pay off are on the table, and the aggressor refuses to take such simple terms, it's justified in continuing war.

and for almost all of that time has been a one sided destruction of the pre-emptive attackers. Peace negotiations are taking place, but so far the only terms offered by the winners are quite outrageous, and the rhetoric from C&G is not conciliatory – for example they have called the TOP/IRON counter-offer 'insulting' and suggested that they did not highball the original offer.

One-sided destruction? TOP has been trumpeting around stats that show that they're doing more damage, and TOP currently retains more military potency than MK should the war end today. What are you smoking? This isn't a beatdown by any means.

The terms offered take about a month to pay off. Oh boy, that's SO OPPRESSIVE.

You are currently asking for $2m to replace a Ford Fiesta.

It's really sad seeing someone I respected for his lack of bias let bias get in the way. The last numbers I saw -- a couple weeks ago -- showed TOP at having destroyed over 700,000 tech. That's just TOP. How you can equate to asking for less than half of just the tech lost to be paid back to asking for 50+ times the damages of something is mind boggling. These are indisputable facts. What MK is asking is probably around enough to cover 15% of the damages they have sustained.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's really sad seeing someone I respected for his lack of bias let bias get in the way. The last numbers I saw -- a couple weeks ago -- showed TOP at having destroyed over 700,000 tech. That's just TOP. How you can equate to asking for less than half of just the tech lost to be paid back to asking for 50+ times the damages of something is mind boggling. These are indisputable facts. What MK is asking is probably around enough to cover 15% of the damages they have sustained.

Reps in a nuclear war could never come anywhere near actual damages, its a ridiculous argument to take up from either end. Reparations will always be a relatively arbitrary amount. Percentages of total damages is a worthless metric for any usage.

Share this comment


Link to comment

And what makes paying for the damage 'unreasonable' exactly? From where I'm standing, it is only right. They are entirely responsible for this war. No matter how you try to twist it around. Furthermore we are attempting to come up with a reasonable end that demands they only pay a minor part of the damage they caused which I find to be severely lacking.

I don't care if it takes them five full years to repay their debt, it will still be reasonable. They attacked us to rule the world, that is unacceptable. That sort of action against us is what CnG was founded to deter. That they thought they could just sweep us aside and go on to bigger conquests is their own folly. One they should by all rights pay for in full.

You've convinced me. I feel like we should build you a new house to replace the one we burned down. Afterall, I don't think you could afford one without our help.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You've convinced me. I feel like we should build you a new house to replace the one we burned down. Afterall, I don't think you could afford one without our help.

This is a pretty terrible argument and your alliancemates should be annoyed at you for making it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The war will end when TOP sucks it up and admits they screwed up by attacking C&G and pays the moderate reparations asked of them by C&G.

Alliances like MK and the NpO accepted outrageous terms in the NoCB War to end that conflict and they sure as hell would not have been able to walk away after a month-long beatdown if they had not accepted such terms. Not to mention the terms given to those alliances and others at the time lasted up to 5 months or in MK's case, the ban on nuclear first strikes was permanent. And these alliances were the ones attacked, not the attackers as TOP are in this instance.

So, no matter how loudly or how often you and your ilk !@#$%* and try and paint TOP as a victim, I'm not going to buy it and neither is anyone who looks the situation objectively. C&G are within their rights to request reparations and ones significant enough to compensate them for the aggression against their bloc by TOP and IRON.

TOP, you screwed up, your gamble did not pay off and now it is time to pay the piper and move on. C&G is not holding you in war, you are.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The war will end when TOP sucks it up and admits they screwed up by attacking C&G and pays the moderate reparations asked of them by C&G.

Alliances like MK and the NpO accepted outrageous terms in the NoCB War to end that conflict and they sure as hell would not have been able to walk away after a month-long beatdown if they had not accepted such terms. Not to mention the terms given to those alliances and others at the time lasted up to 5 months or in MK's case, the ban on nuclear first strikes was permanent. And these alliances were the ones attacked, not the attackers as TOP are in this instance.

