Gn0xious Jr

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='04 May 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1273044770' post='2287463'] [color="#0000FF"]Perhaps you should let me handle this. You just go back to attacking VE and I'll do the talking for you. It may be better this way.[/color] [/quote] possibly the best piece of advice in the entire thread.

why isn't GRE just asking for a ceasefire during negotiations? It seems that, from the past couple of pages, what they want... I don't think it is reasonable to expect someone to surrender, then offer terms.

was this really necessary? Private channels FTW!

wow, lines being drawn and all that...

i weep for the flowers... not the alliance mind you, actual flowers :*(

begun... the cold war... has...

a giant yellow card (fair warning) to planet Bob o/ 1TF o/ GR

[quote name='paulpig' date='08 April 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1270739697' post='2253092'] This govt has a lack of Gn0x. I loves GR! [/quote] <3 other duties have more of my attention. i felt it unfair to GR to try and run again, before i could dedicate the proper time in gov. Avalanche Gratz to all those elected! Shame on shamed! Bad ilselu1 for illegally and unconstitutionally putting elections on hold, regardless if i supported your actions! o/ GR edit: and a late o/ peace! [quote name='TheNeverender' date='08 April 2010 - 07:47 AM' timestamp='1270741621' post='2253124'] I read that as "in Archon's bathroom" and got positively [s]aroused[/s] creeped out. [/quote] well, i didn't here you complaining when i opened the door for you. just go back to pretending you don't know and everything will be fine... also stop using our Archon's bathroom!

[quote name='neneko' date='31 March 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1270072123' post='2242464'] If you watch a rainbow and say "I think it's pretty" that's an opinion. If you watch a rainbow and say "that's made of unicorn farts" you're wrong. [/quote] No... I believe it is YOU who is wrong! [img]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk234/zakattacks18/BEST-ILLUSTRATION.jpg[/img] Unicorns do in fact fart rainbows... The only $0.02 I can provide is that I trust that the highest ranking officials of CnG are working tirelessly on this. It's one of those situations where if Gre/IRON are left fighting, it's likely that IRON's allies won't accept peace without IRON, thus the whole thing continues, and the green grass grows all around all around, but not in areas that have been nuked.

:goonface: paul pig :goonface: <3 Avalanche

I would say that every nation has a right to request for reps regardless of the nature of the conflict... whether or not they actually get paid is another question.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='26 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1267224121' post='2205430'] Tomato beer? I think I can agree with others when I state I will be looking for this. [/quote] to clarify, it isn't tomato beer, it is bud light mixed with v-8... if you are a fan of bloody mary's, you may want to try it. i love bloody mary's and have no desire to try the bud light / v-8 concoction... for one, bud light is gross

because everyone else in the street fighting says "what the $%&@? those guys just jumped the dude with the bullhorn, that's not cool... let's stop fighting and help the dude with the bullhorn!"

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1266620956' post='2192585'] it's too bad the DoW couldn't have waited an hour. then this whole mess wouldn't have happened. [/quote] [b]bold it[/b] and [u]underline it[/u] i.e. i agree

[quote name='Heft' date='19 February 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1266621685' post='2192610'] Sounds kind of like you're just extorting the membership of Zenith, in that case. [/quote] extortion by Zenith .gov? edit: this is really all Bilrow's fault...

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 February 2010 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1266590636' post='2192002'] I have never claimed the pre-emptive attack was a defensive action ... obviously it is not. [/quote] sorry bob, not directed at you, but just reiterating my personal feelings on it. i need to practice separating out my posts better...

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 February 2010 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1266589274' post='2191983'] Actually many C&G posters have said that not only were they a long way from joining the conflict, they were 'entirely uninvolved'. Thanks for not doing that . As for your questions, I don't think [i]anybody[/i] (even Crymson or LM who made the decision) would say that the pre-emptive attack was a good idea, or even justified, looking back at it. [/quote] Even I am now seeing it is pretty much the same war, but a completely separate front. It was pretty easy to see (from PEA's point of view) how C&G would counter due to treaties, so 'entirely uninvolved' is a stretch. unengaged maybe? on a separate note (sorry bob): I still don't see how you can call it a defensive act, any way you look at it, it is an aggressive act. This whole thing makes me :S edit: clarification

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1266540055' post='2190674'] 1. Fark declares war on NSO 2. IRON declares war on Fark, and therefore SF 3. RoK activates treaty with Vanguard, and therefore CnG Hopefully this clears up idea that CnG were such a long way away from joining the conflict. [/quote] Is this what happened? Or is this a what if? It makes sense, for sure, but I was under the impression that IRON just DoW'd with TOP against CnG... It was never implied that CnG was such a long way from joining the conflict, however, the fact remains, they were brought in SOLELY because of the PEA. coulda woulda shoulda means !@#$, unless you are learning from the mistake for future use. Can you honestly say that actions PEA took were in their best interest? In retrospect to what has occurred? [quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266540339' post='2190691'] so if it were inevitable that CnG would be involved through treaties, what's the big deal? PEA(i like that better than tittie something) tried making things a whole lot easier by hitting them early on. obviously the sudden \m/-Polar white peace didnt help much and TOP was left out to dry(the war should have ended altogether right there but it didnt). now, we just have one huge war of misunderstanding. [/quote] I guess what I'm trying to clear up, is that rather than activate defensive treaties of their own, and wait for CnG to counter... PEA made an aggressive move "in defense" of NpO by preemptively hitting CnG. I don't agree with the stances that paint PEA as the victim, based solely on "even if." PEA chose the path to attack, not the other way around. edit: for clarification, i also agree that this a huge cluster $%&@ of a war

