GOONS DoW

[berbers]

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1340588084' post='2994898']
So when do you criticize Sparta,NATO,Invicta, R&R, ? because they have MK severely out numbered
[/quote]

That's a very good point.

CSN only had MK on them, while MK is fighting everyone. Bringing GOONS on someone makes sense, as I'm thinking CSN is doing a good chunk of dmg and would be an appropriate counter.

So everyone stop whining, everything is ok.

Edit: It also free's MK up to focus Invicta and NATO as we haven't been countered. It's a good move, even if you are on the receiving end of it

Edited June 25, 2012 by berbers

[Timberland]

[quote name='Lord Caparo' timestamp='1340585687' post='2994879']
Hey Sardonic! raiding small guys again?
[/quote]

Hey LC hows that warchest looking ? You were bill locked last time we fought.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340585553' post='2994878']
Jesus $%&@, how dumb can a guy be? I'm saying your war isn't hard, and there's no respect to be gained in a cupcake war. You've said nothing to refute this. I'll help you out. If we break this down logically, like we used to in second grade, because apparently you think you've somehow proved my point false without doing either of the logical prerequisites to refuting my argument

My statement is as follows:

If a war is Easy, then it is not Respectable (E ⊃ ∼R)
Your war is Easy (E)
Therefore ∴ it is not Respectable (∼R) (by rule of Modus Ponens)

Now, seeing as this is a basic syllogism, there are a few simple but limited options to prove me wrong. You can prove one of two points:

1. It is not necessarily try that if a war is Easy, then it is not Respectable [∼(E⊃∼R)]
2. You war is not Easy (∼E)
You have made neither of these arguments, therefore you cannot have disputed my logic in any way shape or form. Any questions regarding this extremely simple Boolean Algebra?
[/quote]

You've certainly proven you're familiar with logical notation. Bravo, wouldn't want anyone thinking you're dumb as you desperately attempt to make a point. In doing so however you've demonstrated a glaring inability to make a logical inference. Funny how that is, not being able to deduce that my very first post in response to yours adequately takes care of 1.

You remember that one, right? The one that started off by mentioning that our assistance was requested. Or is honoring a treaty only ~honorable~ when it fulfills some propaganda-related purpose?

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340585553' post='2994878']
The term "howling" implies a pleading, distressed tone, which is accurate to describe your situation in the war which you are referencing. However, I am neither pleading nor distressed. Since you lack any knowledge of common English, I'll direct you to the proper condescending term to use for my posting here: whining. You're welcome. Feel free to use it, but please credit me in footnote each time. Thank you.
[/quote]

Aren't you just pulling out all of the stops here (playing the [i]You're dumb, that's not the word you meant![/i] game)?

Except, no, I did mean just that. GOONS was far from distressed at that time (we were elated that your coalition elected to pursue a losing strategy). Given your tone in this thread (what with the frustrated cussing and attempts at belittlement), can you really, honestly say the same?

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340585553' post='2994878']
Also, are you claiming that the twelve alliances who declared on you in the NPO-DH war were bested by your fighters and thus had to surrender to... you? Obviously that would be a laughable concept seeing how greatly your alliance suffered and required assistance, so I'll give you a chance to alter or retract that statement before I mock you for how ridiculous that idea is.
[/quote]

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but are you claiming that the twelve alliances that declared on us in the NPO-DH war were not bested? That they were not defeated? Which version of revisionist history are we recognizing here?

