LiquidMercury

[quote name='LJ Scott' date='25 March 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1269546712' post='2236522'] Not sure I've seen it yet, but LiquidMercury. [/quote] I did convince a ton of alliances to go rogue with me.....that being said others have got me beat sadly. I'll have to step it up. Also to add to my previous post, I'm going to throw out Grenval.

[quote name='Captain Oliver' date='30 March 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1269995124' post='2241594'] LiquidMercy, definetly. [/quote] Have we ever talked? As far as ego's go Ivan, Tyga, and Ram take the cake of people still around.

[quote name='Coursca' date='31 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1270094869' post='2243042'] Also, Grub is no longer the Emperor here. Penguin is. [/quote] And Penguin and other govt of Polar all sat by (while proclaiming outrage in private) and did nothing. That being said, I agree with you in the sense that I'll overlook your AA (though as a flip flop lame argument: any friend of TOP wouldn't be in Polar). Back on topic though: This doesn't surprise me and I'm glad to see Steelrat deleted though I'd of preferred him to come join the fun with us over here.

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1269106933' post='2231362'] End of discussion, really. [/quote] The fact is I made it known we'd be attacking CnG which you have been arguing that it was unknown. The manner of our entrance is pretty much a non-factor in regards to whether or not it was a good idea. I think that's been stated ad nauseum. Us preemping doesn't change the fact that it was known that we'd be hitting CnG. MHA said they'd stay neutral so long as Fark was left alone and that you'd only be going in on behalf of Fark. This is the lie that Feanor is speaking of. Us preemping or not preemping doesn't change that statement that was given to me by MHA gov WCR. While I agree you were put in a precarious position, you were put in it regardless of us preemping or not. I have been very unbiased as to this as I hope you know I have a lot of love for MHA and have always been one of your strongest supporters both here at TOP and previously in Gremlins. I have had the honor of holding the Harmlins mask on your boards and worked with your gov through three wars now. I would hope that you know that I am taking a pretty unbiased opinion of all this. I have admitted TOP's fault, I have briefly spoke of MHA's fault (though I'd rather not get into this more in a public median) and have left it at that. I would hope you could at least see both sides with a bit of clarity as well (I agree not all of TOP is going to hold the same middle of the road disposition as I am on this matter).

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1269106096' post='2231342'] 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. 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. [/quote] WCR, I notified pudge multiple times we'd be attacking CnG. I did not make it known that we would be pre-emptive attacking though. As far as your military having/had lots of prepared lists in case of war, no. You know just as well as I do that that's not the case. If you had said Polar, MK, PC, or other various military minded people then yes I would agree with you. For the sake of our past relations I will not start log dumping as to the various things that were talked about with MHA gov (between myself and them). I suggest you leave it at that and we agree to disagree how this all played out, who got betrayed, etc. etc. I for one wish MHA the best in their endeavors and congratulate them on the number 1 rank. I apologize for putting you all in a precarious position that ultimately lead to you all feeling as though you were betrayed.

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1269092292' post='2231251'] apart from the part i made bold, the rest of your statement is nothing but crap, you have no idea what was going on, UNLESS you are admitting to having a spy within MHA you do not know that MHA had target lists for IRON two days before you attacked CnG. [/quote] [quote name='Cormalek' date='20 March 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1269093268' post='2231262'] I can't tell if you're lying on purpose here or just don't know all(any?) facts. I hope I don't tattle some classified stuff here, but here: The day before the attack, it was still unsure if we are going in at all. 7 hours before the attack some of us were told to be prepared to check before the crucial strategic moment [ooc:update] whether we were at war. The decision was made in last hours prior to attack, because of which there was no friggin target list. While the command worked hard in those last hours, and put together one, it was a last minute thing; personally I was able to hit only 1 of assigned targets, and had little under 20 minutes to figure out which, and start shooting. We went DefCon3 to 1 in a matter of hours. So - [b]no[/b]. there was no definite and long planned offensive. Something that - if you were well informed, instead of pretending to be well informed - you'd know, seeing how small number of initial wars on MHA-IRON front was, especially those with highest initiative factor [ooc:update-quads]. While all of your opinions seem balanced + we have a lot of warm feelings toward IRON atm (because even though we're opponents, you are a honorable opponent. Things get funny that way sometimes.), it seems that you base some of them on inaccurate(at best) arguments. [/quote] You two are both misinformed. Target lists were drawn up, the decision was made prior. I've got logs from various parties within MHA and out of MHA confirming this. No I won't be showing. I do agree that there was no long-term offensive action planned towards IRON on behalf of MHA (outside of the pre-war planning). EDIT: Agreeing with Crymson in regards to us not wanting to attack Fark. We actually wanted Fark out, a lot of like those guys genuinely.

