WorkingClassRuler

[quote name='StevieG' date='21 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1269153773' post='2232000'] Yea, at the time both groups were at peace, but were involved in prewar discussion. And im prety sure Alliance defcon levels were raised significantly prior to attacks, with it lining up to be a world war.(\m/ not backing down, NpO not backing down, STA NSO FOK, and FARK amongst others already involved) Its not like Top and co just attacked out of the blue as you are trying to indicate. C&G were going to be in a state of war one way or another with Top and co as soon as they attacked lets say Fark, in defense of NSO. That cannot be disputed. The pre-emptive attacked has been acknowledged as a blunder given hindsight, and was kind of an unprecedented move, but the outrage it caused and continues to cause and propell arguments such as yours is a little over the top. [/quote] To a degree you are correct. It's one thing to be involved in negotiations (peace negotiations, remember, that were successful) and war discussions, but it's entirely different to being actually engaged, or about to be engaged (as in "we're declaring on this date on this alliance") in the war. CnG was not engaged in the war itself, they were not fighting anybody, they were not about to attack anybody, and while I'm sure they were smart enough to prepare for the possibility of going to war with TOP, it is the not the same as if they actually were already in the war. Therein lies the difference and TOP's offensive declaration against an uninvolved party is the one singular action that we can all point to as starting the break down of TOP-MHA relations, and therefore this eventual cancellation.

This is a very good step in the right direction, GGA. I saw what previous policies did to Green alliances, and I'm glad those mistakes will not be repeated. I hope Green will propser in the future.

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1269109387' post='2231412'] Please feel free to correct me with facts. [/quote] Uh, mate, you're the one making up arguments such as "MHA had no friendship with CnG at all." There is only the reply of "yes, we did", as evident by our declaration in their defense. Generally reality > assumptions. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1269109387' post='2231412'] Please elaborate. [/quote] It is clearly pointless. You have no intention of seeing anything except us attacking IRON, and everything else was a lie/dishonest/violation THAT MHA DID FIRST AND WAY WORSE. Don't pretend you want to see the facts to have a merit-based argument. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1269109387' post='2231412'] Never did we have any discussions about TOP attacking FARK. Again, you're trying to tell me things that never happened. And yes, I too admitted that we felt it would be irresponsible to share our plans with MHA, given that MHA would be on the other side of the war from us, even if indirectly so. It would not have been fair to the others on our side of the war. Would you consider it fair to share war plans with an ally on the other side of a war from you? That said, yes, much of TOP felt that our friendship was dead after you attacked IRON. [/quote] It's one thing to keep your war plans secret, it's another to create a whole Coalition for war and aggressively attack others without telling your allies. Where was the head's up about that? Oh right, there wasn't. It's also nice to finally see you admit that you thought our relationship was dead from that point, while MHA Gov tried every day to talk to you and to understand your position, and rectify the problems. Completely justifies all the crap you pulled after the war started, like aiding our enemy. Because we were dead to you, right? Yet on our side, the movement to cancel actually came from the membership, who'd had enough of TOP's treaty violations. They were sick of their enemies being aided by our supposed ally, and only after this occurred far, far too times. You wonder why other people here have been saying this is long over due? That's why. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1269109387' post='2231412'] Please respond to the allegations I've made. [/quote] No? I don't know why you're trying to make demands of me, it never works for anyone. Well, that and because as I've said it's clearly pointless because you will not have a reasonable argument about this, you are making false claims of MHA Government lying to you and deceiving you. So I'm not going to respond to that nonsense. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1269109387' post='2231412'] You did entirely read that wrong. Please reread what I wrote; I believe you substantially misread or misunderstood much of it. [/quote] Feel free to explain it in a way that doesn't say "We were convinced that CnG were going to attack us so we attacked them first" because that's what you did. The fact that CnG were not going to attack you is apparently irrelevant because you convinced yourselves they would. Paranoia. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 05:16 AM' timestamp='1269108990' post='2231403'] I don't doubt this however what they were doing couldn't have been much. Review the odds and the alliances you listed have reputations of having...lackluster war power. Whereas those on your side are at least semi-competent. [/quote] If they had prepared, had the finances, this could have been a very different story indeed. But that still doesn't mean it was easy for us. Surely we can at least agree on that common ground?

