Johnny Apocalypse

double post. delete.

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266550507' post='2191229'] So, you're calling Archon a liar? He states right here that C&G was prepared to enter if their allies got attacked. If TOP/IRON intended to attack their allies, then C&G would clearly have been the threat TOP/IRON perceived them to be. [/quote] If C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, by your logic it would only be as a result of TOP/IRON being a threat to C&G and her allies. We were a 'threat' because of the course of action they would have chosen to take. Not our doing at all. [quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266550525' post='2191231'] Given the circumstances of the coalition war, he is essentially admitting that CnG would have found itself on the other side of the war. I mean if you want to continue arguing that you wouldn't have been on the opposite side of the on going war, thats fine, I just think it is silly and no one will take you seriously. Find a new point to get us on, because I really think that one has been beat to death. [/quote] See above. We would end up on the opposite side of the war, because of your actions against our allies. You're not going to start spinning it so it would have been our fault you attacked our allies and were obligated to defend them, are you? What point would you like to get onto then?

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1266550312' post='2191218'] very likely with a chance of rain. i believe archon's thread had someone posting that many nations were sent into peace mode to counter an attack so i'd take that as CnG knowing it was coming or at least expecting it(kind of like TOP expecting CnG to enter later on). now, now, i know you'll bring up the "but we didnt or anything" and it doesnt really matter at this point. TOP was expecting a war, CnG was expecting a war. TOP just threw the first punch and CnG has been able to spin that to their favor. [/quote] Just because we were expecting a war, doesn't mean we wanted one, our allies were getting involved more and more and we were trying to end it I believe. We were planning for the worst case scenario.

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='19 February 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1266549729' post='2191168'] One thing that is bothering me in this thread is when people say that this war was CB-less. I'd like to see planet Bob evolve away from this thinking since it's rather outdated. Casus Belli means a justification for war. We feel that we had justification for this war. Our line of thinking was that CnG would just enter the war down the line when we were beaten up and wipe the floor with us. Instead of taking the chance of that happening, we just skipped right to it. You may disagree with it and think that it wasn't the best plan, but it doesn't mean that a CB isn't there. We wouldn't attack for no reason unless we felt threatened. I notice a lot more people are being careful with their wording though which is good. Anyways, just my .02. [/quote] Sure it's a cb, but it's not a very good one, and if we're going to declare on people we view as a threat pre-emptively it cuts out the juicy political foreplay you have before the war starts. And that's no fun is it?

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1266549688' post='2191166'] this is the same war that \m/-Polar were fighting. a new one was never started. [/quote] We weren't fighting in that war though. Were we?

[quote name='SpoiL' date='19 February 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1266549349' post='2191143'] Great Lord Ruler Chief Emperor Spoilbob graduated high school with an 'A' average. Who are you trying to dupe? I'm not going to dig the quote out, but it's already been stated that the appropriate parties weren't going to ignore their treaty obligations when the other party forced that treaty to be activated. There's your 'proof', as irrelevant as it is to the obvious course the war would've taken. [/quote] Which obligations were we [MK] going to follow then? I assume you'd know, what with your A grade. Also if you read the TOP DoW, they claim it wasn't just a pre-emptive strike for the Polar vs.\m/ war. Apparently we had shown we wanted to destroy them time and time again. Looks more like paranoia to me than a 'pre-emptive strike'

In before the rabies strikes. Good show chaps, hope you enjoyed the show. EDIT: too late

[quote name='SpoiL' date='19 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1266548909' post='2191108'] Wrong? lol Step out of your box. [/quote] Without evidence that C&G were guaranteed to attack TOP and friends, it's not a justified pre-emptive strike. Therefore, wrong. Come into my box.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='19 February 2010 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1266548790' post='2191100'] Actually we're currently taking in applications for the viceroy position. It is open to all members of the public of course. [/quote] You reckon I could get in on that? After all I made that 'rust in peace" sig you guys are wearing(ask your ephor of internal ) I have credentials and everything.

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1266548477' post='2191081'] Well you are Mushrooms [/quote] We grow far and wide baby, we're pretty a big deal. But yeah, i was commenting more on the fact that white peace is more of an agreement signed by a group of alliances that the war will end amicably and there will be no reps or anything requested afterwards. You don't grant people White Peace as if you're being merciful, that's not how it works. (Sorry I'm feeling pretty pedantic tonight )

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1266548005' post='2191058'] It’s not a "request" but a [b]reasonable offer[/b] to any alliance on the other side that would like out of this war. It is also a public statement that at no time in this war, will our stance on peace terms change. No reps, no decoms, no nothing just peace. We don’t care how you got here, who you are fighting, and what treaty if any you used. [b]We will give you peace and you can go on your way.[/b] Try as you like to make it more than what it is. I would say if you have not done so in 28 pages of repetitive posting I say you have failed and should just stop it. [/quote] How generous of you to grant us lowly peons with white peace.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1266547462' post='2191034'] that was capable of entering the conflict to support NSO and MK were capabale of entering the conflict to support FOK. either way brings in many alliances which is what we have now. as stated before, this should've ended with the \m/-Polar white peace but it didnt. why is that? [/quote] Referring to your last question; because you and your friends declared war on C&G. You are correct, we do have a treaty with FOK, but we have a treaty with Polar we didn't want to enter this conflict when it was Polar vs. \m/ because we had allies on both sides and intended to stay neutral. FOK even came over to our embassy saying they wouldn't mind if we didn't assist them as they understood the predicament we were in. Also if you follow the treaty web for long enough you could say that TOP were going to enter with C&G because of the large amount of treaty paths to follow. I believe LM said the same thing in another thread. But I digress, this doesn't show any solid evidence that the C&G were going to collectively attack TOP, IRON, TORN, FEAR etc. Which is what I'd like to see in order for there to be some form of justification for you and your allies pre-emptive attack on C&G.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1266547184' post='2191016'] i'm not TOP. but IRON has an MDP with NSO and MK has an MDoAP with FOK. [/quote] I don't see what you are getting at here, could you elaborate?

