Tomcat

using the word hegemony is soooooo 2009

this game sucks please don't become a part of it

TOP and IRON didn't know about the peace talks that had been going on for an entire week straight because TOP and IRON didn't care about the peace talks. They just wanted an opportunity to attack CnG. Was it PEA's obligation to inform CnG that they were going to attack them? I think we can all agree here that they had no obligation to give them advanced warning of the attack. So, if the PEA had no obligation to warn CnG of the attack, then why would CnG have any obligation to warn them about the attack being a bad decision? You didn't warn them about the upcoming war, so why would they warn you about the upcoming peace?

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383'] Playing the "but they attacked us" card is a load of BS. C&G and co have more to gain by prolonging the war [/quote] And the attackers have much to gain by ending the war now that they aren't winning it anymore. Since when is being attacked not a valid reason for war? I'm going to ask you to do something very difficult, and that is to put yourself in somebody else's shoes. If TORN was suddenly attacked without treaty, by a large group of tech heavy alliances who absolutely devastated the entire upper tier of TORN nations, and then suddenly, once your allies jumped in to help turn around the war, the attacking alliances immediately started demanding an end to the conflict and white peace, what might your reaction be?

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='17 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1266465180' post='2188771'] Really? Let's analize the matter from CnG point of view: - Our allies are at war with X, and we may have to enter the war - We learn Y, our sworn enemies, are about to attack us while our allies are busy fighting X - We hurry up to peace our allies and X, so we can face Y in full strenght. Really, it makes all the sense to me, without need to look for conspirancy theories. [/quote] But don't you see, it's your fault for not following your obligation of warning your enemies ahead of time that their attack might be a bad idea! [quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776'] No, you're missing his point. Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack? Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes. [/quote] And to that I'd say, had TOP or IRON been truly only interested in entering the conflict to help their "allies," they would have entered by declaring war on alliances that were actually involved in the conflict rather than an entire alliance block they happened to have a grudge against. You're questioning Polar and CnG's motivations in not tipping off TOP and IRON that their attack would fail. In reality, you should be questioning why TOP and IRON decided to ignore treaties and attack CnG in the first place.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598'] The [i]only[/i] reason it makes sense to do that is to entrap TOP and IRON. If you were interested in a full peace for your allies (NpO) and avoiding war yourselves, you'd have tipped TOP and IRON off (although yes, NpO is culpable there too, of course).[/quote] Let me get this straight. It's CnG's fault that TOP and IRON's attack has backfired, and this entire war is CnG's fault for not warning TOP and IRON ahead of time that their attack on them might backfire? How about this. It's TOP and IRON's fault they chose to ignore treaties and attack CnG without first knowing what was actually going on.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='16 February 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1266373631' post='2186714'] So people shouldn't honor their treaties? [/quote] What treaty were IRON and TOP honoring by attacking CnG? Link me to the treaty, i've searched everywhere and can't seem to find it.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1266372353' post='2186677'] there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be. [/quote] Perhaps if you had just like, you know, [i]not[/i] attacked their allies in the first place then you wouldn't have had to worry about them entering the conflict. The fact is, you attacked them because of something you thought they were going to do, rather than something they actually did.

Your nation could have just been rebuilt after the war is won. Now that you've surrendered you will not only have a destroyed nation but also a destroyed reputation. Good luck with that, I suppose.

Congrats on peace o7 FOK

Perhaps they offered him a medal if he surrendered? ^^^ EDIT: Damn it, kingzog.

Worst move was declaring war on 6 nations during GW2. For some reason I thought that every nation only had 6 war slots max and that if I filled them all up nobody else would be able to counter-attack me.

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='09 February 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1265704979' post='2170313'] Those alliances participated as much as the NPO in those kind of actions too. It's not like the NPO acted alone. And yes, "yet" is the appropriate word. [/quote] [b]Yet[/b] Yet? You are attacking alliances because of crimes you believe they will commit in the future? This isn't minority report. You can't beat somebody up because you think they might do something bad in the future. That's like cutting off a man's legs because you suspect he might jaywalk.

The OP is pretty much correct. The IRON-TOP attack is a clear example of the IRON-TOP side's interest in trying to maintain the power and control they once had.

[quote name='James Dahl' date='08 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1265688616' post='2169730'] AUT, your side of the web you defend fights for "Freedom [b]From[/b]", freedom from people saying stuff you don't like, freedom from people you don't like gaining power or influence, freedom from upstart alliances who aren't in the "winner's circle" having a say in world affairs, and most of all, freedom from threats to what power, influence and authority you do have. I got tired of it, maybe you have an endless capacity to fight for "Freedom From", but I switched a long time ago to being a supporter of "Freedom [b]To[/b]". [/quote] I couldn't possibly have said it better myself.

What is this? Issuing surrender terms? Are people supposed to surrender to the smoldering rubble of your nations?

[quote name='Nedved I' date='08 February 2010 - 05:25 AM' timestamp='1265635534' post='2168656'] Were fighting for nothing now. [/quote] This implies that at at one point your side actually was fighting for something. What was it exactly? "Kill CnG?" And now that it hasn't worked out you want to peace out?

this war is now officially awesome

GR may your pink confetti dildo wreak much destruction.

When you actually read the open world forum I see what you did there \/\/\/

[quote name='Killer Monkey land' date='31 January 2010 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1264963608' post='2147985'] Thanks for the condescending reply.[/quote] Interesting. Are you aware that you're in NSO?

Let's just say tomorrow's update is going to look pretty ugly for TOP and IRON.

holy crap this is awesome

Bingo. I'd be embarrassed if anybody I knew IRL found out i waste my time here.

Everybody wants to have war but nobody wants to be on the losing side of it.