Rafael Nadal

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1266348474' post='2185950'] Thank you for acknowledging the situation as it stands. TOP/IRON messed up and C&G is taking advantage of that. Nothing wrong with either position, and spin trying to make either of those statements untrue is worthless. The only question I have for you is if the TOP/IRON nations get pulled down into the lower ranks, aren't they going to do even more damage? I am currently fighting someone with 7000 more tech than me and I sure wouldn't wish that on my fellow alliance mates. Why do you think it will go better for you once those huge tech stockpiles get down in the range where they're costing 10% or more damage each strike over more targets (as assumedly, the advantage your speaking of is more nations to hit people with)? Again, don't disagree with your statement, but am wondering how a prolonged war will end up better for you guys... [/quote] We also have large nations being dragged down. It's not as if we won't have large tech nations with little infra holding nukes, wrc's, etc in mid and lower ranks. We have more nations, which helps spread out the damage and depletion of warchests amongst our nations, whereas TOP does not have such a luxury. Yes, there are some in TOP that have unbreakable warchests, I and others recognize that. However, we need to, and believe we can get to a point where only a very small number of TOP nations will have the ability to rebuild nearly the instant the war is over.

Reading none of this topic, other than the OP before it was posted, these are my thoughts: I don't care about arguing aggression/defensive pre-emption or whatever you want to argue it is. The fact remains the same, TOP, IRON, TORN and others attacked CnG as a whole in a manner which they believed was most likely to result in a victory for them. This manner was a pre-emptive strike to catch most of us in a non-militarized state and to choose their first targets as they'd like. I congratulate you on doing this, as really, you needed to do that in order to have the best shot to defeat us (if we are to assume CnG would fight TOP, IRON, etc without the pre-emption). I'm not sure what potential alliances you lost, if any, but you seemed to have a decent enough amount backing you in your action, so I guess it was a somewhat decent idea to go through with. So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? Clearly, because our advantage is in number of nations in the midrange, rather than matching your upper tier numbers and warchests as a whole, peacing you out now without massive reparations (which I don't believe many desire) benefits you more than us. We essentially lose in a white peace right now. Perhaps this might change in a few war cycles, as your nations continue to be dragged down, have warchests depleted to where you can just straight rebuild past us as soon as peace is declared, etc. Anyways, just my take on things.

o/ soccerbro

[quote name='Alekhine' date='12 February 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1266044415' post='2178878'] I call shens on that government lineup you have there. [/quote] Shens it is not.

Due to the nature of CnG, Vanguard formally publically recognizes a state of warfare between herself and TFD. [b] Grand Architects of Vanguard[/b] [b]The Sovereign[/b], Rafael Nadal [b]The Vizier[/b], Thaliak [b]The Consul[/b], Stumpy [b]Architects of Vanguard[/b] [b]The Sword[/b], Negev [b]The Shield[/b], Pocho [b]The Hammer[/b], QuiteTheUserName [b]The Treasurer[/b], Prometheus [b]The Scholar[/b], Faramir Kenobi

[quote name='assarax' date='12 February 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1265994228' post='2177736'] The feeling is mutual. You were no prince, either. My only regret this war is that I wasn't personally able to ram a nuke up your behind. I guess I'll have to wait a while longer to give you the beating you deserve. [/quote] Right, because I'm the one who made peace talks nigh unbearable. Not the fact that we had to start over nearly every time, setting a background for the talks, because your gov't members had no idea what the others were doing and had negotiated previously, because your people kept claiming others negotiated without the power to really do anything in order to start the negotiations over fresh, because you guys lacked basic ability of communication, such as, I don't know, letting us know that the peace terms being voted on (supposedly, that vote was a cluster$%&@, or votes, I couldn't really understand all the conflicting reports from the Legion people I spoke to) had been voted down. No, it was Vanguard holding up the talks. I could see how you would get that impression, seeing as with our organization we were always ahead of you in talks, and thus had to back up to fill you in on what others in your own government had negotiated to with us. So ya, we rarely went into talks on the same page. Wait, which one of us had to seek approval from outside and uninvolved parties on our terms? Remember, when our agreed upon white peace proposal all of a sudden came back to us owing reps? Do you remember being laughed at by people like Valhalla when you went to them asking if it was cool to request 1 bil in reps from us? Yes, Vanguard made those talks exceedingly difficult. You know, at times I really wish I didn't take the peace, and I would have allowed Echelon and Rok to hit purple. Edit: Spelling

Legion peace talks happen to be a cluster$%&@ again? What a shock. XFD, never change Legion, never change. Everybody on that front who has to deal with Legion in peace talks has my sincere condolences. I've been down that path before, and it isn't pleasant.

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='10 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1265841761' post='2173305'] And everyone else is just shooting out nuggets of pure love from their eyeballs? [/quote] No, from their nostrils.

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='10 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1265832120' post='2173015'] Your endorsement would have no doubt swung my small defeat into a crushing embarrassment. [/quote] Perhaps my support would have been more appropriate. I know it's a little late at this point in time, but, I support Some-Guy's campaign for TOP government. [quote name='avernite' date='10 February 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1265833045' post='2173057'] I had you as write-in, but unfortunately the Charter would not let me. [/quote] Then you need to fix your charter. It's only hurting you to not have Chickenzilla eligible for a government position. Think about it, Chickenzilla and Some-Guy working together for a brighter future.