So, no matter how loudly or how often you and your ilk !@#$%* and try and paint TOP as a victim, I'm not going to buy it and neither is anyone who looks the situation objectively. C&G are within their rights to request reparations and ones significant enough to compensate them for the aggression against their bloc by TOP and IRON.

TOP, you screwed up, your gamble did not pay off and now it is time to pay the piper and move on. C&G is not holding you in war, you are.

I don't dispute that TOP/IRON deserve to pay for the idiocy over this, they are not victims (well perhaps victims of their own paranoia) in this war, but there's a difference between what people want what what people get, and I think ultimately both sides are going to end up disappointed to some degree, in the end TOP/IRON will pay more than they want to, and C&G will collect less than they wanted in reps.

At some point continued war isn't worth the difference holding up terms, eventually both sides will notice that and we'll get a compromise.

I say eventually, because I don't see either side prepared to do that yet.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Reps in a nuclear war could never come anywhere near actual damages, its a ridiculous argument to take up from either end. Reparations will always be a relatively arbitrary amount. Percentages of total damages is a worthless metric for any usage.

What? Bob said MK were asking for hundreds of times the reps as the amount of damage done. I was pointing out that it was simply not the case.

Share this comment


Link to comment

What does tech raiding have to do with this? I support tech raiders paying reps, I support TOP/IRON paying reps; I don't support C&G squeezing them as hard as they can for near-record quantities of tech, just like I wouldn't support a tech raid victim suing for 2 billion in 'damages'.

Tech raiding is an analogous type of attack. A blind-sided attack by one party, resulting in damages by the other party.

I think the only reason you're saying TOP and friends shouldn't be paying as much as has been asked is because you're buddy buddy with those individuals. Objectively, TOP dun $%&@ed up big-time. They should have to pay big-time for said $%&@ up. Saying otherwise is not looking at the situation objectively.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This may, or may not be true. It is, however, an EASY opinion to have when the writers of history, are the victim of today. As such, all such rhetoric concerning "history"... is pretty much irrelevant.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't dispute that TOP/IRON deserve to pay for the idiocy over this, they are not victims (well perhaps victims of their own paranoia) in this war, but there's a difference between what people want what what people get, and I think ultimately both sides are going to end up disappointed to some degree, in the end TOP/IRON will pay more than they want to, and C&G will collect less than they wanted in reps.

At some point continued war isn't worth the difference holding up terms, eventually both sides will notice that and we'll get a compromise.

I say eventually, because I don't see either side prepared to do that yet.

I think C&G are open to negotiation provided the negotiations are realistic in light of the events that brought things to this point. It is quite clear that some, like Bob Janova, are keen to paint TOP as the victim here and have been for some time now. At the end of the day, TOP needs to pony up, pay reps and move on. Something they demanded of other alliances when faced with far more damaging terms for the audacity of defending their allies in a losing war.

If, as you say, TOP are unwilling to compromise then I'm not sure that is a legitimate reason to try and portray C&G as wanting to drag this war on unnecessarily (this is what Bob Janova is trying to do here). C&G did not start this war, TOP/IRON did and now they have lost the war they are the ones who have to suck it up and pay what are really moderate reps for an alliance their size.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The onus is always on the winning side to come up with a reasonable end to the war. And no, paying for all of your damage is not 'reasonable', it has not been reasonable since at least the Unjust War and it never will be.

If this is true, and you used the word ALWAYS...why did your old friends suck so badly at finding reasonable ends to wars? More to the point...if they felt that their ends were reasonable, then they should appreciate how we feel about our ends being reasonable. It is mind-numbing to watch a world go on and on... in an unreasonable manner, then be swept away with the winds of change...only to watch those who were unreasonable in the past, complain about their opponents being unreasonable.

Also, the very notion that our "unreasonable actions" will sow the seeds that lead to our downfall is quite frankly something we do not care about. Whether they will say it in public or not, the entirety of our leadership knew, the day Karma ended, that so too, would our reign. But see, we have played from behind before. We do not fear returning to it. It is the cycle of things. Those playing from behind now, are experiencing their 1st taste of playing from behind. They clearly do not like it. We did not "like it", but we survived, thrived and ascended. If they are able to adapt, so can they. If they are not, they are not worthy of a rise to power.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...