Gn0xious Jr

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905'] You're not really making a point there. Nobody is claiming you declared on them. (That name is stupid, by the way. I motion we call the alliances on this front 'PEA', for Pre-Emptive Attackers.) But you did know that they were coming and laid a huge trap for them.][/quote] In almost every instance, if you hear someone is going to attack you, you prepare to defend yourself. If you "lay a huge trap for them" and they fall in, it's their fault. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905'] I've said in almost every post that TOP and IRON are in the wrong as well. I'm not really sure where this idea that I am supporting everything they have done is coming from. Well actually I do, it's the C&G propaganda crew on a discrediting mission. Obviously I'm stronger in my criticism of C&G because 90% of the posters here are completely behind the C&G line and really there is no need for another person to be loudly critical of TOP and IRON. [/quote] Not that it really matters, but I respect you for clarifying to the masses, yet again, that you feel that PEA are in the wrong... hopefully people read this In my opinion, this entire debacle is crazy stupid, and I can see us being in this same position for a very long time. CnG wants PEA to face consequences for their actions, and PEA's allies won't talk peace until PEA gets peace, and likewise for CnG and allies...

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1266511753' post='2189779'] Didn't read that way to me, but thank you for the kind words. [/quote] yeah, at first i had the "we have more money than you" and it didn't make sense. The "give me your money and your car" would be an act of aggression, which was shown.

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1266510827' post='2189749'] Not really. I don't recall anybody demanding any material goods from CnG at any point, among other things. [/quote] it was added as compliment to ridiculous warchests, i can take it out if you want i'm actually having some very civil conversations with the TOP folks i've been fighting. Edit: [quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1266510163' post='2189732'] Gnoxious, your analogy misses the point that C&G were armed to the teeth and eyeing up TOP and IRON. [/quote] So because we had some extra artillery in our car, it's our fault they made a poor decision. Your logic is why the world is so messed up; everyone is looking for someone else to blame their mistakes on. Take ownership, accept the consequences, and move on. (3 weeks of war is hardly a consequence)

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1266509172' post='2189718'] Fundamental difference. It also isn't "We punch you then friends come out then we beg for forgiveness." We've been at war for weeks, with millions of NS lost on both sides. I'm good with fighting for awhile. Do the terms that I would accept exist? Yes, but I'm more than happy continuing this fight. You're also completely ignoring the urging of peace by Archon towards \m/, but that would mess up your analogy. [/quote] Alright, so there's a dude punching a bratty kid further down the street... a finely dressed man pleads with the dude to stop punching the bratty kid. You shout "hey, i'm heading up to help you deal with that bratty kid!" and start running over. Rather than hit the bratty kid, you (and your friends)instead approach my car from the front, punch me in the face, saying "give me your money and your car!". My friends get out of the car, and we all throw punches. The finely dressed man says to the dude "seriously, i can't continue to ask you to stop punching this bratty kid, my friends are being attacked over there." Dude says "fine." Finely dressed man rushes in to help organize the efforts. A few more of my friends join in the fray. The Dude, after catching his breath from beating on the bratty kid, comes over and punches you/your friends. you say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all, i have more money than you, and your car smells kind of funny, can we just call this even?" Is that better?

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1266508116' post='2189693'] For a member of an alliance who belongs to the "friends > infra" group, this is quite hilarious to see. Quite telling, too. I'm reminded of a scene from a movie called "Snatch"...something about balls and a Desert Eagle. [/quote] funny, the past few weeks have reminded me of a couple of scenes from movies... from Back to the Future, where Biff and his lackeys pull Marty out of the car, beat him up a bit, drag him around back and dump him into the trunk of the band's car. The band gets out of the car, the lackeys !@#$ their pants, and try to pass the whole thing off as a misunderstanding, before tucking their tails and running away. TOP&Co./Biff&lackeys, CnG/Marty, CnG's allies/Band, Archon/Doc Brown from Tombstone, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are forced by violence from their quieter days of being Entrepreneurs within the growing town of Tombstone. The outlaw gang known as "The Cowboys" threaten Wyatt's retired lifestyle and opens up war against the successful Earp Family. Aided by the quick and cunning Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp fulfills a Mexican priest's prophesy of raging death and destruction to the Cowboys and brings Hell with him. TOP&Co./Curly Bill & Cowboys, CnG/Earps, CnG's allies/Earps' supporters, Archon/Doc Holiday There are several more if you are interested...