[quote name='Firkked' date='07 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1265573532' post='2167211'] More useless drama. Move along, nothing to see here. Wait. Krieky, didn't you [s]bawwwww[/s] [s]plead[/s] campaign for this seat on the basis of bringing justice and honor to the Purple Senate? [/quote] I, for one, am impressed with his implementation of his campaign promises.

I'd rather just get rid of the manhattan project.

While I'm personally not saddened to see this, I understand that this is the end of something once great, and near and dear the hearts of many. Condolences to those people.

[quote name='elpadrino' date='04 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1265327048' post='2159673'] Superfriends side is continuously claiming that the [polar vs \m/] and the [TOP-IRON VS CnG] are two completely different wars, thats why they agreed on peace with almost everyone after the [polar - \m/] peace, almost because for the sith to get peace they have to agree to not join into the next big war, so they offer peace to you in one big war but you have to sign what you are going to do in the next one... what everyone did when the polar - \m/ war ended was the logical white peace with everyone because that war made no sense anymore, FARK decided that if the NSO want to get peace they have to compromise to join his side or stay out in the next big war or they wont get peace in that one... its a low move no matter how you look at it [/quote] To be honest, it seems like everybody here is arguing opposite what they just were. If this is, in fact, two separate wars, NSO's role in the Polar-\m/ conflict, and the peace terms for it, shouldn't be dealing with TOP/IRON-CnG war. If this is just the continuation of Polar-\m/ conflict, then the term to not re-enter is completely understandable. Seems to me as the roles are reversed, as many on the SF-CnG side consider this two wars, and many on the TOP-IRON side see this as a continuation of the Polar-\m/ conflict. Just an observation which makes me smile.

[quote name='JBone' date='03 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1265240003' post='2157387'] I see a lot of folks on both sides, [i]regardless of those sides being acknowledged or not[/i], hailing or booing this decision, and the folks that are not are espousing pity at the unfortunate circumstances STA had been thrown into. The only people who seem OK with it are those in Polar and NSO....which says quite a bit about those two alliances in my book. As far as pity for STA, they put themselves in this position with the papers the decided to sign. They are grown ups and will have to deal with that. Being closely connected to two alliances as connected as NpO and MK almost guarantees that at some point in time you will have conflicts. How and when those conflicts fall is any ones guess, seems to me STA did the only thing they could, regardless of BFFs. [b]Yea, it's disappointing but so were the Eagles this year, I'll live.[/b] Now the stunt that MK pulled, by actually asking a treaty partner to render assistance....well what can you expect from filthy LUE scum like that. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img] [/quote] The problem was you had expectations for them.

I'm not sure why our treaty with Stickmen was brought up. I said it would not be used at all in the war, and it wasn't. MK's official request for assistance has nothing to do with our Stickmen treaty. Moving on, I appreciate STA's support, especially considering NpO's re-entry to the conflict.

[quote name='Saber' date='31 January 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1264972656' post='2148285'] That part I still do not get. I got Rafael Nadal along with my alliance mate Jayne to 6k soldiers and there was no anarchy. That's way under 20%. [/quote] It's my fighting spirit. Every one of me people has a little Rafa inside of them. >_>

We all win, because this will be as close to a reset as we can get.

Personally, I don't care about any supposed lack of cb, hitting us without us truly being involved yet, pre-emptively attacking, etc. Don't give a !@#$ about it. I think it's no secret that we wanted to hit each other. As a group of allies and friends, I consider us the best group to inflict damage and fight tough against TOP. No bawwing here, let's get on with the blowing stuff up.

I won't cry for being pre-empted without going through treaty chains, because that doesn't bother me one bit. This should be fun. Congrats on doubling our big guys, btw. Don't be shy though, you'll be meeting many more of us, almost like an organized wine mixer.

Where's Cortath's sig?

ARES was not pidgeonholed into hitting SLCB. In fact, I approached ARES and gave them other options, that would have kept them defending against somebody who attacked Polar, but didn't have the acronym of SLCB. They rejected that. Again, I understand they feel that's what needs to be done, and respect that thought process, but in this case, it doesn't jive with us, and we're not really ok with it. As for NOIR, I don't know the nature of that color treaty. And, it's up to the signatories of NOIR to make a fuss about it. If they're ok with hitting each other's allies, then there is no issue.

Lol, nice DoW. Hope you both have some fun.

Somehow, you guys avoided declaring on SLCB. There were numerous alliances available to them to hit, that they could have avoided hitting another of our ally. And really, that's the main issue we have. I understand this war has put many alliances in tough spots, where some might have to hit allies of allies, but ARES had many options to choose from to defend Polar, and they chose SLCB. ARES said it's what needed to be done and I respect that, but to us, to choose SLCB with the other options available, is simply unacceptable.

Yes, I do have an issue with it. The issue is not that ARES is defending Polar.

"What issue?" is a true question. However, you then follow that up with a question that assumes I have an issue with ARES declaring on behalf of Polaris, even sans the "seriously". "Seriously" just adds more attitude to it.