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1340587999' post='2994897']
I think a shiver of fear just crawled up sardonic's rear end.
[/quote]
That wasn't FEAR, it was Europa. Deebo's at it again.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Mephala' timestamp='1340587272' post='2994893']
In the same way, is an alliance that honors its treaty obligations respectable? Arguably, that is what GOONS are doing here, honoring a treaty. Their war is legitimate because it has a legal, treaty basis. Maybe you think that MK's DoW on CSN was not respectable. But let's, for the sake of argument, say that MK had an MDAP with alliance X. MK attacks CSN and, again for the sake of argument, let's say MK is totally unjustified. If MK didn't ask for any input from alliance X and alliance X had no part in the decision to declare war, is alliance X respectable for still honoring their treaty with MK? I think most of us in this game would say yes and we would save our scorn for MK and not alliance X.
[/quote]

So then, rather than make the qualifier for a respectable war aggressive/defensive, you prefer justified/unjustified? I suppose that does cover more bases. So then, what justifies GOONS' entrance to the war? Clearly, it's been agreed upon, even by MK's posters, that their war on CSN is essentially an aggressive and unjustified war on CSN for their own gain. While GOONS has an oAP with MK, does that really make their entrance to the war justified? I mean, they are not bound one way or the other in this conflict, so with or without the treaty the decision to enter the war is theirs entirely. As Moldavi explained, an alliance has to recognize its sovereign right to declare war on another alliance or not, so GOONS' war on CSN is as optional as Umbrella's attack on Fark. Now, if MK had gotten in over its head with this war and its ally GOONS came to its aid, then they would be protecting their allies' interests, and it could arguably be justifiable. Unfortunately, this is not the case. MK has committed a blatantly aggressive, unjustified war, and have even stated that they will not offer surrender terms to CSN nations. They do not need GOONS, and this is their war. I don't see anything there which justifies GOONS' entrance here, even with the treaty.

[Neo Uruk]

"GOONS are bad people for literally helping their ally like any good alliance would"

- Stonewall Jaxon

I think I've settled this debate

Edited June 25, 2012 by Neo Uruk

[Trout]

Silly GONOS

[hapapants]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340588717' post='2994910']
So then, rather than make the qualifier for a respectable war aggressive/defensive, you prefer justified/unjustified? I suppose that does cover more bases. So then, what justifies GOONS' entrance to the war? Clearly, it's been agreed upon, even by MK's posters, that their war on CSN is essentially an aggressive and unjustified war on CSN for their own gain. While GOONS has an oAP with MK, does that really make their entrance to the war justified? I mean, they are not bound one way or the other in this conflict, so with or without the treaty the decision to enter the war is theirs entirely. As Moldavi explained, an alliance has to recognize its sovereign right to declare war on another alliance or not, so GOONS' war on CSN is as optional as Umbrella's attack on Fark. [b]Now, if MK had gotten in over its head with this war and its ally GOONS came to its aid, then they would be protecting their allies' interests, and it could arguably be justifiable.[/b] Unfortunately, this is not the case. MK has committed a blatantly aggressive, unjustified war, and have even stated that they will not offer surrender terms to CSN nations. They do not need GOONS, and this is their war. I don't see anything there which justifies GOONS' entrance here, even with the treaty.[/quote]

Can I direct you to the Sparta, NATO, RnR, and Invicta DoW threads?

Edited June 25, 2012 by hapapants

[berbers]

oA's aren't just for show, if it's there, use it, otherwhise what's the point?

[Mephala]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340588717' post='2994910']
So then, rather than make the qualifier for a respectable war aggressive/defensive, you prefer justified/unjustified? I suppose that does cover more bases. So then, what justifies GOONS' entrance to the war? Clearly, it's been agreed upon, even by MK's posters, that their war on CSN is essentially an aggressive and unjustified war on CSN for their own gain. While GOONS has an oAP with MK, does that really make their entrance to the war justified? I mean, they are not bound one way or the other in this conflict, so with or without the treaty the decision to enter the war is theirs entirely. As Moldavi explained, an alliance has to recognize its sovereign right to declare war on another alliance or not, so GOONS' war on CSN is as optional as Umbrella's attack on Fark. Now, if MK had gotten in over its head with this war and its ally GOONS came to its aid, then they would be protecting their allies' interests, and it could arguably be justifiable. Unfortunately, this is not the case. MK has committed a blatantly aggressive, unjustified war, and have even stated that they will not offer surrender terms to CSN nations. They do not need GOONS, and this is their war. I don't see anything there which justifies GOONS' entrance here, even with the treaty.
[/quote]
You've answered your own question here. GOONS is part of a bloc and is protecting the interests of that bloc. You're hanging your hat on the idea that MK doesn't NEED GOONS yet, so GOONS is not justified/respectable for coming in. However, MK is fighting a lot of alliances right now. Even though they're very likely to win, help from GOONS will take some heat off of them militarily. MK doesn't want to win a pyrrhic victory. They are playing for the next conflict too.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1340589137' post='2994916']
oA's aren't just for show, if it's there, use it, otherwhise what's the point?
[/quote]