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1266507116' post='2189676'] I really wish people would stop using analogies to make a point. It isn't a good way to prove something. We weren't behind you. We were very much in front of you and heading towards you. CnG knew of the pending attack. [/quote] okay... so you come in front of the car and punch me in the face... my friends still get out of the car, and you say "whoa, guys, relax, i can't handle all this, let's forget the whole thing." you still should see consequences for your assault, and possible jail time. Using either this analogy or the actual events that take place, it still illustrates cowardice from the aggressor. -TOP&Co. were paranoid of the potential threat that CnG would counter should TOP/IRON attack CnG's allies during Polar-\m/ -TOP&Co. preemptively attack CnG, and later admit that it was a pretty silly decision -Treaties fly about, world starts to crumble, CnG starts to have a statistical advantage -TOP&Co. no longer feel this is a fight worth fighting, and request that we all go our separate ways -IRON makes an unofficial "joint" post regarding white peace, which again illustrates the "my bad, my bad" mindset -If TOP&Co. do feel that they wrongfully declared an aggressive attack on CnG, they should seek to surrender.

When C&G attacked, I told all pending tech traders that I needed to drop the deals. All of them had just received my 3m initial payment, and I told them to keep the 3m as a gift. In my opinion, it is better to spend the 12-15m on donations than put non-treatied alliances in potential danger during war times.

[quote name='Nizzle' date='17 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266479259' post='2189259'] Do you realize how hilarious this is coming from someone wearing the NpO tag? You folks aren't in much of a position to comment on this war in any way, shape, or form. [/quote] Honorable would be a surrender, not offering white peace when you are in no position to do such a thing.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383'] 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] 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 name='SpoiL' date='17 February 2010 - 07:44 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] Just a few things to correct here... The preemptive attack on C&G was to negate C&G's COUNTER to TOP/IRON supporting Polaris's side. C&G was not plotting to preemptively attack TOP/IRON. If they attacked C&G's allies, then yes, C&G would counter. TOP/IRON didn't want that, so they preemptively attacked and highlighted the "we just don't like you" in their CB. Attacking a non-combatant is aggressive/offensive. Had TOP/IRON attacked combatants treatied to C&G, bringing C&G in to counter, it'd be an entirely different scenario and thus cannot be used to judge the events that ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. What happened? TOP/IRON declared preemptively out of fear/paranoia. They attacked nations who, at the time, WERE UNINVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT. After realizing the consequences of the decision they simply want to say "my bad, my bad" and have it be forgotten? I'm sorry, but someone rushing into my house, destroying my property, will not be able to say "whoops, you know, I thought you were going to do something that didn't happen... my bad... truce?" [quote name='SpoiL' date='17 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758'] And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!". [/quote] Funny, when confronted with the reality, it seems everyone else resorts back to "but C&G would have countered to defend their allies had we attacked their allies, so instead we'll just cut out the middle man, !@#$ our pants, and demand white peace..."

GR agreed to temporarily postpone minimum payments. NPO came to us, requested that we postpone minimum payments until after this current conflict. Rather than pull NPO into this conflict, we agreed. We felt that NPO must have really felt strongly about remaining neutral in order for THEM to decide to continue their surrender terms from the Karma war until well after this war ends (their surrender terms are in effect until reps are complete, that's my understanding). I'd like to *choke* thank *choke* the NPO for coming to us, and discussing this matter. (can't believe i just said that) In regards to the arguing about... *NPO had the right to speak with each of the alliances they are currently under surrender terms with. *Each alliance had the right to deny or comply with their request. I can't really see a wrong in this situation...

