StevieG

[quote name='delendum' date='19 February 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1266529719' post='2190280'] Haha way to spin it there. When TOP stated that they see us as a threat, it had nothing to do with the war. [/quote] Way to point out your argument. I do not make spin, I say it as I see it, and try to be as objective as possible. Your last sentence there holds no factual basis whatsoever. Or maybe that is just paranoia on your part [i]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/i] This reasoning is simple. Once Iron and Top go in on the side of NSO and NpO, C&G will take that opportunity to harm TOP. So we bring the war to your front steps for tactical reasons. There was also admitedly a bit of paranoia as in seing C&G as a threat, but that is hardly the sole reason for war, in fact it it was a small extra i believe. Get your facts straight.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1266505695' post='2189659'] TOP and co. attack out of "paranoia" that CnG is an immediate threat... We defend ourselves, our defense treaties are activated, and currently have a statistical advantage. Seeing as how TOP and co. attacked us, not the other way around, I'd say the threat that TOP and co. pose to CnG is quite REAL. If you run up behind me, punch me in the back of the head while I'm trying to get in my car, and the other 3 people in my car get out to assist while I'm dazed, you don't get to say "whoopsie, my bad, this obviously is more than I can handle... let's just go our separate ways." you face the consequences of your actions, which may include some jail time for assault. [/quote] Again, you are not thinking objectively at all. C&G and friends were in fact an immediate threat, as you cannot deny that they would have gotten involved. It might have been a silly and unprecedente move on TOP an cos part, but it was not just paranoia as a lot of you claim. As to your analogy. More like a few of my mates are having a bit of a punch up with a few of yours. Me and a few friends are considering going in to help, but we can also see that you have more mates across the road, which vastly outnumber us, who are [s]waiting[/s]prepared to get involved. So a few of us decide to jump over there real quick, maybe gain a few knock outs so that the advantage you had will no longer be. Adding to this, this punch up all started when a few of or mates a bit further up the road came upon a few of your mates attacking a guy who was alone, and decided to get involved. [quote name='neneko' date='19 February 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1266514069' post='2189827'] The fact that TOP stated in their DoW that the polar-\m/ conflict wasn't their main reason to go to war suggests otherwise. [/quote] Really? I always thought that order of importance followed a sequential patern throughout an OP. EDIT: changed wording to be a bit more objective

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1266487721' post='2189477'] 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] I believe I already answered that here. But I will also add that TORN has a history of granting white peace, especially if our side would remain larger and more powerful, thus less susceptable to another hostile action. It would seem to me that C&G are in this more powerful position, but I have recognised that they are possibly not so comfortable with TOP in paticular being able to rebuy all their infra with their warchest abilities and return to their prewar NS with relative ease. [quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383'] All that being said, I dont harbour any grudges or resentment for all of this, as they are doing the best they can for their alliances and friends and future safety regardless of how founded their "paranoia" is. I am pretty sure most would do the same being put in their position. I cant find any fault really with it. Where I am finding faults is various members posting in this thread that do not recognise or will not admit to the obvious. As well as this there seems a very biased and non objective posting occurence. Also, there is a lot of statements coming out as facts, that are either completely wrong, or grosely misrepresent situations that have occured. [/quote] Nothing wrong with what C&G are doing in my opinion, but to act like they are the victim now in the position they are in is laughable. You need to understand for one that as a poster stated before "TOP and co aggresively pre-empted C&G and co from attacking them". If you cannot see how that is, then you are not thinking objectively.

[quote name='Heft' date='18 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266441890' post='2187981'] It's been quite awhile since I've seen a single word run so far down into the ground as the word "threat" has been here. There seem to be two basic and distinct meanings of it being used here, and most of the disagreement comes from either not recognizing or ignoring which use is being employed at a given time. There's the indefinite, future threat that TOP seems to have believed CnG to likely be, and then there is the imminent, current threat that TOP believed CnG to assuredly be. The first was due to the posturing and lack of understanding on both sides that had gone on for months. The second was due to the fact that once IRON entered the war in defense of their treaty partners (us) then CnG would have been guaranteed to enter the war in some fashion, thus ensuring a military confrontation between the "TIFDTT" (or whatever) group and CnG, regardless of entry point. The first "threat" may have led to distrust and hostility, but it was the second "threat" that led to the attacks. At least, as I understand it. This dialogue would make a whole lot more sense if everyone stopped conflating these two concepts. [/quote] [quote name='SpoiL' date='18 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758'] TOP [i]aggressively[/i] preempted C&G from attacking them. That was the reason for this particular front of this war that should have ended with NpO-\m/. Who's fault is it that the war continues? Well, who is the one calling it a separate war; who is the one playing semantics with the word 'aggressive', ignoring the defensive implications. I know you stand to gain from it, which is why we hear all the spin. And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!". [/quote] Both these posts hit the nail right on the head. Playing the "but they attacked us" card is a load of BS. C&G and co have more to gain by prolonging the war, and have taken a strategical decision to batter TOP and co down as much as possible, or get heavy reps. The main reason for this is that they beleive TOP and co may come back for them in the future, so they want to weaken them as much as possible. Its not defensive action taking place on the majority of C&G and cos fronts any more, as they clearly have the upperhand. All that being said, I dont harbour any grudges or resentment for all of this, as they are doing the best they can for their alliances and friends and future safety regardless of how founded their "paranoia" is. I am pretty sure most would do the same being put in their position. I cant find any fault really with it. Where I am finding faults is various members posting in this thread that do not recognise or will not admit to the obvious. As well as this there seems a very biased and non objective posting occurence. Also, there is a lot of statements coming out as facts, that are either completely wrong, or grosely misrepresent situations that have occured.

