Stetson76
-
Posts
906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Stetson76
-
-
[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1266611386' post='2192373']
When did I say we were [i]trying to destroy[/i] it? I said [i]it is being destroyed[/i]. There's a big difference; particularly when it's TOP/IRON/TORN's own actions that are leading to its destruction.
[/quote]
I was just answering the guy who asked what bloc was being discussed. Since you used the term "bloc" to refer to the TOP/IRON side of the war, I was pointing out that the term was being used loosely. But if you want to continue to be insecure and put words in my mouth feel free. I was just quoting what you said and in fact made no judgements about it other than it's an incorrect use of the term "bloc". -
This is the finest piece of writing regarding this conflict yet produced:
[quote name='JoshuaR' date='19 February 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1266577424' post='2191853']
Johnny, Johnny, wouldn't you say that they had plenty of solid evidence that C&G would attack them?
Ponder this: If I wished to attack any one member of C&G (in defense of another ally), then I would expect all other members of C&G to come to the first member's defense and then attack me. I then KNOW that all of C&G will attack me. At this point, I have solid evidence, garnered through simple logic, that I will be at war with all of C&G. Armed with this knowledge, I can safely declare war on all of these alliances, assured that this gives me the greatest tactical advantage possible in a war of this magnitude and with my nation strength and cash reserves.
(Please note that while this may have been a tactical act of brilliancy, it was a strategical blunder. I do not advocate this method of warfare. Even though I suggested to PC that they had every right to ask for assistance of allies in a "defensive war" against Polar in the beginning simply because Polar planned on attacking them through a shrewd means of manipulating the letter of the law (treaty) even while asking PC's allies to violate the spirit of it...
But back to TOP. In this day in age, when only Starcraftmazter feels free to declare war on alliances simply for being on the other side of a coalition - and not through direct treaties -, TOP allowed not just the C&G union and any other direct allies of some possible "individual" target to respond, but allowed all of C&G and ALL of the individual alliances' allies within C&G to have a direct, letter-of-the law rationale for attacking TOP. So yes, although the brilliant stat collectors figured they'd gain the upper hand in a war that WAS INDEED SURE TO COME ABOUT, they did make a simple strategic mistake in allowing C&G+allies to respond instead of just target+allies.)
And then we also have the interesting added layer of complexity, the fact that C&G, indeed desiring the destruction of TOP, used this war declaration as propaganda and fuel in being able to call this a "new" war, one in which they could call the shots rather than Polar or \m/.
TOP should have seen that coming too, especially if they were indeed paranoid about a scenario just like this one.
---
So now we have this giant war. We have the propaganda flowing. One side (SuperGrievances we shall call them,or SG for short) offering white peace to individual alliances in order to strengthen their grips around the necks of those alliances remaining on the Stat Collector side of things. And here in this thread we have the Grub Not Grub (GNG) side offering the very same deal to alliances on the SG side. Whereas one is hailed as merciful, the other is derided. An interesting tactic in the war of propaganda. I tip my hat to SG, as it seems that that war (the war of propaganda) is also leaning your way.
But what about the final outcome of this war?
SG want to hurt TOP and Co, just as they have recently hurt Pacifica. Perhaps they really do think they were wronged. TOP and Co believe themselves to have been links in an earlier chain of events, with no choice but to be pulled ahead by the ring(s) of metal before them. And maybe they did think this would be a good chance to reduce the future threat, imagined or not. What of it? They still entered into the war because of those links of chain, it would have happened anyway.
My opinion, just the small tiny opinion of one lone nation ruler, one lone nineteen-nation alliance leader, is that I am glad I am not part of any of this machine. And yet somehow, for some reason, I am drawn toward it, a voyeur, wondering whether the talking heads really believe what they say (I doubt it, but who cares, it's what I'd do in their place. It's a war of propaganda!), and wondering still if the lesser pawns believe what they think the officers believe (I sure hope they at least put some thought into the matter and form their own opinions, whatever those opinions may be).
Oh right, the opinion. Meh, ask yourself why you are fighting, what it is exactly that you perceive to be the wrong. Then ask yourself how you can prevent that wrong from occurring in the future.
If you believe the other side wants you dead, then maybe you should destroy it after all.
If you believe the other side is fighting without heart, but only to fight allies of allies of allies of allies, then maybe you should lend them your own hearts.
