Jump to content

logan1's Blog

  • entries
    2
  • comments
    55
  • views
    1,956

My thoughts on this on going conflict

logan1

143 views

i feel C&G/SF and friends have the moral high ground in this conflict no matter what they deem as acceptable to end it. as far as i know they have been offered IToS. until the huge war chests are gone and the threat is neutralized and the blocs show what happens when you attack them to future attackers as well as the current attackers then the war must go on until the defending side no longer feels the attackers are a threat.. aka indefinitely

top and friends lost all "rights" when they entered the war the way they did. had they been attacked im sure the war length and terms would be much less harsh and maybe over.

top/iron chose this path, and they must either win or be at the mercy of the winners they had attacked.

and before you call them the new NPO or demand "karma" just remember who attacked who and pay attention to the number of viceroys and govt change demands ect...



27 Comments


Recommended Comments



"i feel C&G/SF and friends have the moral high ground in this conflict no matter what they deem as acceptable to end it"

equals, "anything that can be imaginable is acceptable."

Then you go on to lecture about "we're not bad because what other people did was worse".

-

and before you call them the new NPO or demand "karma" just remember who attacked who and pay attention to the number of viceroys and govt change demands ect...

-

However, by stating that one side would be on the moral highground regardless if they imposed viceroys, multi year reparations, or disbandment -such things are included under "no matter what they deem as acceptable", you completely trivialize the whole post. Perhaps a condensed statement of "I think I'm right because I'm on their side" would have covered your thoughts just as thoroughly.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You set up a blog just to troll?

0 for 3? (including the dolt that posted below)

i set up a blog to state my feelings and possibly debate the subject.

you seem to be trolling my blog, but i guess that should be expected when your side has no point of view.

also, id like to add that i have friends on both sides of this conflict still fighting and some that peaced out.

so im not biased, just stating my opinion and hoping to get a few replies from people intelligent enough to debate who has a differing opinion.

guess thats asking a lot from my 1st couple posts.

Share this comment


Link to comment

"i feel C&G/SF and friends have the moral high ground in this conflict no matter what they deem as acceptable to end it"

equals, "anything that can be imaginable is acceptable."

Then you go on to lecture about "we're not bad because what other people did was worse".

-

and before you call them the new NPO or demand "karma" just remember who attacked who and pay attention to the number of viceroys and govt change demands ect...

-

However, by stating that one side would be on the moral high ground regardless if they imposed viceroys, multi year reparations, or disbandment -such things are included under "no matter what they deem as acceptable", you completely trivialize the whole post. Perhaps a condensed statement of "I think I'm right because I'm on their side" would have covered your thoughts just as thoroughly.

well this is a start... i guess <_<

an advancing military has attacked a bloc of sovereign AAs.

how can you damn the defending AAs for making sure the threat is neutralized?

also if you wanna elawyer my post i will coincide on the no matter what they deem acceptable, point as i feel viceroys are wrong & i hope my friends can continue to build and remain in their community post war.

when team NPO & friends lost a war to forces tired of their years of tyrants it didnt give them a free pass to white peace and shortened wars. however, if a new NPO emerges and imposes the same politics and policies for a period of time (less then NPOs reign) im sure a new karma will take them down a peg.

but enough time hasn't even come close even though heg likes to claim every war is "just as bad" or "just cause we did it doesnt mean you should be able to".

Share this comment


Link to comment

I would argue with you but you didn't actually make a point, beyond the clearly laughable 'the defenders can do what they like and it never becomes oppressive'. The Initiative were defenders against FAN.

The threat is already neutralised, if it ever really existed ... you can clearly see that TOP/IRON do not have the power to destroy SG.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Being the defending alliance doesnt give them the right to do anything they please and lay the blame on the attackers. They are making their own decisions and will be judged by their actions.

Being the attacking alliance doesnt mean you suddenly have no rights at all to exist and allow the people you attacked do anything they like without any consequences.