Run a FF only for collections, 5B for bills. The last time I checked (pre-moon/mars wonders) this allowed for a max infra of 19,525 iirc before diminishing returns. The moon/mars wonders allow for a higher infra level before diminishing returns. The max income allowable requires you to have 2 resources in the FF only trade set up. You being at 50% as well as lacking the MIC will effect your income considerably. Also keep in mind that land effects income so those with more land are going to have higher income. Pre war I was at 29k land which added considerably to my income in conjunction with the ADP. If Bob Janova gives me back my access to his calc I'll tell you the current max income output.

[quote name='jaaku' date='08 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1268080884' post='2218247'] Paying reps to what CnG lost? Sure, I could understand that argument. Paying reps to everyone else because they decided to join in on a beatdown? That's not something i could agree with. To allude to whoever posted that medical bill analogy. I'm pretty certain that TOP is willing to pay some cash to who they punched. But when the rest of their buddies at the bar decide to join in and want cash for their bloody knuckles, they can keep on walking. [/quote] This is pretty accurate.

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='01 March 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1267471517' post='2210115'] I am more than amused that people believe the world is cast in stone, has no variation possible and should remain steadfast despite changing circumstances... but then again it is TOP isn't it. Thanks for putting me in this situation with the most retarded declaration of war (politically) from an alliance I thought had considerable intelligence. Perhaps if you want to rally around my cause you could stick to said cause instead of telling the world what your real plans are so overtly. But please do continue LM, I am fully aware of my political capital approaching bankruptcy. [/quote] I agree the world is not cast in stone, but similar to how it took ODN to become taken pseudo serious after their debacles of the past, how GATO is just now re-emerging for a 2nd time (pre 1V war they were also emerging), Polaris will take time to emerge from your actions. Do your actions have a reason that is left unsaid? I'm sure they do, I for one would always appreciate the reasoning behind being betrayed by someone I have held in the highest esteem for quite some time, have consistently stood up for in all arenas, and someone I consider to be a good person. Grub, as always you had the ability to say "No, lets not do this." On the contrary, you knew of the plan and took it as it was. Rally around your cause? I fully did. I as always was there because Polaris was doing the right thing in my mind. Will others use what I saw as a valid cause to go after their own agendas? Yes I'm sure. A prime example would be some in TOP during this conflict, or GOD during Karma with their vindictive nature towards NPO (pre-war they were much more amicable about "Karma", then it became GTFO of our business towards anyone who had an opinion that differed). I stand by my beliefs and the cause that we rallied behind. Sadly, it would seem you did not. Or to your credit you felt as though TOP was only about blowing up CnG besides the fact that many truly were supportive of Polaris and their ideals and that many held Polaris in the highest esteem. Why some, when it looked as though TOP would stay out, went to NpO to fight for that cause. I can agree to you being upset with TOP's DoW (the actual wording), but to target me personally against it I will take offense, because I only was there to fight the same fight Polaris was fighting. Yes, you're political capital is approaching bankruptcy, I for one am saddened by that. I truly felt as though you had Polaris going in the right direction and one that many in the cyberverse felt was a general sense of "wow they pretty much are awesome now." I know for one had I ever chosen to go to an open alliance, Polaris would of been my first stop. Though I have ultimately felt betrayed, I still consider you a quality person and will most likely always do so.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='01 March 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1267446643' post='2209838'] The reasons for polaris war against TOP are more complex than you would imagine. But you are only a TOP applicant at this moment in time so I doubt you have had the time to be fully briefed on this matter. And since you are unlikely to believe me no matter what I say, I can only suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story. [/quote] And to you I suggest you not tote the applicant line doesn't know anything. Chalk has been a member in TOP for the better part of 2 years. He left to join NpO to fight with you all when TOP was slow on declaring for your side. Since I'm sure Grub hasn't taken the time to fully explain to you his reasoning for destroying NpO's political clout for the future other then "because MK called us in, we're going to go back on our word completely" I'd suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story.