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 February 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1265742881' post='2170924'] so do not attempt to state i am wrong and that somehow GR is being this wonderful ally to Polaris that Polaris is !@#$ting on. Polaris is entering in defense of GR as much as in defense of MK. so in the end, it is Polaris who is being the better ally to GR than vice versa. [/quote] with all due respect, not directed at Dochartaigh, but to this entire topic. I hope that the smearing of either alliance can cease. There were attempts prior to the attack on \m/ to push for peaceful resolution. We did raise concerns that GR would be put into a position to choose to optionally join in the aggressive act, which we were not sure we were 100% in agreement with the reasoning behind it, versus the mutual defense agreements we have with our bloc and our bloc's allies. It was apparent that our voice was not going to effect the situation. GR's position was made harder when we were preemptively declared on by the TOP/IRON/TSO front. Rather than coming to the defense of our allies (should we have been needed), we were instead in direct conflict from a separate aggressive act. It has been made clear that this was done to reduce the effectiveness of CnG's counter should the war continue to escalate. It was also made clear that TOP had approached Grub regarding the attack on CnG. While Grub cautioned against it, he did promise to not uphold the treaties held with GR and MK. This came as a shock to quite a few of us, as this information in and of itself should be shared due to the Intelligence Clause of our treaty, and especially if they were not going to activate the defensive clause. Now we get on to the activation of NpO defending GR. We suggested that coming to our defense would create more harm than good to the situation, and that we advised against it. What it comes down to is that it was activated, and GR is GRATEFUL to have the support. There has been enough strain already from the past couple of weeks, and it is going to take some time to rebuild.

Is there an instance where anyone from GR has stated that they hate Polaris and her members? Though recent times have put a strain on our relationship from both sides, but I don't recall GR members attacking Polaris in any way. note: I don't read every single comment on OWF, so correct me if I'm wrong. It is a true shame that things ended up the way they did, and hopefully we can both get back on track in the future.

Perhaps Polaris and GR can work on our relationship in the future. Until then, I wish Polaris's membership the best of luck.

[quote name='Tiberius12' date='08 February 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1265664073' post='2169078'] You sir, are in the wrong alliance. How do you feel about capes? [/quote] i'm quite fond of capes, and the ways of the Sith in general wanted to share some paint (since i had a few minutes to kill at work)

Very nice and honorable terms! [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='08 February 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1265649797' post='2168838'] I know the realistic chances of these being accepted by most nations, as with most individual terms, but we want to be part of the cool kids club so we are posting this publicly. [/quote] [img]http://i48.tinypic.com/o5szdc.jpg[/img]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 February 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1265412367' post='2162275'] <snip> [/quote] gotcha

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 February 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1265411776' post='2162256'] They don't. But if they are offering up terms that are meant to showcase only their arrogance and "superiority" while humiliating their defeated foe, then they are still to be condemned and spat upon. Refusing surrender terms that only seek to humiliate and overly oppress are not peace terms that any respectable alliance would offer to another. Now, I do not know what ODN offered to carthage, so that is not directed at them in any way. [/quote] i can agree with you here. edit: depending on your view of arrogance/humiliation of course

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 February 2010 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1265411224' post='2162239'] if the side that is refusing surrender is the side that clearly has the upperhand in the war, so as to be in a clear position of victory, then they are not to be commended. They are to be spit upon and condemned. [/quote] Not refusing surrender, refusing TO surrender. I don't see why the side that clearly has the upperhand needs to surrender to anyone, especially if they are defending themselves against the aggressors. If the alliances on the clearly lowerhand of the war wish to surrender and agree to terms, and the uperhand refuses the surrender, then i'd agree that they shouldn't be commended.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='05 February 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1265410026' post='2162200'] [color="#0000FF"]So, the NPO never actually PZIed people but simply refused to surrender to people like Doitzel, and Starfox, and Sponge, and myself? Glad you approve of their former practices. I can only say that I truly hope to see you putting them to use in this new world you are creating.[/color] [/quote] okay? never ceases to amaze me on how you can fabricate so much out of nothing... So, you condone Carthage's announcement that they will not surrender. You also state that FAIL will not surrender. By not surrendering, you are condoning extending the conflict. By never surrendering, you are condoning a path to eternal conflict, which is commendable. A nation from the opposite side declares that they will not surrender, so both "sides" have stated they will not surrender, and in essence are condoning a path to eternal conflict, and I condone PZI? I don't get it.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='05 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1265409573' post='2162190'] [color="#0000FF"]I never knew that the Mushroom Kingdom condoned PZI. Thank you for enlightening me.[/color] [/quote] It is commendable for one "side" to refuse surrender as an option, but not the other?

i've learned something, i've learned that you can start almost every sentence with "however." on a serious note, it is commendable to not surrender and fight it out. as others have said, if anyone chooses to, they know what to do (or should).

not reading that entire OP, can someone sum it up?

oh hai thar

mmm... bacon... also <3 1TF and NUH