The list of things they haven’t done yet was much longer last year. You should remove gov change though because Caffeine was banned from Echelons government as part of surrender terms in the Karma war. That leaves Viceroys and you have done the lot.

Share this comment


Link to comment

if you attack a sovereign AA you deserve to feel their full wrath if you fail to win.

C&G/SF were attacked, we all agree on this.

so now the opinion of their attackers and the allies of the attackers should dictate their terms?

how does this make my stance laughable?

i mean i might as well just steal your lines in the future when i disagree with something but have no credible way to back up my claim... ill just call it laughable like you guys. :rolleyes:

Share this comment


Link to comment

if you attack a sovereign AA you deserve to feel their full wrath if you fail to win.

C&G/SF were attacked, we all agree on this.

so now the opinion of their attackers and the allies of the attackers should dictate their terms?

how does this make my stance laughable?

i mean i might as well just steal your lines in the future when i disagree with something but have no credible way to back up my claim... ill just call it laughable like you guys. :rolleyes:

i only half agree with this. the defenders certainly have the right to ensure they stay protected, but at the same time, to state that the defenders can do as they please is laughable. sure they most certainly can since they have the strength behind them, but if they start acting like a hegemony (not the Hegemony so lets not go there please), and neutering alliances then, the defenders will build a not so good reputation with other alliances. it is these kind of statements that should make people worried and fearful due solely to the fact that a "might makes right" style attitude should continue to be frowned on by all. yet, it is starting to once again gain vast support by those who once fought (not just Karma) against that very attitude.

Share this comment


Link to comment

i only half agree with this. the defenders certainly have the right to ensure they stay protected, but at the same time, to state that the defenders can do as they please is laughable. sure they most certainly can since they have the strength behind them, but if they start acting like a hegemony (not the Hegemony so lets not go there please), and neutering alliances then, the defenders will build a not so good reputation with other alliances. it is these kind of statements that should make people worried and fearful due solely to the fact that a "might makes right" style attitude should continue to be frowned on by all. yet, it is starting to once again gain vast support by those who once fought (not just Karma) against that very attitude.

thank you for your civil minded reply to a topic called "My thoughts on this on going conflict".

seriously, ive been waiting all day for someone to actually reply with substance.

i dont believe that C&G/SF have even come close to the point of bad PR.

sure they have some from the usual suspects but from the community at large who they are aligned with or neutral with i dont see a problem on the horizon.

this isnt a typical war either i feel. TOP has built very well in terms of.... well actually everything.

and i believe TOP isnt hurting the way past AAs have been during this type of war.

TOP has been stating all over the boards how well prepared they are to go on for months.

with TOP making these remarks i see C&G/SF taking them at their word.

just look at how they continue to buy back infra to keep buying nukes and such.

its not like they are beatin down to a pulp and cant continue.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Some very good points here. One shudders to imagine what TOP and Co. would have done to us had their plan been successful.

When we entered the war we knew that even if we did win it would not be easy at all. So what we would have done to you is most likely white peace or something very close.

Share this comment


Link to comment

thank you for your civil minded reply to a topic called "My thoughts on this on going conflict".

seriously, ive been waiting all day for someone to actually reply with substance.

i dont believe that C&G/SF have even come close to the point of bad PR.

sure they have some from the usual suspects but from the community at large who they are aligned with or neutral with i dont see a problem on the horizon.

this isnt a typical war either i feel. TOP has built very well in terms of.... well actually everything.

and i believe TOP isnt hurting the way past AAs have been during this type of war.