Nuts!

[quote name='Methrage' date='28 February 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1267402294' post='2209065'] Someone should keep track of all the reps alliances ask for in this war so we have a list to look at later and see how much relevance that has to do with what happens later on. [/quote] Wait until you see the latest batch asked for.

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1267401718' post='2209040'] NAAC disbanded by choice. Not because they were forced to. So as a former NAAC member do not make them a rallying cry for alliances who were disbanded by others. [/quote] My bad, I wasn't around for that time and although reading through the histories brings some insight, it is never the amount of insight from an actual member. I was in no way shape or form trying to use NAAC or any past alliance as a rallying cry by any means, merely using them as examples of disbanded alliances. I apologize for the misinformation in regards to NAAC being forceably disbanded when they were not.

[quote name='SilentFury' date='28 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1267393856' post='2208843'] Who ever says they did not need to accept the reps sounds like a ....you can finish the sentence ... Any ways they had to accept ...its either accept or get killed even more,then get offered higher reps so dont go around saying TOOL did not have to cuz that is BS and we all know it.. That was their only choice for the better of The Order Of Light.. [/quote] ....and GOLD and \m/ and GOONS and ONOS and NAAC all had to accept disbandment.....Just because a choice is presented, doesn't mean it has to be accepted. FAN showed us that more so then anyone. Though some may not want to admit it, might doesn't make right, it just makes you have the ability to ask for those reps, or to give the white peace. Might gives options, right gives a clean conscience.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='28 February 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1267397756' post='2208932'] I clearly said "At least acknowledge that of the major alliances they have taken some of the most initiative to cleanse their ranks and improve, because you're throwing them under a bus when they deserve none of that." This is because they [i]have[/i] been among the most active to improve their ranks. Legion cries fowl to them doing the most damage, but Sparta's ranks were focused on IRON/TOOL because their allies hit Legion harder to free their slots up some. When I told Sparta that we'd need a bit of 2nd wave support on Legion since most of our guys were in nuclear anarchy they said they'd allocate slots there because they weren't really before. Legion didn't even hit the most active ones... they hit regular joes a lot who everyone knows in a big alliance won't be the best fighter. No, we've never been allies, but I can compare my allies to friends who you've been allied to. That comparison is how I find in favor of Sparta. It doesn't matter if things are unique or not in small alliances, big alliances have a set community already with set leaders, to become important you have to spend a lot of effort and activity, sometimes which you don't want to do. So a smaller alliance allows you to mean more to it and to have a different experience to the game. If we all joined established alliances we'd be playing a Bob of 80 alliances all self-sufficient sentient communities. Is that what you wish to see? There are more diamonds in the rough than you think, many of these "micros" are made up of very good people who if given support would be the best allies you've ever had. Last thing, can you clarify your first sentence? Attacking 2mil is in reference to the strength of the combined nations they expelled from Sparta. [/quote] I'm not sure what you're bringing Legion's arguments for? I haven't brought them up at all. Yes you clearly said "At least acknowledge that of the major alliances they have taken some of the most initiative to cleanse their ranks and improve, because you're throwing them under a bus when they deserve none of that." And I clearly do not acknowledge that due to the fact that they did not take any initiative to cleanse the ranks from the most vile offenders in Karma, i.e. members derelict of orders. Had they done that, then yes I'd of absolutely agreed that they've done just as good of a job getting ghosts off their AA as anyone else (which isn't that hard). So now you're saying that my allies aren't worthy to be Sparta's allies essentially? I'd say that Umbrella, Argent, Gremlins, FCC, OG, OMFG, IRON have all indeed been swell allies. FOK as well. Any day, any time, I'd take any of them, over Sparta. I think many people would agree to that with the exception of IRON as many people just flat out don't like them due to their hegemonistic past. That being said, my opinion of IRON has changed immensely of them post-karma. So what you're saying in regards to micro alliances, is that they are made by people who aren't willing to do the work in a traditional alliance so they go and make one? Since they will not put in the effort and activity in a community their own community idea most be infinitely better since the qualities of hard-working and active are not within the context of the alliance? Hmm, I would hate to be apart of a culture that encourages that sort of behavior, one that encourages you to just leave if you don't want to put in hard-work (and go make your own thing). A member in a small alliance doesn't mean any more to the alliance then they would in a big alliance if there is no hard-work and no activity. A non-contributing member is just NS regardless of the alliance structure. Do I wish to see 80 good alliances on CN and not 100's of ones that don't ever attribute to anything? Yes. It'd make war planning a lot easier. It'd make finding tech easier. It'd make war more wide-scale and infinitely more fun. We're in a large war now but due to the proliferation of micro-alliances there is so much NS uninvolved that this shouldn't be called a Great War. Many micros, if/when they disband and merge back into the parent alliance see RoK/Athens (as both have had plenty of merges iirc) could of just worked at being a good member at an established alliance to make it all that it can be. Since most alliances are inherently in part, a meritocracy, hard work can get people to places where their desire to be "political leaders" or have the power to say "do what I want" and inherently give them more power then if they were to make a microalliance. Now, the benefits of micro-alliances are their ability to screw up more so then most major alliances and set off wars. See OV for Karma War, see the almost war of Athens vs KoN (KoN should of been smart and got a protectorate, Athens should of been smart and realized that it would of been a trigger point for war), and many other past examples. So in that sense, micro-alliances do serve a purpose to speed up the cyclical nature of war and peace which I am always a fan of. But what it comes down to are many people in micro-alliances taking the quick and easy way to less power to appease their self inflated egos by making their own "thing". These of course are my personal opinions of why I'm not a fan of micro-alliances in this day and age (2 years ago I was).