If you don't actually believe in the propaganda of your side, then maybe you should lobby for peace.
Finally, if you believe the other side really did constitute a threat to yourself, ask,
well be that as it may, how do I want this world to look when I am done with it?
Be the change you want to see in the world. And make it as you may.
[/quote]
And just do I don't double post I'll address this as well:
[quote name='flak attack' date='19 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266593084' post='2192036']
And what bloc is this we're trying to destroy?
[/quote]
Probably the same one this guy is referencing. Sometimes terms get used inappropriately. If you weren't trying to nitpick each statement for it's smallest point to disagree with you'd see that.
[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1266575015' post='2191834']...your bloc is impotent.
[/quote] -
[quote name='Locke' date='19 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1266606049' post='2192288']
You know it's a crazy war when you yawn at the latest round of DoW's.
[/quote]
I did.
-
Welcome to the front VE.
You'll have to talk to PC if you want one of my defensive slots...seemed accidentally jumped me by "mistake"...
-
[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266551770' post='2191300']
wrong about what.
[/quote]
Wrong about the fact that C&G was prepared to defend it's allies instead of sitting on the fence citing conflicting treaties... -
[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1266551031' post='2191258']
So because C&G was prepared to defend their allies from [i]your[/i] attacks...[i]they[/i] are the aggressive threat to [i]you?[/i]. TOP might as well have attacked Sparta too, since we are honor bound to defend C&G. Then TOP's allies might as well have pre-empted our allies, as we are all honor bounded to defend eachother.
Reading a treaty web and figuring out who will hit you if you hit their friends does not make them a threat, it makes them people who will hit you if you hit their friends. You can't try to say C&G was something that they are not. You just can't.
[/quote]
So, Archon was wrong as well? -
[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266550686' post='2191238']
If C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, by your logic it would only be as a result of TOP/IRON being a threat to C&G and her allies. We were a 'threat' because of the course of action they would have chosen to take.
Not our doing at all.
[/quote]
I'm not saying you're wrong. But I was replying to the gentleman who said that C&G was planning on staying out of the war because of conflicting treaties. -
[quote name='Myworld' date='18 February 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1266549892' post='2191182']
You keep thinking that. C&G members had allies on both sides of the issue they weren't planning on getting involved in the conflict between \m/ and Polar.
[/quote]
So, you're calling Archon a liar? He states right here that C&G was prepared to enter if their allies got attacked. If TOP/IRON intended to attack their allies, then C&G would clearly have been the threat TOP/IRON perceived them to be.
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them.
[/quote] -
[quote name='Mathias' date='18 February 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1266525016' post='2190124']
He's not bashing them, he's bashing the intention behind this announcement.
[/quote]
He's bashing making a public statement so that people are held accountable to their word? There's been a lot of hyperbole flying around these forums as to what C&G will or will not accept as terms, as well as TOP/IRON saying that they never intended anything other than white peace even if they were rolling right now. This cuts through the clutter for at least one side and nails it down. If anyone wants out, these are the terms, there will be no adjustments for past crimes, or changes based on how they entered the war. It would be nice if the bereaved victims in this war would make their position officially known as well as opposed to having their membership come out and float trial balloons testing public opinion and then hiding behind your free speech ideals. Rather than putting the effort into a justification post, Archon should lay out the official terms from that side of the fence and negotiations can begin. -
[quote name='deth2munkies' date='18 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266518389' post='2189948']
Only read the OP,don't care about the inanity that surely followed.
This is a PR move and nothing more. No alliance on that list expects any alliance they're fighting to actually accept white peace, they're only doing this to paint them as "bloodthirsty" or "bullies" for rejecting it.
[/quote]
I can only speak for myself and SNAFU when I say, to a certain degree you are correct, we do not expect anyone to surrender to us or take us up on this offer and in that sense this is a PR move. It is more than that however. It is a code of conduct (that hopefully will stay with these alliances beyond this war) that outlines our position in this conflict. We have no desire to do anything but see this stupid war end. And yes, stupid because \m/ are tools for raiding an alliance, stupid for Polar not communicating with their coalition partners, stupid for TOP/IRON not just waiting for the treaties to work themselves out so we could fight an even war, and stupid for C&G opting to burn alongside all of their allies thinking that if everyone's nation is a lake of glass they'll be safer. Here's an idea guys, if you're so convinced that TOP/IRON et al are so evil then you'll have even more support for the next time they try and pull something! -
[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1266510914' post='2189754']
If TOP/IRON were wronged, then maybe I could've understand it. Now, not so much.