[quote name='Jamacus' date='18 February 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1266431428' post='2187733'] Except at the time they thought they had NpO on their side. It wasn't so much "evening the eventual playing field" as "taking out CnG while they were weak". [/quote] Having NpO on their side wasnt the "evening the eventual playing field", for goodness sake TOP and co were delaring on NpOs side. The pre-emptive strike was an attempt at "evening the eventual playing field". [quote name='Jamacus'] NpO had \m/ well in hand and TOP/IRON could have stayed out. [/quote] This statement is such misrepresentation of the situation at the time, do I even need to explain why?

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1266430957' post='2187729'] The very moment TOP and IRON decided to go caveman and declared on CnG with no attemp at mediation, no Casus Bellin, and with no motivation other than doing maximun damage to them... [/quote] Your edit did actually change it a bit, but still you state false facts there. You might actually try to argue your point(which does have an element of validity) with a little objectivity.

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='18 February 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1266425255' post='2187643'] It's like StevieG is my twin or something, excepting the name. Liverpool [/quote] Future insults like this could be taken to be a CB on their own

What are the alliances that you would go to the end of the earth for? oA on a flimsy CB just because you trust them and they were in need of your help etc.

[quote name='Methrage' date='17 February 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1266386263' post='2187190'] If MK really is dragging this war out because of the wording of the DoW rather than that they were declared on that, I think that is strange. [/quote] I did outline a few pages back that this was probably one of the reasons that C&G and co were "dragging"(only been 3 cycles of war so far, but its clear they intend to) out the war. There are other reasons as well. Crymson, for his part, acknowledges that C&G and cos reaction to his wording is kind of understandable.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1266388754' post='2187227'] The sooner TOP and IRON can admit that their actions (though perhaps strategically pertinent for contingency planning) were unacceptable by precedent and global decency, the sooner they can claim that such precedents are irrelevant and we can move forward on the notion that [b]we are fighting over whether or not to accept this new intended acceptibility.[/b] [/quote] I did pose the question whether or not the pre-emptive actions were "right". Dont beleive I got an answer. Also asked for explanations why it was either Right or Wrong, or whether it is neither right nor wrong?

[quote name='OneBallMan' date='18 February 2010 - 03:37 AM' timestamp='1266421070' post='2187567'] This is a good, fairly objective summary of the situation at hand. But something is really bothering me and it stems from the fractured nature of the cyberverse right now. There is far too much civility and diplomatic language here. Our side is playing nice, because to do otherwise would paint us as the monsters that some of you think we are. But that is total and unadulterated crapola. The simple fact of the matter is that TAFKAP attacked us, with ZERO provocation, ZERO CB, because you thought your position was stronger. No moral cause, no righting of wrongs, just simply, a roll of the dice against a perceived future threat. [b] You were wrong, you have wronged us and you will pay[/b]. Zero infra and zero tech should be the baseline, as far as I am concerned. I don't care who you give it to, but that's the way it rolls. Enjoy the war. [/quote] I doubt many think C&G are trully monsters. And you are not playing nice right now at all, you are hitting "us" with everything you have got. As so you should be. Zero provocation? Wrong, even your side admits it. Zero CB? Wrong again. There was actually quite sound resoning for the pre-emptive strike which can be debated if it was morally right or wrong, or in keeping with the traditions in our world as it was kind of unprecedented up until now. I might remind you that there was a DoW on your side which stated that they "understand that this is a Coalition War". Thought our position was stronger? I believe the pre-emptive strike was a way to attempt to shift our side into a more even position. No moral cause? The DoW stated that our side believed in Polars moral CB. Just eliminating a potential future threat? Now I guess it can be argued that everything I outlined above was all a smokescreen for TOP and co to get rid of C&G and SF and cos power structure. But, this is hardly based on concrete factual evidence. Should the world we live in embrace Zero Infrastructure and Zero Tech now for anyone who wrongs another? I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you are maybe a little emotionally charged to produce such a statement. Also, I dont beleive your Government sees this as the way to go either. But damn that is a big statement.