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='28 February 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1267394036' post='2208846'] Sparta does not wish to be the #1 alliance in the game, which they've stated repeatedly. And what did they do when they reached that height post-war? They attacked I'd say 2mil's worth of NS in nations who refused to participate. The "none" nations were extremely rampant with black sphere people post-cleansing. They then did this a second time (2mil in total between both I'd estimate) and so far it has shown well. BUT, if you time things properly my estimates is it takes 6-9 months to completely rebuild an alliance's military image or start from scratch, so perhaps with 2-3 more months things could be completely different. And I said "some of the most initiative" meaning they've done among the top 3 or so in most improvements. TPF shouldn't be counted among that because they aren't a big alliance anymore. NPO I am not sure of yet, they have a lot to still do if anyone wants to consider them more than just a number's game (nation count vs actual military might) NpO is perhaps the only alliance that was not already very strong in terms of military I'd consider made the biggest changes. IRON definitely cleaned ranks, but their military might I am not sure of since they've only been on the side of beatdowns and nothing which can show if given a relatively normal war if they'd win or take large damages still. Yes, they've been great allies. And when I compare Sparta to other allies (including yourselves) I'd say they've been among the best Asgaard could have hoped for. We aren't fodder to them, we're equals despite our differences in strength. They actually treat you like a normal person... I've seen far too many people simply try to manipulate smaller alliances. With the poll, I'd like to see simply a plain "never" not a never with a catch to it. E: The upper tier is pretty relative, they had a high average NS protectorate merge into them after Karma who were never part of a war yet, so if those are among the "problem" nations you're trying to point out, then they've yet to experience problems to correct until now. [/quote] Attacking 2 mil NS when you're more then 5x their size isn't that big of a deal, so I'm not sure the point you're trying to make there. You didn't say most initiative towards improving, you said they'd taken the most initiative towards cleansing. That is why I brought up TPF/NPO/IRON. Wars like they have been in cleanse poor members usually. Essentially, you've said "I don't know" a lot in regards to a lot of different alliances in how they compare militarily and how they've changed. "Compare Sparta to other allies (including yourselves), not sure what you're getting at here, we're not allies. Everyone is going to have allies they think are great, and allies they don't. It's when your allies are put in awkward situations see: what we've done to all our allies this war and what many of our allies did to us during Karma that the true test of the relationship comes to pass. Respect is earned, not given. Many smaller alliances fail miserably at running their alliance, at engaging in politics, and generally just don't do much to progress the game. This is why I'm generally an avid fan of micro-alliance wars and people not making new alliances. Very few things are "unique" in idea or form and you're not offering anything that hasn't been before (you being microalliances not you personally LW). Every now and then a diamond comes up amongst the rubble, Argent comes to mind. They are smallish, highly active, a very good military alliance that have played an important role in many politics (in this war they tied TOP to TOOL/white). As far as the merge of nations coming into Sparta, no that is not what I'm talking about what so ever. I'm talking about the top tier in Sparta (whom are still there) that were derelict in orders during the war against NPO. Sparta told everyone that they'd be expelling/ZIing said members post-war. They never were.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='28 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1267391553' post='2208791'] If this is the opinion of their enemies then I'll gladly burn with them. Sparta are great people, have an active and friendly community. Their leaders are awesome people when you get to know them and their military is getting much better. I'd like to see you turn their number of nations into the unbelievable fighting force you (and others) try to impose on them. It takes time, time they've used to improve their military for awhile now. As an ally, I can tell you that I see the exact opposite you seem to see. At least acknowledge that of the major alliances they have taken some of the most initiative to cleanse their ranks and improve, because you're throwing them under a bus when they deserve none of that. E: Also, the bias in this poll is ridiculous. [/quote] The fact is that all mass-recruiting alliances are going to have trouble becoming a military powerhouse outside of meatshield capability due to inactivity. That being said, Polar has done a fine job at showing what a mass recruiting alliance can do, MK (while I wouldn't consider them "mass recruiting" they do recruit (may be wrong but pretty sure they do), Sparta, who has been on the winning side of plenty of wars as of late (due in part to dropping their allies on one side or another, Karma war is a huge example of this), that they should of had the time, the money, and the ability to build a better war machine. This is what I think most people are getting at. Yes the pole is biased. Biased doesn't make things untrue though. And of the major alliances they have not taken the most initiative to cleanse their ranks and improve. Karma they said they were going to expel/ZI those that refused to fight (they didn't for their top tier). I'd say IRON/NPO/TPF have taken the biggest steps towards cleansing their membership by being on the bad end of a beatdown/war. Nothing clears out the crap members like that. Another reason why I believe in more wars, and in white pecae which in turn which causes more wars due to the higher speed of the war/peace cycle. It is good though that they've been good allies to you. Obligatory "until they drop you." That being said, Sparta is by no means NPO, and was by no means the worst parts of Q. It may indeed have been all a sneaky plan to get the world to think them irrelevant and allow them to be opportunistic. Sadly, if that is the case I wish they would of done more with the time they bought and a. become a true military powerhouse a la TOP, dropped down to 300 members and maintain that number no matter what, c. Made Trinite a court Jester.