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:52 AM' timestamp='1269107513' post='2231375'] The CB is irrelevant. I believe what TOP did was wrong. I am just saying that when MHA declared it took no guts as (and GameMaster already said this) there were 3 to 1 odds in your favor. We have the stats, we've done the research. You can paint yourself as mighty warriors who bravely defeated a stronger enemy but the truth is that you completely outnumbered your enemy. [/quote] LOL Did you even read the post you quoted? At no point did I paint us as mighty warriors. I think we have achieved a significant victory for ourselves and those alliances on our side, which did not at all occur easily. Despite how quickly you are to dismiss the alliances thrown against us, many of them were doing all that they could to hurt us and many of them did just that. Don't belittle their war efforts because they eventually lost. And don't pretend this was somehow a walk in the park for us either.

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] This was in response to your claim that TOP attacked friends of MHA. It is true that MHA had neither treaties nor friendships with any member of CnG. [/quote] Oh, well thank you. I thought Yankee was our Minister of Foreign Affairs but clearly I was mistaken. Clearly you are our MoFA and know absolutely everything about our relationship with CnG alliances. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] Though we did indeed violate the treaty, we did so in only one way. This occurred some time after MHA violated it in a way that one might argue was of far larger magnitude. Naturally, I won't attempt to excuse our own actions by citing yours, but I think you get the point. [/quote] No, you did it in several ways, but it's clearly pointless discussing this with you. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] We never spoke with your government regarding anything along the lines of TOP attacking FARK. You're spitting conjecture at someone who was present in the channel you're speaking of. I don't see why you feel you have grounds to tell me that something happened when I have firsthand experience that says it didn't. [/quote] Well I don't log dump so again, there's no point discussing this here. Or I could give the logs to you and you could dump them for me? [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] You did not wish to remain neutral. You wished to defend FARK. I do not know if your government was being on the level when they said MHA's participation in defending FARK would have little effect upon the outcome of the war in general. [/quote] TOP attacking FARK would have kept us neutral against TOP, as we could not attack a treaty partner. We also made it very clear that we did not wish to get involved, I certainly know from firsthand experience what went on in our Government forums and the direction our position was heading prior to your aggressive attack on CnG. Oh, but you're our MoFA so clearly you should know this too, right? [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] We did not cut off any communications with your government. As they will corroborate, we remained in close contact with them up to the time they attacked IRON; at that stage, things became a little tense between us. What we did tell your government was that because they would effectively be on the other side, it would be irresponsible to those on our side were we to share our plans with them (MHA). Our response to their plans to defend FARK was along the lines of "We're sorry to hear that, but we understand." [/quote] No, not all communication but you stopped discussing your intentions with us until after you had declared. We had been discussing quite openly with you what we'd do given the myriad of circumstances being batted about (ie: you attacking FARK) and LM himself has admitted that you deliberately did not tell us you'd be attacking aggressively. When it became clear that we weren't going to be your meatshield, you didn't want to share with us any more. You took your toys and played with the other kids. Well congratulations, you get to play with them all by yourselves now. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] It is sad that misleading and out-of-context claims are being made in order to make TOP look bad. It was in response to such that I posted these logs. In any event, the claim that MHA planned to preempt IRON has basis, but it---as with any such thing---could rightly be considered conjecture were there no evidence to support it. [/quote] No one needs to make TOP look bad, you do it fine on your own. Nothing excuses a log dump on former friends, Crymson. You should be ashamed. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1269107351' post='2231371'] This demonstrates no plans to attack FARK. In fact, it was our belief that the disproportionate number of declarations of war on FARK were a deliberate attempt, as part of a battle plan. to draw IRON, and perhaps TOP, into declaring war on FARK; we predicted that the battle of the other side (with CnG being included in that category) was for CnG to then enter at a propitious time a bit later on. Our preempt on CnG was an attempt to disrupt that battle plan. [/quote] So your Coalition attacked FARK in order to draw our IRON? Or did I read that wrong? Anyway, it looks like pure paranoia and self-fulfilling prophecy. CnG would have been suicidal to attack TOP aggressively, nor did they have any intention of doing so, nor would we have supported them if they did. But you went ahead and declared aggressively anyway and this is where we are.