They started this war because they felt it was the opportune moment to do so, and out of dislike for CnG. (Read the TOP DoW again.)
You are fighting for the grudge TOP/IRON holds against CnG, not for your treatypartners alone. This announcement made that clear, if it wasn't already.
[/quote]
So, Athens was wronged when MK stood up and said, no matter what our friends do, we'll stand by them?
Again, let me reiterate that this statement is by no means intended to insult the other side but merely to provide clarity to our position. At no point in this conflict will the signatories of this statement impose reps on our opponents. Not now when it seems bleak, and not in the future, even if should Admin choose to part the Red Sea and swallow up our adversaries. -
[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='18 February 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1266481981' post='2189386']
MHA's attackers were given the opportunity to white peace and only TUF and GGA took the offer. The rest of you declined, the offer is no longer available. So while I'm not Gov, I'm fairly certain that you've already blown your chance to get out of this scot-free.
[/quote]
Thank you for clearly delineating the sides. This post was made to ensure that everyone knows that the alliances on this "side" will not be resorting to tactics you've so elegantly modeled for us. The fact is that half of the alliances on the fringe of your side could peace out right now and you'd still hold a numeric and military advantage, so for those alliances who are being hard pressed to keep up with this war, we can only say that you'll not be leaving your comrades to burn either on the battle field (since they'll still have the advantage) or at the negotiating table (as the offer made really can't get any more lenient). -
I can only say that it's no surprise that this announcement was going to get trolled and laughed at.
That's fine. The reason SNAFU signed on to it was not because we expect anyone to surrender to us, but because we wanted out there the values that we stand for. Any of you may point to alliances on this list and say, but wait, they did this, or that in the past when it came to terms. That's all well and good, but any alliance that has signed on to this statement has pledged to not require any term other than neutrality for the duration of this conflict.
Maybe that doesn't wash away the sins of the past, or prevent the excesses of the future, but for the here and now, anyone the above named alliances face can know that should they need to leave the field they will not be condemning their friends to anything but the end of hostilities should their time come.
There is no admission of defeat, no loopholes, and no promise that the longer the war goes on the worse the terms get.
So yes, we may be playing the losing hand, but we're laying all the cards on the table. -
[quote name='tamerlane' date='17 February 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1266462727' post='2188702']
Take credit for what?
What the hell are you talking about? What was nice of us is to give nations warning and let them off for doing tech deals during a time of war. We could've done the ol' TPF thing and just demand they pay us reps for their transaction.
[/quote]
If you were paying attention to the thread you'd see that a number of MKer's have been trying to take credit for allowing NPO to suspend their rep payments to them as opposed to GOD's decision to keep receiving their reps. That was all well and smug until Archon came in and said that MK has already received all of it's tech from NPO. So, you can't get your nice guy points for allowing to them to stop doing something that's they're not doing.
It is indeed a tangential issue to the OP, so I'll just say again, this should have been discussed with TOP rather than having a conference and coming to terms with the enemy of the OP's protector. -
[quote name='Aurion' date='17 February 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1266458383' post='2188574']
Note the time referenced in the post.
Furthermore, note that today is not the same time as the time, or the same war referenced in the post.
Wow, you're a PR professional! Or maybe merely a professional at lacking basic reading comprehension.
[/quote]
What are you blathering about?
He clearly says, they were done receiving payments at the time that GOD made their decision, but that they were going to be good guys back when the Blue Balls War was heating up. -
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='17 February 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1266452113' post='2188356']
Not trying to single you out, but any ill-informed imbeciles who attempt to claim that MK supports GOD's decision are off their rockers. MK was already done receiving payments, but we told them we'd suspend it back in January when the WWE was proving to be an issue.
[/quote]
So you're trying to take credit for allowing the NPO to suspend payments even though you're already paid off? That was nice of you.
Wow, you guys are PR professionals! -
[quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1266447244' post='2188181']
situation taken care of with MK officials now, feel free to continue talking about allegorical references to metaphysical states of lofty ideals.
[/quote]
Wow, I would have thought that TOP would be the people you needed to negotiate with seeing as they are the ones you had the deal with.