[quote name='King Louis the II' date='28 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1267388106' post='2208707'] I really tought that you were someone that used logic. I really did. You have all the right to hate us, and have a different oppinion. However, to talk crap about Sparta military is just plain delusional. If you prefer to live your own fantasy it is your right to do so. However, if yoiu are really interested to know the truth try to learn about Sparta accomplishments during this war. Ask TOP top tier about their fights against us. Ask Liquid mercury, ask Extremerely Average. Ask most of IRON fighters. Take a look at rankings and see how we did after fighting TOP/IRON/Legion/TOOL/OMFG. I have read many of your postings and I really liked many of them (specially your peaceful phase). It is really disapointing to see that you become delusional. If you want to say crap against us is your right. However to say lies just will make you a clown. [/quote] I can say that those from Sparta haven't done much against me. Richie got wrecked (another one to top the top 5 biggest losers of the week due to me) and even forgot to nuke me one day as well as tried to spy away nukes when I had under 5 with my HNMS.... MK has done well when I've fought them (bawheid just has terrible luck but was always on to coordinate). I can assuredly tell you that I love to see Sparta nations against me in comparison to others such as MK. MK coordinates, even The Brigade coordinates, Sparta, not so much. I have no problem giving props where props are due but Sparta's military force is still woefully lacking both in terms of warchest and military coordination. So here go props to worthwhile opponents that I have fought this war: MK/TheBrigade. o/ to both.

[quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1267038264' post='2201808'] LM told me that he personally had nothing against cng. You'd be much better at this if you actually read the posts you're referring to. None of the reasons are voided by another. That works both ways. TOP entered the war to fight for the polar coalition AND to take down cng. Now the second reason isn't beneficial to TOP so they (and you) try to sweep it under the carpet. As you said the reasons doesn't void eachother. Just because one of TOPs reasons was to support the polar coalition doesn't mean it was the only one. They wanted to take us out and obviously that failed big time so now they try to backpedal. So no I'm not claiming any reason is voided I claim that both the reasons were there from the start and that both are still there even if you people try to cover the second one up. [/quote] I'd say that for many, the second reason was a bonus. It's like entering against an alliance say NPO, AND getting to nook Moo. You don't enter to nook Moo, but it is something that is enjoyable for some. For others it is saddening such as the case here with FOK. I feel as though many people here have a hard time throwing nukes our way (FOKers) but they do it because they were asked to. Some like Tromp (correct me if I'm wrong), enjoy the war completely, and it's just an added bonus that he gets to throw his nukes at us.

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1267037796' post='2201800'] And I was just poking fun at you, as I dont really like you, LM. ;D Yes, true about the Polar part. Though maybe, you know, putting so much on the line based on Grub's trustfulness was a mistake to begin with,... Anyway, sidetracked. More on topic, the DoW on first glance seems somewhat not needed considering the odds, but obviously it is. Fights between former friends are always the most ugly ones, emotionally. You have fun with that. [/quote] I actually am quite neutral towards you Branimir, though I find some of your posts irritating and illogical as I'm sure you find mine the same way at times. Yes, putting so much on the line based on Grub's trustfulness was a mistake. I honestly felt as though the personal relationship outside of any AA was more then it was. I feel that way about a few people in this game, sometimes I do judge it wrong though. I'd agree that the DoW may have been needed due to the tier balance, I just wish they could of found someone else to do it.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='24 February 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1267037106' post='2201774'] I have one query really maybe you could help with LM? if TOP are not bothered about fighting eternal war, then why all the bawwing about you haven't given us terms and yada yada yada. (not you, but some are flogging that line of defence) You surly know that your not getting white peace? Continuing to expect that outcome is pointless? I agree you can flog the "we haven't even been given terms yet either" line as that would be right. But the continoeus bawwing about ohh no there comes another alliance dog piling on gets irritating ( smart move in my eyes when facing such opponents as TOP) yet others can't seem to grasp that simple fact. If your guys were happy to war eternally then it doesn't make sense to cry about white peace when you know for 100% that is not going to happen or cry about the methods that are used to bring you down, there is an old saying you pissed the bed, you lie in it. I'm asking you because you're quite rational and I know I will get a serious awnser, rather than others reply and it be NO U!! WHITE PEACE NOAWWWW awnser. [/quote] It's a matter of hope I suppose. I would like to see global peace because I think it's the right thing to do as the context of the initial overall war has changed (This honestly should have been done within the first 2-3 days of Polaris declaring peace if we think about this logically). I understand that CnG as a whole would not want to give white peace after taking a multitude of high-tech nukes. While I can without a doubt say that I would give white peace if the roles were reversed, I cannot expect people to live to the same standards I place upon myself. If you were in our shoes though, would you not ask for white peace? Just like CnG for time on end was bawwing about TOP playing peace-making in situations and sticking our noses in places we should not have (yes see I can admit a screw up) and called us stat collectors, I can understand you being irritated with our baaawwing in regards to adding another one on top of the 21 alliances at war with us (and yes this is militarily what you should of done when facing an enemy with a concentrated tier prepared for war. I'd of done the same against Polaris in their mid tier had a war ever broken out along those lines). Realize that in part, it is a defense mechanism. What else can we do but say "oh well, here comes another one"? In the sense of FOK it is not that it is another alliance coming at us, but that it is FOK. It's an emotional stab to the heart more then anything. While you say that we are happy to war eternally, yet we cry for white peace, I believe you mistake us. We say we are READY for an eternal war. Do we wish for it or are we happy to have one? No. It's more fun to ride the cyclical nature of war/peace and be an active member of the political world which, as FAN can probably testify to, they were not during their VietFAN era. As an active and generally older (age-wise we don't have many young players) the enjoyment for us comes from being political players while excelling at nation building and war. So as I said, while we are READY for an eternal war, we would much rather have white peace and be active members of the community striving for more fun instead of having to play the role of detractor/enemy. Do I believe we'll get white peace? No. Will I continue to push for it? Of course. It's the logical thing to do. Just like you always [ooc] under-bid in contract negotiations [ooc] you under bid in what you hope to receive for peace. Ideologically there are things that TOP will refuse. We will refuse things similar to what NPO did to many alliances. We will not disband, we will not limit people being involved in our alliance or in the manner they are (govt restrictions). There are various other things we will not do that we are WILLING to fight eternally for. For our right to deny those things, just as FAN fought for the right to exist in the manner they saw fit, we are WILLING and READY to fight for our beliefs, our ideological culture, and our existence (though I seriously doubt this last one is even a question as I hope all here have realized the atrocity involved with disbanding an alliance). So yes many members will cry for white peace though it may not be given, partially because we truly felt betrayed by Polaris and that we feel as though the context of our entrance has changed. I say may not be given because eventually, it may truly become so costly (in terms of sheer monetary loss as I've stated turtling is much cheaper then taking hits, to continue a war against us, since we are both willing and ready to carry to that extent that it may just be the logical and smart thing for all sides to peace out globally. Looking from a cost/benefit analysis, that is why I would give white peace. And if it turns out that a war pops up 3 months from now and we do it all again, at least it'd be fun (though I seriously doubt that would happen, at least not the same sides). Just because I pissed the bed, doesn't mean I can't change the sheets.