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='21 March 2010 - 04:44 AM' timestamp='1269107025' post='2231366'] 3 to 1 clearly isn't enough to bring us down [/quote] SShh, don't tell him that's kind of the point.

Aaannd for the hattrick ... [quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:39 AM' timestamp='1269106734' post='2231359'] Did I say that? I'm talking about coalition vs. coalition. When NpO withdrew TOP and company not only lost NpO's NS but their numerous allies and allies' allies. When you joined against IRON you knew you would have support. And if you were smart enough you knew that support was larger then what IRON and company could muster. The decision (to declare) took no guts. [/quote] Therein lies your problem. This Coalition business. TOP created this Coalition by attaching themselves and their friend to NpO's wagon; they made the choice to turn this into a global war by putting their and IRON's considerable NS and nations and finances against our friends. We all know they made this move ONLY because they thought CnG's allies would be occupied on NpO, they opportunistically attacked CnG when THEY were on the winning side. Our entrance with Gre surely tipped the scales to a more even playing field, but at the moment we entered we were not on the winning side at all. I'm not saying that we stormed this hill on our own, or that we put our entire alliance on the line because of it, but it was certainly no cake walk.

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='21 March 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1269106703' post='2231358'] I did not make it known that we would be pre-emptive attacking though. [/quote] End of discussion, really.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='21 March 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1269106692' post='2231356'] Crymson and LM's post above me have correctly stated that we had no intention/want to attack FARK. Seeing as how you Hitchhikers for some reason still believe this I'll say it again for emphasis. As the Grand Chancellor at the time I am informing you that we never had any plans to attack FARK. So throw that ridiculous argument away. In regards to the "communication" problems I can't speak for the rest of our former government, however, I can tell you why I stopped talking to your elected officials. The reasoning is because your government members lied to me/us on numerous occasions about your entrance into the war. We told you that we understood if you ended up on the other side and eventually it seemed, after several tries at it, that you finally arrived at the decision to defend FARK/Gram if and only if they were attacked. Imagine our surprise when you aggressively attacked our ally. Alot of you are pointing towards the aid thing as us going against our treaty with you but you are all somehow forgetting how you broke our treaty by attacking our ally. [/quote] Oh god, it gets funnier. Now we were lying to you? When we aggressively attacked your ally? I am so glad to be done with you lot. I won't get to laugh as much, but god at least I won't be shaking my head as much either.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 March 2010 - 04:36 AM' timestamp='1269106591' post='2231353'] normally these back and forth things aren't my thing, but I just saw this comment. It was plainly obvious to just about everyone that your side of the war was going to vastly outnumber us.[ooc] Perhaps you don't spend as much time playing CN as the rest of us and so didn't know this? Which would make you far wiser than the rest of us [/ooc] [/quote] I personally knew nothing of sides. I knew us and Gre were going to hit IRON, I knew that IRON had a lot of allies - 5 of which declared on MHA. None of this was a done deal until we got to the fighting and the opposition started dropping off.

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='21 March 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1269106481' post='2231350'] Keep telling yourselves that. Maybe others will believe it eventually too. [/quote] Because who needs facts and stats when you've got subjective opinion, right?

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:32 AM' timestamp='1269106339' post='2231345'] It was the winning side when NpO withdrew. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see that. [/quote] Because NpO was fighting CnG, right?

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:26 AM' timestamp='1269105975' post='2231341'] ... You act as if you were the only one fighting those alliances. NADC, MCXA, and Echelon had three alliances on it (all whom vastly outnumbered them), TUF had two, and IRON had ten. So to reiterate, yes, it takes no balls to fight on the winning side in a curb stomp. [/quote] It was not the winning side when we joined, genius.