I'm sure they would have agreed to suspension of the deals if you'd have approached them as opposed to dealing with their enemy. Just for future reference. -
[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1266445903' post='2188142']
And we have given them time to honor their deals. We just don't want them starting new ones. I explained the timeframe earlier on in this thread.
[/quote]
Except you didn't give them time to complete their deals. That message was dated the 15th and that's assuming it was the earliest one.
I like how you picked up that talking point and ran with it though.
-
Wow FOK must really be spread thin.
Sounds like you're having too easy of a time. Hopefully you'll have a challenge now. -
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266356961' post='2186236']
Used for propaganda? What propaganda? The conversation helped us come to a conclusion. How it is presented, well, as anyone with half a brain has observed, was to be quite expected. I wasn't exactly going to please you folks with our decision anyway, so remind me again why I should care?
[/quote]
So, you made your mind up ahead of time i.e. "I wasn't exactly going to please you folks with our decision anyway" and yet, you claim that holding "honest talks" wasn't propaganda? -
Congratulations on getting peace Hydra.
-
[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='16 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1266350723' post='2186010']
We also have large nations being dragged down. It's not as if we won't have large tech nations with little infra holding nukes, wrc's, etc in mid and lower ranks. We have more nations, which helps spread out the damage and depletion of warchests amongst our nations, whereas TOP does not have such a luxury. Yes, there are some in TOP that have unbreakable warchests, I and others recognize that. However, we need to, and believe we can get to a point where only a very small number of TOP nations will have the ability to rebuild nearly the instant the war is over.
[/quote]
It's true they may not be able to build back up to the level they were at, but they will be able to rebuild, just like you will. The difference is that they will have done a much higher amount of direct damage to you than you have to them. Anyway, we'll see what happens, it just seems like everyone is burning down the barn to extinguish a few rats. (Apply the terms of that analogy to whichever side you identify with. LOL )
[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1266351073' post='2186020']
So TOP was going to give immediate peace to C&G immediately after they attacked them? This makes no sense. Was it just because they saw the odds were no longer in their favor? [/quote]
No, because the war they entered because of, ended. Within the first 24 hours of NpO accepting \m/'s surrender, no one knew for sure how the sides were going to re-align. If TOP/IRON had been granted peace just like everyone else involved, it would have all be over. -
[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='16 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1266348024' post='2185939']
Reading none of this topic, other than the OP before it was posted, these are my thoughts:
I don't care about arguing aggression/defensive pre-emption or whatever you want to argue it is. The fact remains the same, TOP, IRON, TORN and others attacked CnG as a whole in a manner which they believed was most likely to result in a victory for them. This manner was a pre-emptive strike to catch most of us in a non-militarized state and to choose their first targets as they'd like. I congratulate you on doing this, as really, you needed to do that in order to have the best shot to defeat us (if we are to assume CnG would fight TOP, IRON, etc without the pre-emption). I'm not sure what potential alliances you lost, if any, but you seemed to have a decent enough amount backing you in your action, so I guess it was a somewhat decent idea to go through with.
So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? Clearly, because our advantage is in number of nations in the midrange, rather than matching your upper tier numbers and warchests as a whole, peacing you out now without massive reparations (which I don't believe many desire) benefits you more than us. We essentially lose in a white peace right now. Perhaps this might change in a few war cycles, as your nations continue to be dragged down, have warchests depleted to where you can just straight rebuild past us as soon as peace is declared, etc.
Anyways, just my take on things.
[/quote]
Thank you for acknowledging the situation as it stands. TOP/IRON messed up and C&G is taking advantage of that. Nothing wrong with either position, and spin trying to make either of those statements untrue is worthless.
The only question I have for you is if the TOP/IRON nations get pulled down into the lower ranks, aren't they going to do even more damage? I am currently fighting someone with 7000 more tech than me and I sure wouldn't wish that on my fellow alliance mates. Why do you think it will go better for you once those huge tech stockpiles get down in the range where they're costing 10% or more damage each strike over more targets (as assumedly, the advantage your speaking of is more nations to hit people with)?
Again, don't disagree with your statement, but am wondering how a prolonged war will end up better for you guys... -
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']
The simple fact remains that there were many ways for TIFDTT to involve themselves without activating a C&G treaty directly, and thus they would not have fought C&G. It's pretty simple, really.