This man *gets* it.

(You are a man, right?)

[timewarp]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340588717' post='2994910']
So then, what justifies GOONS' entrance to the war?
[/quote]

[b]MK asking us.[/b]

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1340588477' post='2994906']
You've certainly proven you're familiar with logical notation. Bravo, wouldn't want anyone thinking you're dumb as you desperately attempt to make a point. In doing so however you've demonstrated a glaring inability to make a logical inference. Funny how that is, not being able to deduce that my very first post in response to yours adequately takes care of 1.

You remember that one, right? The one that started off by mentioning that our assistance was requested. Or is honoring a treaty only ~honorable~ when it fulfills some propaganda-related purpose?[/quote]

This discussion is underway in my conversation with whats-his-name-from-TOP. Please join in there to further pursue that point, as my above post has the rebuttal.

[quote]Aren't you just pulling out all of the stops here (playing the [i]You're dumb, that's not the word you meant![/i] game)?
[/quote]

I've never actually heard of the game. I just pointed out that you implied, by the use of the same term, that two very situations were remotely comparable. Don't take my correction of your error so personally; it is not intended that way

[quote]Except, no, I did mean just that. GOONS was far from distressed at that time (we were elated that your coalition elected to pursue a losing strategy). Given your tone in this thread (what with the frustrated cussing and attempts at belittlement), can you really, honestly say the same?
[/quote]

Our coalition at the time had no winning strategy, so we attacked the weakest link in the opposing coalition to inflict the most possible damage. It is a heavily justifiable course of action as far as utilizing an outnumbered force is concerned. Do you

[quote]Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but are you claiming that the twelve alliances that declared on us in the NPO-DH war were not bested? That they were not defeated? Which version of revisionist history are we recognizing here?
[/quote]

Of course you were intentionally leave out the "by GOONS" part of my claim. GOONS didn't do !@#$ against us, in fact you had to call in ODN, MK, and Umbrella, and we were, what, 20 nations then? That's half a Kaskus! Seems you relished the idea of a "tough war" indeed

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340586586' post='2994889']
Logical notations
[/quote]
In the population of your posts, there does not exist a good post.

Seriously though, look at the ranges, look at where we're hitting, look at where other alliances are hitting (hint: it's not the ranges we're hitting). It's not a cakewalk by any means as CSN have developed their nations well.

[flak attack]

Anyone that didn't see this coming doesn't quite understand how DH works. Umb bounces you down to MK (this step is optional, since most of you are too terrible to have nations Umb can fight), then MK sends you on down to GOONS. You then spend 2 months getting ground to pieces by GOONS while MK and Umb aid drop. Then you pay GOONS reps.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

I don't see the justification that MK needs GOONS to attack CSN. Granted, MK has been well-countered, but NATO is much larger than GOONS and also has no counter. They would also qualify for the defensive part of MK and GOONS' MDoAP. Therefore, if MK needed help, and GOONS wanted to be a good ally, wouldn't they attack NATO or Regnum Invictorum? In agreement with my "kicker" analogy, either GOONS has chosen the easiest war available to them, or MK has selected them for the simplest war knowing how incompetent GOONS are at war.