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556'] Peace mode nations were lined up to counter 1 day after certain alliances went in. "Near future" is extremely vague, and as so should not be used in objective wording. If your definition of "near future" reads within one day(maybe two at the most) then I can agree with that statement(provided the 2nd point is rectified). However, this is clearly not the definition of near future.[/quote] Definition of "near future" would be IF CnG's direct allies were attacked. IF that happened, CnG was prepared to enter in defense of her allies. So really the "near future" was dependent upon the aggressive side of the conflict's actions. [quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556'] "in an attempt to nuetralize a non combatant" does not objectively portray the picture here. That does not come off as Neutral Point of View at all. It may be acurate in addition with a following line, but the wording is extremely biased. Rather, it should read. [i]"They took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to neutralise a major component in the opposite coalition who had yet to engage"[/i][/quote] "major component in the opposite coalition" is a huge exaggeration. even though CnG's treaties showed where they'd enter into the conflict, [u]they were NOT CURRENTLY a part of the conflict[/u]. The "you were gonna be" arguments are based on IFs, and still doesn't (to me) justify aggressive action. I understand that they felt it was in their best interest, that it would give them an edge, but it has never occurred to me to declare war on someone who has been uninvolved in the conflict. [quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556'] This doesnt even potray the full situation, as there were peace mode nations ready and waiting to go into combat on a days notice. Maybe It needs to be expanded on, but for now I think it is a pretty objective view on the action that took place. [/quote] preparation is something to be gawked at now? IF attacked, either directly or through one of her allies, CnG was preparing the best options to defend/counter. CnG never looked at from the aggressor/offensive, that was all TOP.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556'] Then why did you bring up "failing to see where such and such"? Never mind, as long as you realise that the main reason for entering the war is the first reason given in the DoW. It has been admited that a few other smaller reasons may also have contributed to it.[/quote] no worries, RIGHT after i said "failing to blah blahbiddyblah blah" i responded to Bob saying that I saw in the DoW where they said they agreed with NpO, but that what you quoted didn't support your statement. ALso, it looks like you quoted yourself, then put my name on it I can see that "too vague" a statement is biased, painting TOP's DoW to be in the best light. But when you get granular in the details, it paints TOP's DoW to be in a harsher light. So in order to paint TOP's DoW in the best light, we should ignore the details. [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1266536847' post='2190553'] thank you. now back to the regularly scheduled debates. [/quote] no u edit: fixing quotes

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266536672' post='2190543'] okay, what does PEA stand for? i assume given the context i have seen it used, it includes TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN but not sure if it includes anyone else. [/quote] It started a few pages back, it stands for Pre Emptive Attackers (PEA).

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266533783' post='2190434'] Because the part of the DoW that stated they were joining in on NpOs side came prior. They did see C&G as a threat to them and beleived C&G were after them. It is clear that this is one of he reasons for war.[/quote] already confirmed that a few posts above [quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266533783' post='2190434'] Yes, they took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to nuetralise a major component in the opposite coalition. There are many aspects of this war that are debatable, and whether a unprecedented(for the most part) action such as a pre-emptive strike is morally and even tactically wrong or not. But the above paragraph is most certainly not, as it is 100% unspinable fact. [/quote] It's 100% unspinable to you, because it is what you believe. I think a more objective wording would be: [i]They (PEA) took preemptive aggressive action in join in on NpO's side of the war, in an attempt to neutralize a non-combatant who would have become an opponent in the near future due to defensive treaties.[/i]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1266531396' post='2190350'] Gnoxious, when you make a clear statement that you understand the reason for the pre-emption, and for why it's part of the same war, I have to check your AA . The DoW says that they consider themselves part of the Polar side, which covers 'I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO' – they didn't come in on a treaty, they came in outside obligations (as many others did) to support them (in a poor way of course). [/quote] my apologies, i read the quoted portion as evidence to them joining on the side of NpO, which I was not understanding. The DoW did state that they agreed with NpO's position, and consider themselves on that side of the conflict. So that does clear up them declaring in aggression with NpO. Same war, NEW separate front. I agree with the sentiment that it was a poor choice in how to support.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266530861' post='2190326'] [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][/quote] I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO. This reads, pretty clearly, that they see CnG as a threat, and look to defeat CnG. [quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266530861' post='2190326'] 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] As I stated, it is pretty clear that the PEA ran through the treaties, felt that conflict with CnG would be inevitable as the PEA's aid to NpO's aggression would trigger defensive treaties. Thus, they skipped all that and decided to take an opportunity to defeat CnG (uninovled with the current conflict at that time) as illustrated by the snippit from the DoW you quoted. Poor decision by the PEA Bad CnG for defending herself, BAD

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1266529145' post='2190261'] 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. [/quote] PEA looked at the treaties, saw that regardless of HOW they entered the NpO-\m/ conflict that CnG would be bound by treaties to defend and counter. Rather than follow this path, out of fear/paranoia that the road would lead here eventually, they decided to just go balls out and attack CnG who was not involved in the conflict. The real pisser, is that PEA thought they had a slam dunk - closed case victory on their hands, and ended up biting of more than they could chew. There is NO WAY that CnG would have DoW'd on anyone without a valid reason. TOP organized the PEA front as an "indirect" support to NpO, though the main purpose was to defeat CnG. The biggest complaint I've seen on the PEA front is the decision to preemptively attack. The biggest complaint I've seen on the CnG front, is that there was preparation against the preemptive attack, and that our allies came to our defense. In other words, the PEA is wrong for aggressively attacking non-combatants CnG is wrong for defending against an ACTUAL threat, seeing as how there was an actual aggressive act against CnG by the PEA.