TOP has been stating all over the boards how well prepared they are to go on for months.

with TOP making these remarks i see C&G/SF taking them at their word.

just look at how they continue to buy back infra to keep buying nukes and such.

its not like they are beatin down to a pulp and cant continue.

i concur that TOP is one of the most well built alliances there has ever been but they are hurting. While they may be prepared to go on for months mentally, from what i have heard from CnG members in regards to their WCs, is not every one of TOP had 1 billion+ WCs. add on to this, that TOP is essentially in a defensive war (in terms of actually being able to launch offensive wars) while CnG/Allies are more than capable of cycling in and out of the wars thus limiting the damage that TOP can actually do.

i would predict within a month, only a small percentage of TOP will be capable of continuing to fight so long as their nations are not allowed to enter PM.

also, you are welcome. regardless of what is said about me, i do try to stay civil and attempt to see both sides.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Its great that you think we have the moral high ground, but CnG is not keeping TOP and IRON in perpetual war to eliminate them as a threat just because they attacked us. We offered them terms that wouldn't even repair 50% of the damage they have done to all the alliances involved.

They're stalling, not us.

Share this comment


Link to comment

i concur that TOP is one of the most well built alliances there has ever been but they are hurting. While they may be prepared to go on for months mentally, from what i have heard from CnG members in regards to their WCs, is not every one of TOP had 1 billion+ WCs. add on to this, that TOP is essentially in a defensive war (in terms of actually being able to launch offensive wars) while CnG/Allies are more than capable of cycling in and out of the wars thus limiting the damage that TOP can actually do.

i would predict within a month, only a small percentage of TOP will be capable of continuing to fight so long as their nations are not allowed to enter PM.

also, you are welcome. regardless of what is said about me, i do try to stay civil and attempt to see both sides.

just wanna thank you again for making this topic worth posting B-)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Its great that you think we have the moral high ground, but CnG is not keeping TOP and IRON in perpetual war to eliminate them as a threat just because they attacked us. We offered them terms that wouldn't even repair 50% of the damage they have done to all the alliances involved.

They're stalling, not us.

thanks for the correction, i am not govt, it was just my opinions and point of view i was expressing.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Some very good points here. One shudders to imagine what TOP and Co. would have done to us had their plan been successful.

Yes. One shudders to imagine what one of the few alliances that were consistent in handing out white peace in karma ,while others (including yourself) asked for forced government removal and crippling reps, would have done to you.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Its great that you think we have the moral high ground, but CnG is not keeping TOP and IRON in perpetual war to eliminate them as a threat just because they attacked us. We offered them terms that wouldn't even repair 50% of the damage they have done to all the alliances involved.

They're stalling, not us.

You could also say that you're stalling since TOP/IRON and co. have already offered white peace, and continue to do keep that on the negotiating table.

Reps aren't about repairing the damage of the war, and it's ridiculous to think so. It's about keeping an alliance down for a while after the war is over so as to not be a threat again, right after a conflict.

As for the OP, in this case, I don't believe CnG will last as long as TOP, except for perhaps MK. Sure, they have a lot more nations to cycle in and out, but as time goes on, no matter who "wins", it will be a loss.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Its great that you think we have the moral high ground, but CnG is not keeping TOP and IRON in perpetual war to eliminate them as a threat just because they attacked us. We offered them terms that wouldn't even repair 50% of the damage they have done to all the alliances involved.

They're stalling, not us.

honestly, reps have never been made to repair damage. ever. they are purely punitive and unless you find a weak target, reps will never cover the cost of the war itself. thus, stating that ya'll just offering less than 50% of the damage done is amusing since that means absolutely nothing.

i can understand stating that you are offering x amount of reps when they have x amount of tech/cash or whatever. but relating it to damage done is ridiculous.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Some very good points here. One shudders to imagine what TOP and Co. would have done to us had their plan been successful.

If you shudder when thinking about getting white peace, how do you function in day to day life?

Share this comment


Link to comment

If you shudder when thinking about getting white peace, how do you function in day to day life?

its so easy for the losing side to say that they would offer white peace if they were winning... not only easy but smart if you can fool the victors into believing it.

example:

person 1:oh you won the lottery?

person 2: yep, sure did, $125mil!

person 1: you know that had i won i would have given you 1/2 right?

person 2: <_<

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...