Hayzell

I'm glad that at least both sides can agree that threats should be eliminated insofar as possible when one has the chance to do so. The key points of difference seems to be what justifies viewing another as a threat, and what's a justfiable means of eliminating a threat. Both those points seem subjective and malleable enough to fit whoever's view it politically alligns with.

I think the reverse of this poll would have been a lot better. It is easy enough to find out who has lost the most total NS, and who has lost the most proportional. Arguing over who's doing the most damage would be more intersting and leave more room for debate.

Not really sure what the point is in honoring a treaty if you won't do so with the absolute fullest of your ability. Term #2 is rather odd but congratulations on getting peace nonetheless.

[size=2]Well done, John Ron. [/size]

This is an awesosme lineup; I'm sure they will lead us well.

Because, whether people like to admit it or not, two general sides have formed in the Cyberverse and they each now struggle against one another. Most are in it to help their allies on one side, some do it in hopes of creating a safer future for their alliance and their allies, but ultimately it's just a matter of too much being at stake. This war has been in the making since at least November. Plus or minus a few key alliances, the treaty web has predicably split along the lines we are looking at now, all that was needed was a trigger.

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='06 February 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1265439248' post='2163698'] They attacked me. They brought war to my alliance, and I have no reason to doubt they will do it again. Clearly lack of a just cause, or any cause at all, is not something to stand in their way. Much as I am not enthusiastic, I must take steps to defend my alliance and my allies before I can advocate peace. [/quote] The simplest and most effective means of ensuring we would not want to go to war with you again would have been to offer white peace. This would have assuaged all hostilities towards you, and without the grave cost of your nations and allies nations burning. You could have even kept that morale high ground you've worked so hard to attain over the past year. Instead you will attempt to annihilate us, forcing us into a survival position in which those you say you wish to protect will only endure unncessary harm. [size=2][quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1265440078' post='2163782'] By attacking us, they have CREATED the danger to their existence, and shown us that they are a danger to ours. [/quote] [/size][size=2]Rather than breaking the cycle you have only exacerbated it, and certainly done nothing to make anyone think the perceptions were unfounded.[/size]

I think its time the leaders of the world come forward and admit to being multis of M. Night Shymalan's.

[quote name='Shinpah' date='05 February 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1265431379' post='2162948'] In C&G's defense, your willingness to preemptively attack us proves that you are a threat [/quote] We are a threat only insofar as we feel threatened; persuing us to our mutual destruction when you (general 'you') could very easily have ended the war and tensions seems to very much reinforce the fact that you harbored a desire prior to this conflict to see our destruction.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='05 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1265425758' post='2162713'] So your argument is that we should all back away and let C&G get rolled for not wanting to give white peace to a group of alliances that, in their declaration of war, expressly stated that they were using the war as an opportunity to strike at C&G because they believe them to be a threat [b]and would like do so again in any future wars that arise until C&G has been destroyed.[/b] [/quote] Bolded part is completely absurd. Had CnG quickly offered peace it would have been irrefutable proof that there has been no desire to destroy TOP, IRON,etc. It would have been a huge PR victory for your side and very much ended our "paranoia". It would have cost you nothing, saved your nations much, and made the world more peaceful generally. Instead, having seen the opportunity to destroy us and extract massive reps, you turned this into a major war to eliminate us as a threat to you. While this may now be an aggressive war on our part, your side has done much to prove that it is justified. Also, congrats to The Immortals on achieving peace.

When either side can win.

[quote name='Sunstar' date='03 February 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1265248439' post='2157656'] So these posts were awhile ago, but they gave me an idea for a piece based on Feanor's old avatar (which proved impossible to find short of asking him, and I didn't think he'd be in the mood). So I finally stopped being lazy and re-made it myself, and hopefully the delay won't take away from it too much: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/Sunstar13/TOP.png[/img] Also, SirWilliam's latest and Ruiseart's are excellent. [/quote] I guess that is one way to summarize how TOP is man handling MK. I approve.

Looks like our side is dominating that upper tier.

This is probably the toughest move any alliance has had to make in this war. I look forward to battling with worthy opponents such as yourselves.

You guys are awesome! Kick $@!.

The cavalry, it has arrived. Fight well!

Best of luck to you, OG. You are a courageous group and a noble ally.

[quote name='Yerushalayim' date='01 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1265005504' post='2149973'] I know this is meant to insult us, but I found it mildly amusing. Y'all did decide to declare on our friends, though. We didn't come for ya. This could have easily been avoided if you guys just didn't preemptively strike an uninvolved party of a war. [/quote] It's not really an insult, the Persians were still pretty kickass. Perhaps this could have been avoided. But then the whole affair would have been called WWE II, because it would have ended after 4 days (WWE was what, 6 or 7 days?) So, let us be grateful that we may continue to enjoy the vigors of war, and the thrill of battle!

Hmm, it's like 300... except in reverse. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smug.gif[/img]

Welcome to the battle, brother. Paradoxia Vult!

The Leeeroys v The Dragon Welps sounds cool.

First, props to mythicknight of TORN for being a kickass war partner. Shout out to Italgria from TSO for being good as well. Ungomna, you're fun to talk to, and a great sport! WhatOnceWas, you're tough as hell, and a pleasure to fight. fire within, good luck. To whoever will take my other 2 defensive slots, BRING IT! [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='30 January 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1264911912' post='2146538'] I was in TOP and left just after I found out we'd back IRON in WWE. I checked all their warchests from the pre-war sign-ins. [b]They aren't as impressive as you'd think.[/b] 25% OF SIGN-INs have under 750m, 65% have around 1.5b (which isn't a lot for their infra size), and you have about 10-15 nations with 3+b. The ones who talk about their warchest are the exception, not the rule people. I'll also make note that people who sign-in are more active and thus usually listen to warchest guidelines better. I'd say over 50% of TOP doesn't have over 1b even. tl;dr - TOP's warchests aren't that great for how much they brag about them. Vlad, Bodvar, a few others can brag though. [/quote] So you go from being a dissenter, to a coward that runs into PM against orders everytime we go on alert, to a degenerate with an agenda against us that attempts to put private information out in the public? And then you don't even post accurate information. You're pathetic.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='30 January 2010 - 10:31 PM' timestamp='1264908702' post='2146418'] Stukov's warchest really is that big, geniuses. Though, it also happens to be a huge outlier and more than twice anyone else in the alliance. [/quote] The first sentence is true. The second one, completely false.

Ah, I see. Well if your goal was simply to prove you could fight a full round of wars without disbanding, congratulations. Although, the propaganda from your gov, released a day before our entrance to the war, indicate otherwise: And you peace out the next day? And you want us to believe this had nothing to do with the knowledge of our entrance? Any human that has gotten to the formal operations stage in cognitive development should be able to connect the lines in this one.