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330'] I don't think MHA had any treaties nor any friendships at all with signatories of CnG. The Gramlins, too, whom you might cite as a reason for your entry, had no treaty with anyone in CnG. I'm aware that we technically went in aggressively, and I'm aware that we did violate the Lux; that said, it was MHA, not TOP, who initially violated the treaty between TOP and MHA (all should note that TOP did not attack an MDP partner of MHA; I do not know where the misconception to the contrary arose from). You'll recall that you went in on an aggressive clause. The pertinent text is below. [/quote] Ugh, you're honestly going with the "you have no treaties!!!" argument again? Gees. And I thought bringing up Continuum was slamming your head against a brick wall. I've also explained in depth previously the many ways in which TOP have violated this treaty. I would hate to have to repeat myself because you don't feel like taking responsibility for your own actions. But I'm glad we can all admit that the treaty was dead to you anyway, so this cancellation shouldn't be such a problem for you, should it? [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330'] In light of all the talk that TOP's actions spurred MHA's entry into the war, I think it deserves mention that MHA was planning to preempt IRON regardless of what we did. I think it also bears mention that MHA lied to us about what they were planning to do in this war; they had told us that they would only enter the war to defend FARK and that they did not wish to significantly affect the course of the war in general. MHA's actions in lying to us and in attacking our treaty partner destroyed the trust between us well before we sent any aid to GGA. The logs relating to MHA's plans on IRON are below; they date from immediately after they declared war on IRON. [/quote] LOLtastic, really. I'm fairly certain that at the time of discussing FARK, it was *before* you decided to hit CnG and were in fact discussing the NpO-\m/ war. It was here that TOP discussed attacking FARK, it was here that TOP learnt we would not support entering this war. And as a result, you cut off your communications with us and did not tell us you would be attacking CnG, which completely changed our position. It was because you attacked CnG that we entered, you yourself have admitted that we wanted to stay neutral. And that's exactly what we all wanted in MHA until you and IRON attacked CnG. Your claim that we were going to attack IRON regardless is a baseless accusation that I can only imagine you've created on idiotic assumption. I've heard mention of target lists? So what. Our military staff probably had/has lots of prepared lists in case of war, it doesn't prove jack. All your logs show is that we were prepared for the possibility of being at war with IRON, due to the way treaties would line up on either side. None of that proves dishonest intent on our behalf; it does not at all show that we were lying at any stage, and nor does it show anything but your extreme pettiness at actually log dumping your former allies. Congrats, Crymson. You're a log-dumper. I didn't think you could get any lower, but way to drop the bar. [quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330'] This is untrue. We never had any plans to attack FARK. I am curious as to why you think otherwise. [/quote] Because you discussed it with our Gov, we discussed the possibility of how that would keep us neutral against TOP, and how we would have to defend FARK if they were attacked by others.

Apologies to the rest of Planet Bob. The bravery shown by watching these tired, circular arguments by clearly uninformed and biased people is commendable. Your massive lost of time is a testament to our struggle.