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1266546700' post='2190999'] Will this offer we have made of peace without reparation make our terms worse? [/quote] More likely he meant you're less likely to get white peace if you keep pulling 'stunts' like this I guess.

[quote name='SiCkO' date='19 February 2010 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1266546347' post='2190985'] Judging by Sparta's sigs they want more than reps [/quote] You know what a joke is right?

[quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1266545094' post='2190923'] That's true. I don't know you, nor do I have interest in knowing you. But, seeing your past views, see my sig, I would not be surprised that you would insult an alliance just to do so. Which in the past you have. I have "argued"(I personally prefer the term "debate) and you ended up saying something stupid and never replied. If you really want to, please just choose a topic. And let's begin. We can do it by PM or whatever you want to. I don't care. Also, nothing is wrong with preemptive strikes. If Polaris would have continued their war with \m/ this would have been hailed. Oh well. Win some and you lose some. [/quote] if you're willing to provide me an example of something I said which was 'stupid', I'll be happy to clear it up with you via PM. I likely never replied because I have other issues to attend to rather than "debating" with you on a public forum. Also as I said in an earlier post, pre-emptive strikes are okay if you have solid evidence that your opponent was going to attack you.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1266544705' post='2190902'] that's because i wasnt apologizing, not my place to. but you didnt hear what i was saying apparently. what i was saying is that the pre-emptive strike was in regards to the \m/-Polar conflict and all this should've ended there but it hasnt. [/quote] Apologies I mis-interpreted what you said. A pre-emptive strike is only pre-emptive if we were actually going to attack you. I'm pretty sure C&G weren't going to declare as a whole on TOP et al the way you have done to us, if have you evidence proving otherwise, I would like to see it.

[quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266544123' post='2190874'] I said "you" I did not say "MK". ChefJoe, I love you. That's basically how I see it. Saber, the worst name they could give to you is honorable. [/quote] Well, you barely know me, and can't claim to, so I would suggest you get to know me before making such suggestions. And so much for trying to set out an argument in a reasonable and logical manner if all you can do is create an awful ad hominem attacking me personally.

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266543778' post='2190857'] I don't think it's a dirty tactic to be honest. Archon had something he needed to say on OWF and some things to clarify. We had some things to say, offer and state. Now if you want to look at a dirty tactic it's bullying an alliance that is outnumbered by giving them ultimatums. Accept peace now or you will get harsh terms later on. It really says much about those alliances that even against the odds and threats they are still alongside us. [/quote] I agree, also with the white peace comment. But I get the feeling this thread was not created for the reasons which you claim it was for (Maybe now I'm being paranoid ) [quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1266544031' post='2190868'] you never know but it certainly didnt turn out well and the war altogether should've ended with the \m/-Polar peace. why not? who knows... [/quote] That sounds more like "we were only wrong because the tables turned unexpectedly, had it all gone to plan we wouldn't need to be sorry" Not very apologetic or sincere.

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266543778' post='2190857'] Our intentions are not to further our goals of pushing terms and reparations on remaining alliances. [b]Our goal is to end this war for everyone.[/b] This is why we are giving guarantees that we will not be extracting any reps or imposing any terms. If you really want to give a bad name to our offer worse you can do is "Divide and White Peace". [/quote] So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G? I'm not going to begin with reparations because that's not my place to say how much or anything like that.

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1266543446' post='2190845'] It's as much of a dirty tactic as Archons thread was. Personally I would not mind keeping all of this in private however making such a statement public puts much more strength into our word. By breaking this word we would tell whole word all our alliances are bloody liars. If we made it in private it carries much less weight. [/quote] Surely by creating this thread you are lowering yourselves to our level then?

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1266543201' post='2190833'] Now you know what you really sound like [/quote] Okay. [quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1266543330' post='2190839'] From the way you act, I'd have pinned you down for bullying people into white peace is honorable. Please, don't complain about PR threads. If you do, then it will bite you in the rear. Helping you see, BEazy [/quote] The way I act personally, or the way my alliance does. Could you clarify please?

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266542707' post='2190809'] Also I believe it may help improve standards in CN overall by exposing dirty tactics that are used in wars such as these. [/quote] Such as this thread being a PR attempt to expose 'dirty tactics' and smear your opponents? Which therefore makes this thread a dirty tactic right? I'm not supporting bullying alliances into white peace or suffer reparations if they choose to stand by their allies, but I view this thread as a dirty tactic.

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1266541895' post='2190777'] Read the thread. It has been said many times that if you find our offer unacceptable (and in your post you do) that you provide us with an alternative offer. We are willing to discuss. Our statement however stands. We will not demand any kind of reparations or enforce any kind of terms on opposing alliances regardless of circumstances. Offer stands until every alliance peaces out. [/quote] [OOC]24 pages? I have other stuff to do [/OOC] I'm in no position to offer alternative terms, but do you understand why we will not accept white peace with you[TOP, IRON and all others who 'pre-emptively' attacked C&G] in particular?

[quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1266541603' post='2190764'] Good show. Too bad it's been beaten to death by the winning side. What a shame. [/quote] If I came round your house and broke all your stuff because I thought you were going to come round my house and do the same. Would you want some compensation and some sense of justice being served, or would you let me get away with it?