[quote name='Crymson' date='17 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266381691' post='2187060'] They were my own words. [/quote] [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 February 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1266381822' post='2187065'] regardless of whose words they were, they were put on an official TOP document and signed off by TOP gov. [/quote] Exactly what I was talking about. A little ground needs to be given on both sides in my view. TOP must understand that the way it was said comes off as an official view, and understand the perception that C&G and co take from it. While on the other hand C&G and co must realise that there is the possibility that certain peoples judgments can be emotionally clouded over past events and see through it.

trying to do multiple qoutes

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='17 February 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1266348024' post='2185939'] 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] I think that many beleive that with the peacing out of the NpO-\m/ front that there was no need for the war to go any longer. It is understandable that C&G would want to keep TOP and co in a longer war for the reasons you stated above, mainly due to two actions on the TOP and co side of things, plus a tactical descision on C&Gs side. 1) The pre-emptive nature in which TOP and co assaulted C&G. This can be looked at in a few ways, and in truth the answer is probably a mix of Paranoia(although the extent of that is minimised by our side and maximised by yours), True Pre-emptive action, in which TOP and co felt that the likelyhood of facing C&G was extremely high and felt that the odds were stacked against them, so turned to a "suprise" tactic to attempt to offset the balance back in TOP and cos favour(we can see now that this move probably backfired and led to TOP and co gaining less support. Add to that the whole NpO coming and going affair). 2) The OPs words in stating the CB against C&G. C&G wants to continue the war, and return the favour of bloodying TOP back, just as TOP wanted to do to C&G. (Whether that was a bit of rambling on the OPs part or Actually how TOP felt is an issue debatable by both sides) 3) TOPs wachests and tech levels. This is probably the biggest single reason to keep top in a prolonged state of war. Their is plenty of evidence around the OWF to show that C&G beleive that peacing out now will simply allow TOP to shoot straight back to Pre War levels(peace now would allow me personally to get back to prewar levels instantly, with the loss of a few hundreds of tech), and can instantly be a threat to C&G and co once again. Now that wouldnt be so bad if C&G and co could do the same, but that likelyhood is probably a lot smaller on an across the board level due to them being involved in a lot more beatings and conflicts over the recent past. This is where the whole "Not giving TOP peace proves their Paranoia was right" argument comes from. More corectly should it read "C&G an co are paranoid about TOP and co coming back to get them if they give them peace". Wether they are right or wrong for me has no bearing on what their actions are. C&G and co are in the better position right now and can choose how they go about it, while TOP and co have no choice in the matter but to continue to fight really. C&G and co have apparantly made the decision that they dont want TOP to be a threat after this war is over, and are acting in self interest by continuing to hold TOP and co in a state of prolonged war so as to diminish their warchests/tech levels etc. Whether the strategy is sound or not, time will only tell. You cant fully predict what can happen in this world, so I guess we will just wait and see. One thing for certain, there are a lot of people with their thinking hats on right now. Edit: punctuation

[quote name='neneko' date='17 February 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1266348899' post='2185968'] By your own logic I'd say TORN has a valid cb on invicta by now judging by your own comments against them. [/quote] Hey, dont ruin the suprise

I am actually happy to see this, considering the mess that it turned out to be. For my alliance though, I would have hoped you would continue.

Phew, that was close. Thanks for saving our [i]hides[/i] GLOF. edit: didnt know plural donkey was a filtered word

I have a question which I would like an official C&G response to please. Was it wrong of TIFDTT(pretty wacky name really) to pre-emptively declare on C&G knowing these things. 1) War against C&G being very likely by going in to defend allies. 2) Knowing that in all reality TIFDTT is on the smaller side of the World War. 3) Using an aggressive pre-emptive strike as a way to attempt to balance the tide if you like. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, reasons why this is wrong or right. Both sides opinions on this are welcome and dont have to be official responses. I wont be back till later, but I would appreciate an answer to this, Cheers.

IE7 i think

Hey, you havent forgot about us already have you?

I havent been able to use utilities for months now. For some reason when I log in it takes me nowhere. No message saying password is incorect etc, just takes me straight back to logging in. Cant get anywhere. That being said it has been realy usefull up until my problem.

The Preemptive War?

Non-nuclear war is sooooo 2006! Epecially in Global war, glad you finally caught on. Enjoy pushing that red button

Chaining is here for good. Like it or not, for good or for bad.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='10 February 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1265774184' post='2171788'] I cant believe it has not been said yet, so I will say it. These stats, coming in the 2nd week of war when much of TOP-IRON-CnG and company are in nuke anarchy and can only defend till that situation ends, means very little. Of course all the AAs who have DOW'd in the last 7 days are going to have excellent offensive war stats...because...you know...they are like able to declare wars. I suppose these numbers are cute to look at and all....but they are, in no way, indicative of any alliance's involvement in the war at this time, they are indicative of who is burning through nuke anarchy more than the others. [/quote] I think it had been said, and your argument does hold weight. I know personally that after about two days of war on the TOP/IRON CnG front there would have been numerous nations involved in 5 to 6 wars. Taking into account PM nations would still leave that average relatively high.