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 March 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1269079867' post='2231176'] People drift all the time, but cancelling during a war after watching them being taking apart and doing nothing is lame. Oh yeah they drifted apart, one has 11m NS and the other is passing 4m NS on the way down. One alliance put their infra before friends and one didnt MHA are the new ODN. The only people who think TOP started this war is MK and its puppets. If there was no war raging the attack wouldnt have happened unless you are saying MK was going to do what MHA did and sit back and watch their friends burn without lifting a finger. It wouldnt be the 1st time they did but I dont think it was the case this time. [/quote] There's so little about this that's based on reality, it's hard to know what to respond to. "Watching them being taken apart" is laughable as MHA has been occupied with 6 alliances attempting to take us apart. What was TOP doing while we were attacked? Oh yes, aiding those who attacked us. I feel sorry for TOP loosing so much infra (although the fact you bring it up while trying to claim TOP doesn't care about their infra is funny), but perhaps they shouldn't have initiated an aggressive war for flimsy reasons? MHA most certainly did put our friends first over infra when we went up against IRON (who are more than capable of defending themselves), and then to be attacked by 5 other alliances. We did so because we wanted to defend our friends against the aggressive war. Just because we didn't throw our weight behind your side doesn't mean we haven't put our infra on the line. The last point I won't even bother with.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='20 March 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1269076886' post='2231164'] Wait, what? You do know that your government's main complaint was that TOP contemplated attacking one of your allies in the course of this war (when \m/ and NpO were still going at it) and that the "friend of my friend" argument was their main objection to our move? Read the topic. Your government is all over the place about it. That said, your reaction is more in line with how your people has been acting when it comes to treaties. [/quote] I think you might need to read it mate. TOP wanted to attack Fark, who is our direct ally. When that wouldn't fly, they stopped talking to us and attacked CnG. That was our "main objection", seeing as we declared on IRON and all. I think our reaction ranges between "Take responsibility for your actions" and "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining". Both of which apply here.

I've given you enough attention now, it's sad that this is what you've become and likely our last discussion, but clearly there's no reasoning with logic like that.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1269059739' post='2230980'] Wait, the fact that it's openly mockable and still being repeated today makes your historical pattern of putting infrastructure over your word somehow honorable? You'll have to explain that to me. The fact remains your history has shown you sign treaties without the intent of living up to your word when the going gets tough, and you cannot claim that is only your past because this topic only provides a modern example. Ad hominem me all you want; it doesn't change the fact that a treaty with MHA is nothing but a meaningless piece of text, making you one of the worst allies to ever disgrace Planet Bob. [/quote] There are simply no words to reply to such a ridiculous argument. Worst allies to disgrace Planet Bob? What a joke.

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='20 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1269059615' post='2230977'] A question, WCR. When TOP and IRON declared war on C&G, how long did you wait before declaring on the ally of your ally? How much diplomacy did you attempt then? [/quote] They originally wanted to attack Fark, we told them we couldn't support that. Once they knew we were not on their side, they stopped talking to us and did not tell us any of their plans, or that they were attacking CnG. I'm not Gov so I don't know all the discussions that went on after that, but if you're implying we didn't try to stop this then you are incorrect. After we supported CnG, they had a coalition of 5 alliances waiting to attack us a few days later, so make up your own mind about what TOP knew.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1269058945' post='2230961'] So, the fact that I spied on you makes changing allegiances for the sake of protection acceptable? My allegiance to MHA was false and purely for the sake of combating y foes; yours is legitimate until it is no longer beneficial. there is a difference between a traitor and a coward, WCR, and to me you'll always be a coward. [/quote] Again, simply no resonance. What we did in the past had reason and discussion - as evidence by the fact that it is still debatable today. The same cannot be said of your actions, it was straight up dishonest and cowardly as well. So don't come into our threads and act as if you're better than this. You are not.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1269057646' post='2230933'] As to my loyalty, my excursion into MHA is the most regrettable point in my career because it was the first and only period during which I expressed one loyalty while holding another. I left because I was fed up with it, and I never intend to dishonor myself in such a way again. However, I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, WCR. [/quote] Because you are the last person who should be commenting on loyalty, allegiances, or those who slithered out from the protection of others when it became convenient. I may not be long for this world, but you will always be a traitor. So please don't think your comments will have any resonance here.

[quote name='Lusitan' date='20 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1269056169' post='2230905'] Hardly means it's valid either. Look, I am not trying to argue over it's validity, I am saying that if it logically was such a clear case, you wouldn't need to be repeating it over 2 months. Unless your propaganda is losing quality of course [/quote] Perhaps in most places this would be true, but look at where it's being argued. If some one can bring up Continuum well over a year later in an entirely unrelated discussion, surely that's an indication of the quality of arguing here and thus, how long something has been argued for has no relevance to it's logic. Having said that, TOP started the war. Edit; Be nice, WCR.

You and loyalty, Stonewall. That's an entirely different discussion. But I've noticed you now. Yes, hello. I see you. Happy now?