[/quote]
What is pretty simple is figuring out that TOP/IRON could look at the conflict and come to the conclusion that they would be fighting you. Whether or not they had another way in is irrelevant. The decision making process is one of logical steps. One step leads to another, so yes if they had decided to defend an ally that was not at war with someone tied to you then the decision to hit you makes no sense. However, if they knew that their defense was going to lead to fighting you, then the first step on the path to preemption was a solid one. (Not that the end of that path resulted in a positive outcome for any of us.)
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']Exactly what were you folks expecting? We had an honest talk of which the singular goal was to understand the motivations of TIFDTT so that a decision could be made with respect to the war and its ending. Just because I drew conclusions that you didn't like doesn't mean I betrayed anyone's trust or anything - had I know you folks would try to character assassinate me (as you did in WWE) just for not agreeing with you I wouldn't have sat down and talked with you like that. I certainly won't make that mistake in the future, at any rate. However, I should note that, after the various attacks on me, I did show the logs to one or two other trusted leaders who are not directly involved in the TIFDTT front and thus far those who have read them and have gotten back to me have agreed completely with our assessment. I did not want to dump the damn logs because I figured that would be a betrayal of trust and honesty, but with all the little character-assassinating comments you folks are making, I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering.[/quote]
So, you told the people that you were talking with that this discussion was going to determine C&G's stance on the continuation of the war? I highly doubt that anyone opposing you in the future will be naive enough to sit down and have a honest talk without expecting that the conversation will be used for propaganda and therefore I don't believe you have to worry about making that mistake in the future. I'm not saying using whatever advantages you can muster is a bad thing, this appears to be yet another example of TOP/IRON being way to trusting of people they have no reason to trust (Grub).
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']
Sup lol:
"aggressive: characterized by or tending toward [b]unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like[/b]; militantly forward or menacing"
Unless you're trying to claim that C&G was inducing TIFDTT to attack our allies (which would have led to us attacking TIFDTT in a defensive response), then you're wrong.
[/quote]
No, as you stated in the OP, C&G was baiting TOP well before this issue arose.
Something About Not Feeling Useful
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[center][img] http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn59/Stetson1376/snafu.jpg[/img][/center]
Sadly the games of youth must come to an end at some point, hopscotch, jump rope, jacks, and most especially the various forms of stickball…
[center][img]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1932/stickball9qj.jpg[/img][/center]
This is especially true when you’re not longer able to play without hurting yourself…
[center][img] http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2009/baseball-blooper.JPG[/img][/center]
The time has come for SNAFU to hang up the spikes and retire from the field of play. We have played the game for all it’s worth, but must admit when it has bested us.
I’d like to thank the Stickmen for an honorable fight, and the very generous terms they have offered us. SNAFU hereby agrees to surrender with the only stipulation that we remain neutral for the duration of the conflict, not re-entering or aiding anyone who is still engaged.
As a housekeeping note, the nation of Wales Tide tried to scam our opponents by switching to Stickmen POW in order to escape into peace mode. This is not how we operate and said nation has been asked to leave SNAFU. Hopefully, he can work out his issues and be given a second chance.
[center] [b]For SNAFU[/b]
Stetson of Axeland, Grand FUBAR
Madam CaVi of Spehan, Power Behind the Throne
Thoughberry of Newest Amsterdam, In House Leader
Drall of New Phyrexia, Out House Leader
Heheurfunny of Land of Hehe, Director of Damage Control
Raithen of Cataclysm, Director of Alliance Relations
Mista Wigga of Silios, Director of Making Nations Rich
Brunes of Brunston, Director of Illicit Affairs
[b]For iFOK[/b]
ikMark, triumvir
MikeTheFirst, triumvir
[b]For the Seaworthy Liberian Cardboard Boxes[/b]
p0rksab3r, general
tiznoast, general
Schrodinger, general
[b]For the Finnish Cooperation Organization[/b]
Iosif Moldov, the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs and the entirity of Commissionary Council
[b]For the Viridian Entente[/b]
[img]http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r160/qinqe/VE/AS6veGreatSeal.gif[/img]
Solaris, Lord of the Entente
Impero, Duke of the Entente
Ryuusei, Secretary of Defense
Goldielax25, Secretary of the Interior
TypoNinja, Secretary of State
Kayvaan Shrike, Secretary of Economics[/center]