[berbers]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340590079' post='2994927']
I don't see the justification that MK needs GOONS to attack CSN. Granted, MK has been well-countered, but NATO is much larger than GOONS and also has no counter. They would also qualify for the defensive part of MK and GOONS' MDoAP. Therefore, if MK needed help, and GOONS wanted to be a good ally, wouldn't they attack NATO or Regnum Invictorum? In agreement with my "kicker" analogy, either GOONS has chosen the easiest war available to them, or MK has selected them for the simplest war knowing how incompetent GOONS are at war.
[/quote]

Calm down, the war isn't even a week old. I'm sure many a parking lot will exist.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340590079' post='2994927']
I don't see the justification that MK needs GOONS to attack CSN. Granted, MK has been well-countered, but NATO is much larger than GOONS and also has no counter. They would also qualify for the defensive part of MK and GOONS' MDoAP. Therefore, if MK needed help, and GOONS wanted to be a good ally, wouldn't they attack NATO or Regnum Invictorum? In agreement with my "kicker" analogy, either GOONS has chosen the easiest war available to them, or MK has selected them for the simplest war knowing how incompetent GOONS are at war.
[/quote]
What. Part. of. Relevant. Ranges. Are. You. Not. Getting. Here.

And no, attacking Invicta would make us a bad ally to Europa as they are tied to them, and NATO are, well, not what you'd call a high priority target.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340590079' post='2994927']
Regnum Invictorum
[/quote]
Someone made the point earlier that GOONS doesn't just up and hit allies' allies.

[Mephala]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340590079' post='2994927']
I don't see the justification that MK needs GOONS to attack CSN. Granted, MK has been well-countered, but NATO is much larger than GOONS and also has no counter. They would also qualify for the defensive part of MK and GOONS' MDoAP. Therefore, if MK needed help, and GOONS wanted to be a good ally, wouldn't they attack NATO or Regnum Invictorum? In agreement with my "kicker" analogy, either GOONS has chosen the easiest war available to them, or MK has selected them for the simplest war knowing how incompetent GOONS are at war.
[/quote]
Attacking NATO runs the risk of bringing NPO into the conflict against MK and GOONS. Attacking Invictus would bring in BFF as a bloc as they have already threatened to attack together anyone who hits Invictus.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340581277' post='2994814']
Well, as if the fact that MK needs help with CSN is going to make me roll my eyes at y'all any less.
[/quote]

Some giants can't tie their own shoes... MK can't hit !@#$ tier nations.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1340590245' post='2994932']
Someone made the point earlier that GOONS doesn't just up and hit allies' allies.
[/quote]
I guess by MK coalition standards that makes them horrifyingly moralist

[hapapants]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340590079' post='2994927']
I don't see the justification that MK needs GOONS to attack CSN. Granted, MK has been well-countered, but NATO is much larger than GOONS and also has no counter. They would also qualify for the defensive part of MK and GOONS' MDoAP. Therefore, if MK needed help, and GOONS wanted to be a good ally, wouldn't they attack NATO or Regnum Invictorum? In agreement with my "kicker" analogy, either GOONS has chosen the easiest war available to them, or MK has selected them for the simplest war knowing how incompetent GOONS are at war.
[/quote]

Given that attacking NATO or Regnum Invictorum would risk bringing in other large factions (NPO and BFF Bloc respectively) into the opposite side of the war, we would be pretty terrible allies to risk additional harm to MK. All you're doing is asking GOONS to do ineffective/inefficient/ally-harming actions to satisfy your notions of "honor."

[Ogaden]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1340590565' post='2994937']
Some giants can't tie their own shoes... MK can't hit !@#$ tier nations.
[/quote]
You have 14 nations in peace mode under 10k ns.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1340590565' post='2994937']
Some giants can't tie their own shoes... MK can't hit !@#$ tier nations.
[/quote]

MK should have known such a situation would occur prior to attacking. But of course, that is why GOONS were held back. MK beats down CSN's middle tier into the lower tiers and then has GOONs attempt to finish it off in the lower tiers in the type of fighting GOONs knows best...Lower tier fighting. I have to admit, it is a decent plan, simple and efficient.

That's assuming that was the plan however and not just a consequence of the treaty web's natural ability to run to chaos.