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267036752' post='2201763'] Eh, if only the escape card from your epic blunder you call "preemptive strike" by your respective military genius would be that simple to obtain, wizard. Ignoring Ivan's advice,...such fail. We be here, though, LM. Sadly, around the top of the table. Carry on now, gents. [/quote] Oh come on, surely you know I was jesting considering I put all the smileys in just like MK does after I say things! Really I was just joking though. I know the preemptive strike wasn't the most brilliant move nor do I claim it was military genius (though I do believe that things would of played out much much differently had Polaris not done a loopdy do). As such, I'll continue to ignore Ivan's "advice".

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1267036552' post='2201758'] No. What's sad is that you think your alliance is better -- and less complicit -- in the world we sought to dismantle along with the NPO than NPO is. We didn't need TOP to down the unchecked power of Pacific last time; we did so in spite of it. This war is nothing more and nothing less than judgment. The final curtain has come to call on the old world order and TOP is finally answering for their crimes, as should have happened a year ago. [/quote] It's hard not to think of TOP a bit better then NPO. If we're really talking about old world order last call here arguably all alliances in Q barring I'd say Gremlins as they were at the forefront of leaving Q and essentially the breaking point should deserve to be rolled? Sparta, FOK, MHA, TOP all had their lot thrown in with NPO right up until Karma. Though I do agree that FOK/Sparta probably did not have the relations to NPO that MHA/TOP did. Your counterpoint of course is that TOP wasn't fully involved in Karma, which I have no response to for lack of one. If we are dictating our (alliances as a whole) involvement in Karma as the point of cleansing of old-world crimes then Sparta with their lack of top tier involvement, MHA with their blown staggers in enormous amounts, the order of 15 against NPO with the exception of GOD that protested GOD keeping them all at eternal war with NPO, and of course TOP's withdrawal from Echelon when it did not agree with keeping people out of government (after turning a new leaf mind you) are all equivicable I would say. Or is it that TOP in our arrogance/confidence and being major proponents of peaceful solutions (ironic how this is a 180 from that) has lead to us being labeled as "the ones that got away?" Or is it our ties with IRON who have to us been stand-up friends and allies, who undeniably have chosen that path in part out of necessity but true desire to do so as well. I'm assuming you'll say it's a combination of all. The fact is all that were in Q were aparty to the power base that NPO had (polaris was aparty to it as well). If you are going to judge us, judge us all. As someone who fought for the same cause as you to the best of my ability, I say that err in your judgment. I know what I fought for then and what I continue to fight for (in terms of words, I fight with my nukes because I have brought war upon myself but I am still forever a warrior for peace, a warrior for friends, and a warrior for fairness).

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='24 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267035762' post='2201733'] So CnG was supposed to not use their primary advantage (superior diplomatic/political situation) and instead engage in a top-tier slugging match that plays to all of TOP's advantages? I don't buy it. [/quote] And vice versa, during WWE, we were not supposed to use our top-tier advantage and play to all of CnG's advantages of a superior political situation? That being said, the defensive/offensive argument is indeed bland and one that nobody will ever agree on.

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1267035998' post='2201743'] You know you love to hate us. [/quote] LM calls for a ceasefire to roll NPO, put this in your sig if you're down.